    [Senate Hearing 110-219]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 110-219

                                                         Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations
    ______________________________________________________________________

                                              Department of Defense

                                                    Appropriations

                                                    Fiscal Year 2008

                                         110th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                             H.R. 3222

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

                                                            S. Hrg. 110-219

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 3222

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE
         FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                                    PART 2

                             Department of Defense
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                                   _________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    33-911 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2007
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            TED STEVENS, Alaska
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

                        Charles Kieffer, Staff Director
                      Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                            Subcommittee on Defense

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

                               Professional Staff

                                Charles J. Houy
                                Nicole Di Resta
                                Kate Fitzpatrick
                                   Katy Hagan
                                  Kate Kaufer
                                Ellen Maldonado
                                   Erik Raven
                                   Gary Reese
                                  Betsy Schmid
                                 Bridget Zarate
                            Sid Ashworth (Minority)
                           Alycia Farrell (Minority)
                             Brian Potts (Minority)
                            Brian Wilson (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                 Renan Snowden

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 28, 2007

                                                                       Page

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

                            Wednesday, March 7, 2007

    Department of Defense: Medical Health Programs...................    33

                           Wednesday, March 14, 2007

    Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................   131

                           Wednesday, March 21, 2007

    Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the
      Secretary......................................................   261

                           Wednesday, March 28, 2007

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

                           Wednesday, April 11, 2007

    Department of Defense:
        National Guard...............................................   431
        Reserves.....................................................   519

                           Wednesday, April 25, 2007

    Department of Defense: Missile Defense Agency....................   585

                             Wednesday, May 9, 2007

    Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary...................   643

                            Wednesday, May 16, 2007

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   707

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:40 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Stevens, Cochran, and
    Domenici.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON ENGLAND, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
                DEFENSE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            ADMIRAL EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT
                CHIEFS OF STAFF
            HON. TINA JONAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)

                 opening statement of senator daniel k. inouye

        Senator Inouye. The hearing will please come to order.
        Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your appearing before the
    subcommittee as we begin our review of your administration's
    fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense (DOD) budget request. We
    would also like to welcome the Comptroller, the Honorable Ms.
    Jonas, Under Secretary of Defense, and the Vice Chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Giambastiani.
        The budget request before the subcommittee is $463.2
    billion, an increase of 11 percent over the fiscal year 2007
    budget. In addition, the Department is requesting $141 billion
    to continue the global war on terror in fiscal year 2008. These
    two budgets bring the total requests for DOD's operations in
    fiscal year 2008 to $604.2 billion, representing an enormous
    investment for the American taxpayer, an investment which,
    although necessary, has the unintended consequence of reducing
    opportunities to invest in other critically important sectors
    such as education and health.
        Mr. Secretary, we share your mandate to assure a strong
    defense for our Nation and look forward to discussing these
    defense priorities and challenges, and I believe every member
    of this subcommittee will agree that our men and women in
    uniform deserve the best leadership, equipment, and training
    that can be provided. We also expect them to receive fair
    compensation and compassionate care when wounded or ill.
        As stewards of our national treasure, we must be sure that
    these funds are efficiently and effectively getting the best
    value for the American people. It's imperative. Today and over
    the course of the next several weeks we look forward to hearing
    what steps DOD is taking to reduce costs and improve business
    practices so that future budget requests avoid unwarranted cost
    increases.
        Secretary England, I thank you for appearing today. Your
    full statement is made part of the record, but before we begin,
    may I turn to my vice chairman, the Senator from Alaska, Mr.
    Stevens, for his opening remarks.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In view
    of the delay, I won't make any opening. Just put mine in the
    record. I welcome the Secretary, Ms. Jonas, and the Admiral
    also, that we rely on very greatly in terms of their
    presentations.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens

        I join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses here today.
    Thank you all for your service and for appearing here to
    discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
        We face a difficult task in balancing the military's
    competing requirements for modernization, maintaining force
    readiness, and improving the quality of life for our military
    service members and their families. As we all know, the demand
    for funding far surpasses the amounts available. We look
    forward to working with you to meet the most pressing needs. I
    look forward to hearing your testimony here today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Senator Stevens,
    members of the subcommittee. It is our pleasure to be with you
    today. The statement is in the record, so I'm frankly just
    going to say a word or two. That is, I know you had a long
    session yesterday with the Secretary and with General Pace, and
    so I believe you have our perspective on the budget at this
    time.
        So today, Tina Jonas, the Comptroller, and Admiral
    Giambastiani, the Vice Chairman, and myself would like to
    provide whatever clarifying we can today to build on the
    testimony yesterday. We're pleased to do that. We're also
    obviously pleased to meet with you or your staff or members on
    any issue that you may have as we go forward.

                               prepared statement

        So rather than have a lengthy commentary at the beginning
    here, we are ready for your questions, and we appreciate the
    opportunity to be able to expand on yesterday's hearing. Thank
    you for the opportunity to be with you today.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon England

        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, members of the Senate
    Appropriations Sub-Committee on Defense, thank you for the invitation
    to discuss the defense budget requests. And thank you for your
    continuing support for all of our men and women in uniform and their
    civilian counterparts. We all share a common objective--to protect and
    defend America, and to prepare the men and women of the Department of
    Defense to help do so.
        The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Giambastiani
    and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Ms. Jonas are here
    with me, and the three of us look forward to your questions.
                               context and vision
        When authorized, the defense budget request will provide our joint
    warfighters with what they need to accomplish their mission of
    protecting and defending America--our land, our people and our way of
    life. The mission is to defeat terrorists, protect the homeland, and
    deter and if necessary defeat future threats. Iran, North Korea, and
    China--in different ways--are currently the most worrisome concerns.
        It is important not to lose sight of the long-term strategic
    picture while we prosecute the current war. The Department still
    requires systems to deter or dissuade possible future threats. It is a
    lot less expensive to deter and dissuade, than to fight and defeat. It
    is important both to fund near-term tactical expenses and to invest in
    long-term deterrence, or the Nation will be at risk. Finding the
    balance is--as always--a challenge for the Department and for the
    Nation.
        The budget requests currently before you will achieve the following
    things:
      --Make the necessary strategic investments to modernize to meet
            current and future security challenges and to recapitalize
            joint warfighting capabilities;
      --Sustain the all-volunteer military by increasing ground forces,
            reducing stress on the force, and improving the quality of life
            for our servicemembers and their families;
      --Improve readiness throughout the force through additional training
            and maintenance, and more timely force reset after deployment;
      --Enable the United States and partner nations to achieve success in
            the war on terror--in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the
            world.
                                budget requests
        There are three requests before the Congress. The President's
    request for fiscal year 2008 includes the base defense budget request
    for $481.4 billion and $141.7 billion to fight the global war on
    terror. The fiscal year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation
    request for the Global War on Terror is $93.4 billion. The total
    request is $716.5 billion.
        These numbers are undoubtedly large. They exceed the defense
    spending of America's closest allies--and the entire GDP of many of our
    close partners. But they also reflect the realities and
    responsibilities of this Department--what is required to adequately
    protect and defend America, now and in the future.
        Let me first describe the ``theory of the case'' for using these
    three categories, then review what each of the requests buys the Nation
    in terms of security and defense.
                                   categories
        In general, the base budget funds the Department's mission to
    ``man, organize, train and equip'' America's armed forces. The base
    budget captures and balances the costs of sustaining the force, with
    the costs of investing in capabilities needed to meet emergent security
    challenges.
        Supplementals, in turn, have been used to finance the ongoing costs
    of contingency operations, including costs of the global war on terror.
    Iraq- and Afghanistan-related costs account for most of the total. One
    helpful way to think about this category is that it includes
    ``emergency'' costs, brought about by the current war effort, which the
    Department would otherwise not have had at this time.
        In Title IX of the fiscal year 2007 DOD Appropriations Act,
    Congress appropriated $70 billion in emergency funds to the Department.
    One of the budget requests now before you is the Department's fiscal
    year 2007 supplemental request, to continue to support war-related
    costs for the rest of the current fiscal year.
        In fiscal year 2008, the approach is somewhat different. In the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the Congress
    directed the President to submit the full-year costs of ongoing
    operations in the war on terror in the defense budget.\1\ Accordingly,
    the global war on terror request for fiscal year 2008 is being
    submitted as part of the defense budget. Substantively, it covers the
    same kinds of requirements addressed in previous supplementals. Since
    it addresses the inherently changeable circumstances of war, accurately
    predicting requirements is difficult, so the Department has used
    projections based on current monthly war costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Pursuant to Section 1105.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           what the base budget buys
        Broadly, the base budget breaks down into several major
    categories--balanced between people and equipment, and between current
    and future needs. For 2008, those categories, and their amounts, are:

                              [Dollars in billions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Amount          Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Readiness and support \1\...............        ($146.5)              30
    Strategic modernization \2\.............         (176.8)              38
    Military pay and healthcare \3\.........         (137.0)              28
    Facilities \4\..........................          (21.1)               4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Readiness and support is about the ability to provide warfighting
      capabilities whenever and wherever the Nation needs them: Readiness
      $65.9 billion; Base operations and recruiting $59.9 billion; Maintain
      equipment and buildings $18.2 billion; Commissaries $2.5 billion.
    \2\ Strategic modernization is based on a long-term view of the
      capabilities required to succeed against current and possible future
      adversaries: Navy and aircraft $62.4 billion; aircraft and satellites
      $50.9 billion; ground capabilities and support systems $37.8 billion;
      research and development to include science and technology, and
      chemical and biological defense $16.8 billion; Missile Defense Agency
      $8.9 billion.
    \3\ The military pay and healthcare category is about taking care of our
      military and their families. It includes pay for the 1.3 million
      active component and 0.8 million reserve component members $98.3
      billion; and one of the best health care systems in the world, for
      military and dependents $38.7 billion, which reflects a -$1.9 billion
      adjustment for anticipated savings for DOD's sustaining benefit
      proposal.
    \4\ Facilities costs include: Family housing $2.9 billion; BRAC
      implementation $8.4 billion; Operational and training facilities,
      troop housing, and base infrastructure $9.8 billion.

        This base budget request includes an increase of $49.4 billion over
    the enacted budget for fiscal year 2007. Some of the top priorities are
    as follows:
        The Department's top priority--and our greatest asset--is our
    people. America continues to be blessed that in every generation, brave
    men and women have stepped forward to serve a cause higher than
    themselves. The Department responds by continuing to support a high
    quality of life for our servicemembers. Almost one-third of the base
    budget is allocated to taking care of our men and women in uniform, and
    their families.
        The Department's success in this regard is reflected in the
    services' ongoing ability to meet recruiting and retention goals.
        AC recruiting.--All four services met or exceeded recruiting goals
    throughout fiscal year 2006, and have continued to do so through
    January 2007. AC recruiting as a percent of goal, over time:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Fiscal year       Oct. 2006        Nov. 2006        Dec. 2006        Jan. 2007
                                       2006
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USA.........................             101              108              105              123              111
    USN.........................             100              100              100              100              100
    USMC........................             100              101              104              110              108
    USAF........................             100              100              100              100              100
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        RC accessions.--In January 2007, four of six components exceeded
    their goals:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year
                                           2006          Oct. 2006       Nov. 2006       Dec. 2006       Jan. 2007
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ARNG............................              99             123             113             119             101
    USAR............................              95              98              79             102              99
    USNR............................              87              87              91              80              93
    USMCR...........................             100             102             102             104             102
    ANG.............................              97             117             115             105             103
    USAFR...........................             106             100             100             105             103
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        AC retention.--In January 2007, AC retention was solid--USAF and
    USMC are meeting or exceeding overall retention missions. USA is
    exceeding its year-to-date mission; while USN met 93 percent of its
    mission.
        RC attrition.--For the most recently available month, December
    2006, attrition in all reserve components was well within acceptable
    limits--as it has been since at least the beginning of fiscal year
    2006.
        Though not directly reflected numerically, recent policy changes
    concerning the use of the Guard and Reserves will allow servicemembers
    more predictable mobilization schedules--and more time with their
    families--also directly improving quality of life.
        New in this budget request is support for increasing the permanent
    endstrength of the Army and Marine Corps. Recently, the President
    announced the plan to increase the total ground forces by 92,000, by
    fiscal year 2012. The Army will grow from 482,400 to 547,400, and the
    Marine Corps from 175,000 to 202,000. The Department adds $12.1 billion
    in the fiscal year 2008 base budget to support the first step--an
    increase of 7,000 soldiers and 5,000 marines. Based on a continuing
    need for military forces, the endstrength increase will improve the
    ratio of time spent deployed versus time at home, in turn reducing
    stress on individuals and families.
        The increase in requested funds to improve readiness and support--
    $16.8 billion more than enacted for fiscal year 2007--reflects lessons
    learned from current engagements about the changing nature of warfare
    and the need to be better prepared for it. Almost half of the requested
    increase will support training--increased full-spectrum training;
    combat training center rotations; sustained air crew training; and
    increased steaming days for ships.
        The increase in funds for readiness and support will also support
    the Department's move toward greater net-centricity--a system of
    networks and approaches designed to make information available to
    whomever needs it, wherever they are, in real time. This is an integral
    part of the Department's approach to 21st century warfighting.
        The single largest category in the base budget request is strategic
    modernization--making sure the Department has the weapons systems
    needed, in every domain--ground, air, maritime, space and cyberspace--
    to meet the full array of emerging security challenges. Major
    investments in these domains, in fiscal year 2008, include:
      --Future Combat Systems ($3.7 billion).--FCS, including unmanned
            aerial vehicles, manned and unmanned ground vehicles, and other
            linked systems, is the Army's first comprehensive modernization
            program in a generation. This is the Army's way forward.
      --Joint Strike Fighter ($6.1 billion).--This international program
            provides the next-generation strike aircraft in three variants
            designed to meet the different needs of the Air Force, the
            Navy, and the Marine Corps, and our friends and allies. The
            program includes international partnerships with 8 countries--
            based on shared investment, full interoperability, and thus a
            concrete, shared stake in the future.
      --Shipbuilding/Joint Maritime Capabilities ($14.4 billion).--The 2008
            request supports the Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan,
            designed to produce a versatile 313-ship Navy by 2020. The
            increase of $3.2 billion over last year primarily supports the
            next-generation aircraft carrier, the CVN-21; and the LPD 17
            amphibious transport ship. (The $14.4 billion includes Army
            funding for the Joint High Speed Vessel.)
        The base budget is currently under relatively greater pressure than
    in past years, because the average age of equipment is rising. In
    fiscal year 2006, the average age of nuclear attack submarines was
    about 18 years; of the Air Force's strategic airlift--15 years; of
    tactical fighters--20 years; of tactical airlift--26 years. It is
    important to address some of these issues now, since older equipment,
    as a rule, costs more to maintain and has lower operational
    availability.
        One of the most critical recapitalization challenges is the Air
    Force's KC-135 tanker fleet, whose current average age is 45 years. The
    Air Force has announced a competition to replace this aircraft with the
    KC-X, which will be able to carry cargo and passengers, and comes
    equipped with defensive systems. This platform is the Air Force's
    number one acquisition priority, essential for total force global
    operations.
        The end of the Cold War changed the calculus concerning the primary
    missile threat the United States faces--but in an increasingly
    proliferated world, the threat is more multi-faceted and less
    predictable than ever before. The United States is deeply concerned
    about missile developments in North Korea and Iran, and wary of China's
    recent use of ballistic missile technology to destroy space assets.
    Many other countries have or are seeking ballistic missiles.
        The missile defense ``good news story'' is that with support from
    the Congress, the Department has already fielded an integrated missile
    defense capability that continues to get stronger and more effective.
    International missile defense cooperation with the United States
    continues to grow--in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. This budget
    request seeks $9.9 billion to continue that progress.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Includes $8.9 billion for the Missile Defense Agency; $0.6
    billion for Patriot PAC-3; $0.4 billion for Patriot/MEADS CAP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In today's security environment, no single nation can successfully
    meet all the challenges alone. A critical part of the Department's
    strategic vision--highlighted in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review--
    is the importance of international partnerships. The Department is
    vigorously engaged in updating long-standing alliances, and reaching
    out to new partners around the world. NDAA 2007 provided a very helpful
    catalyst for this effort, in the section 1206 authority for the
    Departments of Defense and State to train and equip partner nations'
    forces. The 2008 base budget request includes $500 million in dedicated
    funding for this critical initiative.
                        what the 2007 supplemental buys
        Before the Congress are two requests to fund war costs--the fiscal
    year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation request, and the fiscal
    year 2008 global war on terror request. They cover similar substantive
    ground--in three major categories: continuing the fight, increasing
    ground forces, and accelerating reconstitution.
        The 2007 Emergency Supplemental request breaks down this way:

                            [In billions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continuing the Fight \1\................................            65.0
    Ground Forces \2\.......................................            10.9
    Reconstitution..........................................            13.9
    Non-DOD Classified......................................            3.6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Operations $39.3 billion; Force Protection and IED Defeat $10.4
      billion; Military intelligence $2.7 billion; Security Forces $9.7
      billion; Coalition Support and CERP $1.5 billion; Military
      Construction $1.1 billion; Regional War on Terror $0.3 billion.
    \2\ Accelerate Brigade Combat Teams and Regimental Combat Teams $3.6
      billion; Grow the Force $1.7 billion; U.S. Forces ``plus up'' $5.6
      billion.

        The Department's single greatest focus for our deployed men and
    women is force protection. Today, the single deadliest threat to our
    forces comes from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The terrorists
    who use them are highly creative and adaptive, they make use of
    relatively unsophisticated technologies to deadly effect, and they
    share ``lessons learned'' in real time. The Department is grateful for
    the support from Congress to date that has allowed the very rapid
    development and fielding of counter-measures. It remains critically
    important to continue this investment.
        The most critical element of the supplemental request is
    reconstitution--repairing and replacing equipment destroyed, damaged,
    or otherwise stressed from the demands of warfighting, to restore DOD
    inventories. When equipment is lost, the Department has a methodology
    for replacing it--with the latest appropriate model, not with something
    obsolete. The 2007 supplemental includes these costs.
        This 2007 supplemental request includes funds for the ``plus up''
    of U.S. forces deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the
    President has described, the additional forces are part of the Nation's
    new way forward in Iraq. As the incoming commander of Multi-National
    Forces-Iraq recently testified, their success will depend not only on
    their numbers, but also on their partnership with their Iraqi
    counterparts. The total cost of the ``plus up'' is projected to be $5.6
    billion. Costs include supporting the deployment of five brigade combat
    teams and an enhanced naval presence. This estimate may be increased by
    additional support troops, depending on commanders' needs.
        America's most direct partners in building stable and secure
    environments in Iraq and Afghanistan are the security forces--the
    military and the police--of those two countries. Ultimately, they and
    their political leaders bear the responsibility for establishing
    conditions for peace and prosperity, including standing up sufficient
    forces to assume security responsibility for their countries. The
    United States plays a supporting role--through training, equipping,
    mentoring and helping to sustain those forces.
        Substantial progress has already been made. In Iraq, for example,
    well over 300,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped,
    and Iraqis have assumed full security responsibility for 3 of 18
    provinces. Next steps include enhanced embedding of U.S. forces to help
    increase Iraqis' ability to assume full control of security. In
    Afghanistan, one of the most important elements of the strategy to
    counter the Taliban and Al Qaeda is ensuring an indigenous Afghan
    capability to conduct independent counter-insurgency operations. The
    2007 supplemental request seeks $3.8 billion for further support to the
    Iraqi security forces, and $5.9 billion for the Afghan security forces.
        Successful counter-insurgency requires the application of all
    instruments of national power--there is no exclusively military
    solution. Economic development and security are two sides of the same
    coin--in the short term, you need security to get the economy going;
    while in the long term, you can't have security without economic
    development. In the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, commanders
    on the ground recognized the importance of helping to jump-start the
    local economy. The Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP)
    provided limited but immediately-available funds, to make a concrete
    difference in people's daily lives. Many commanders considered CERP the
    most powerful tool in their arsenal. This fiscal year 2007 supplemental
    request includes $456 million to continue CERP.
        One very important caveat: It is vitally important to the
    Department that the fiscal year 2007 supplemental be approved by
    Congress in a timely manner. By mid-April, if the request is not
    approved, the Department will need to begin reprogramming other funds--
    with all the associated disruptions to other efforts.
                        what the 2008 gwot request buys
        The fiscal year 2008 global war on terror request, for $141.7
    billion, covers similar requirements, and will continue past the fiscal
    year 2007 supplemental.
        The GWOT Request breaks into the following major categories:

                            [In billions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continuing the Fight \1\................................            96.6
    Ground Forces \2\.......................................             1.6
    Reconstitution..........................................            37.6
    Non-DOD Classified......................................            5.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Operations $70.6 billion; Force Protection and IED Defeat $15.2
      billion; Military intelligence $2.7 billion; Security Forces $4.7
      billion; Coalition Support and CERP $2.7 billion; Military
      construction $0.7 billion.
    \2\ Accelerate Brigade Combat Teams and Regimental Combat Teams $1.6
      billion.

        The GWOT request devotes $15.2 billion to continue force protection
    efforts--including technology to disrupt attacks, vehicles with V-
    shaped hulls to better withstand blasts, and a new generation of body
    armor.
        Successful counter-insurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
    more broadly in the war on terror, continue to require the closest
    possible partnership with host nations, and the application of the full
    spectrum of political, economic and security tools. The GWOT request
    includes $4.7 billion to continue the establishment of Iraqi and Afghan
    Security Forces, and nearly $1 billion for the CERP program.
                                   conclusion
        The Department recognizes that the three requests before the
    Congress represent an enormous amount of the taxpayers' money. The
    Department also recognizes its fiduciary responsibility to spend those
    funds wisely. Detailed supporting data and rationale have been provided
    for each dollar requested, and staff from the Military Departments and
    from the Office of the Secretary of Defense are available for
    discussion and clarification.
        Lastly, the Department is actively improving its processes to be
    more efficient and effective in all of its activities.
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, thank you for your support of our
    men and women in uniform. And thank you to each member of this
    subcommittee, for your support for all the brave men and women who wear
    the cloth of this Nation. We look forward to your questions.

        Senator Inouye. Would the others wish to testify? Ms.
    Jonas.
        Ms. Jonas. I have no statement, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Admiral Giambastiani.
        Admiral Giambastiani. No statement, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Then, if I may, I'd like to begin.

                                   RECRUITING

        Mr. Secretary, the Department recently announced to
    increase the permanent end strength of the Army and the Marine
    Corps, and so you put on additional pressure to achieve a high
    recruiting and retention level. This budget provides $2.7
    billion for recruiting bonuses and retention incentives. Do you
    believe that this is sufficient to bring up the end strength
    results?
        Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, we do. We have met all our
    services for 18 months running in terms of our recruiting, and
    so we are increasing the Army by 7,000 and the Marine Corps by
    5,000 a year. Our retention is very good, our recruiting is
    very strong, and, in fact, it's above our objectives here in
    the last few months.
        So, yes, we do believe that that is adequate, and both the
    Army and the Marine Corps are confident that they can grow the
    force by that 7,000 and 5,000 a year that we have projected in
    the budget.
        Senator Inouye. Because the talk on the street is that
    recruiting hasn't been as good as anticipated. Is that correct?
        Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, not my understanding. I mean,
    all the data I have looked at is that recruiting continues to
    be very strong. The Army is actually ahead of where they
    thought they would be this year in terms of the manpower, so we
    actually start out this year better than we thought in terms of
    growing the force.
        So the data I have available, that's not the case, Mr.
    Chairman. The Army is doing very, very well, and they have for
    18 months. Marine Corps meets their objective every time. I
    believe the only case where we are down at all is, Navy Reserve
    is down slightly, but as you know the Navy has also been
    decreasing the size of the force, so that's sort of a corollary
    to that decrease. Otherwise, all the recruiting and all the
    retention numbers remain very high.
        Admiral Giambastiani. If I could just add to that, Mr.
    Chairman----
        Senator Inouye. Admiral.
        Admiral Giambastiani [continuing]. Recruiting is tough
    every day, but I agree completely with the Deputy Secretary
    that we have sufficient resources and we've put sufficient
    personnel and the budget figures are sufficient to be able to
    allow us to do what we're doing to increase the size of the
    Army and the Marine Corps.
        Senator Inouye. Well, I had this question because the
    Congressional Research Service (CRS) indicated that in fiscal
    year 2006 the Army fell 9 percent short, and this was a 6
    percent drop from the previous year, but you're satisfied?
        Mr. England. Yes, sir, we are. Again, all my data says the
    Army and Marine Corps are both doing very well in terms of
    their recruiting and retention, and we've seen no slack in
    there. I mean, frankly, it is hard because the number of youth
    available is relatively small in terms of meeting the criteria
    for the military, but so far, God bless America, we've had
    great Americans willing to serve, and that continues.
        Admiral Giambastiani. Mr. Chairman, I believe that fiscal
    year 2006 is the largest and most successful year of Army
    recruiting in about 15 years. It's the largest number we've
    brought in. In fact, what the Chief of Staff of the Army likes
    to say is that they have recruited essentially the entire
    Marine Corps, between the Army active forces, Army Reserve, and
    National Guard, when you put them all together--almost 180,000.

                                      C-17

        Senator Inouye. Well, Mr. Secretary, your budget appears to
    begin shutting down the C-17 production line. It appears that
    there are several new factors affecting that decision: the
    increases in the Army and Marine Corps end strength; spiraling
    costs in the C-5 reengining; and the possible creation of a
    dedicated naval C-17 fleet. In the absence of new studies on
    the strategic lift requirement, are you certain that closing
    the C-17 production line is a wise course of action?
        Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, we will take a look again based
    on the increased size of the force, but the last study we
    conducted, we added one airplane last year, but in total
    between the Congress and ourselves the number of airplanes went
    up by 10 last year, so we are now 10 above or 9 above where our
    studies indicated, which I believe was 181 airplanes for C-17s
    as a result of the study. So we're now at about 190 airplanes,
    about 10 above that study.
        My expectation is, that's going to be more than adequate
    along with the C-5A upgrade, and the C-5 upgrade is proceeding
    well at this point. So it's probably a valid question, at least
    to take a look one more time based on a larger force, to make
    sure that we can handle that, and we will go back and update
    that study just to make sure. But we now have about 10--we now
    have authorized 10 C-17s more than the study last year
    indicated we would need for the force. But we will take a look
    at it based on the increased size of the force.
        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, excuse me. I've got a cold.
    You have requested $111 million for the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO) C-17. What is the status of negotiations
    with NATO on buying and supporting and operating C-17s?
        Mr. England. Mr. Chairman, still ongoing. We have I believe
    at this point three and one-half airplanes committed, including
    the one airplane that the United States would commit to. We
    were looking for four airplanes that would be available under
    NATO markings, so all the NATO member nations would have so
    many hours per year, that is so that a nation would not have to
    buy a whole C-17 but they could buy flying hours, like 500
    hours a year or some number.
        So we now have a number of nations, and that consortium is
    at three and a half airplanes. On the other hand, we have had
    some frankly problems in getting this implemented with NATO
    because of resistance of a few of the countries in NATO, so we
    continue to work this.
        It is very important because the one shortcoming of NATO is
    strategic lift, so if we can get through this hurdle with NATO,
    then we do provide a capability in Europe of strategic lift,
    and it does ease the pressure somewhat on us, where now we have
    to provide a lot of the strategic lift whenever those forces
    are moved into theater. So this is a very good way to get NATO
    involved, a very good way for NATO to have a capability, but
    the answer is we're still in that negotiation, Mr. Chairman. We
    don't have that as a clear way ahead yet, but we're still
    working it.
        Senator Inouye. Well, do you have a level of confidence it
    will happen?
        Mr. England. Yes, sir, I do have a level of confidence.
    I'll tell you we've worked this very hard because it's so
    important in NATO. There's just specifically two countries that
    have been resisting this. We believe that we have a way ahead.
    In fact, we just had discussions yesterday and the day before
    on this subject. So I believe we will have a way ahead on this,
    and it is an important initiative for us and for NATO.
        Admiral Giambastiani. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add to
    that----
        Senator Inouye. Yes, sir.

                       NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

        Admiral Giambastiani [continuing]. From the military side,
    having been a NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Jones and
    I worked very hard to describe the military requirement of this
    side, and frankly the alliance is very strong on the need for
    strategic airlift and the ability to come up with any way to
    make this happen. In this case the consortium is very welcome
    by essentially all the militaries inside NATO.
        I'm speaking as a former commander now, and I would just
    tell you that I see great things for this because it will give
    NATO a capability we simply do not have. I would also add,
    though, that there are one or two other countries who are part
    of this consortium that are not NATO members. Sweden is an
    example of that. So there are other members who want to buy
    hours, if you will, within the consortium. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Than you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, I have many other questions, but as you can
    see, it is difficult for my voice, so may I call upon the vice
    chairman?
        Mr. England. Please.
        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I share the chairman's concern over the C-
    17. Neither one of us have production in our State, but we have
    sort of a personal feeling about this because we remember that
    that plane was almost killed by the other three defense
    committees, and we believed it should be our next generation
    cargo plane. Now, do you have a follow-on for the C-17 in the
    works?
        Mr. England. No, sir, we don't. C-17 of course will last us
    a long time. Senator Stevens, I mean, at some point we do have
    to stop the production of the airplane, and all of our analysis
    supported 180 airplanes. We're now 10 above that. We have some
    going to NATO, hopefully another four or so. Some other
    countries have bought some C-17s. So the question is, when do
    we have enough?
        We are modifying the C-5. There are some advantages to C-5
    because it takes outsize cargo that a C-17 does not carry, so
    they're complementary in some respects, and of course we're
    investing heavily in that upgrade program.
        The question is, when do we stop production? All the
    analysis indicates that we have a sufficient quantity but, as I
    indicated to the chairman, based on the fact that the force is
    growing, we will take a look at that study and update it. But
    at some point we do have to, even if we were to continue, I
    mean, at some point we do end up with a sufficient number of
    airplanes. And if we keep putting money into C-17s, then
    frankly money comes out of some other investment category, and
    so we always have this tradeoff in terms of what's the greatest
    priority need. That was our decision last year, but again we'll
    look at it based on a larger force.
        Senator Stevens. Well, the C-5 has been up and down, had to
    be rewinged and reengined and a lot of other things, and I
    understand why you're keeping it as a fallback for outsized
    equipment, but when we're facing the situation we are now where
    we're going to bring, what, 60,000 troops back to the
    continent? Actually, with the increase in end strength the
    numbers will be at least 90,000 more, as I understand. The
    whole concept of our military policy now is rapid deployment by
    air, no matter where they go in the world.
        I just share the fear about closing that line down, it
    wouldn't be too easy to reopen it. Maybe we ought to ask for a
    classified briefing from you in terms of what you see in the
    future as far as the need for air transport for the total
    force. It's just a worrisome thing.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        As we talk about this return to the continent, what's going
    to be the situation with regard to overseas base realignment
    and closure (BRAC) now if those folks are in fact coming back?
    Have the overseas expenditures for military construction been
    reduced sufficiently so that we can bring some of that money
    back home, and get ready to have these people brought back to
    the continent?
        Mr. England. Tina, do you know dollars BRAC overseas?
        Ms. Jonas. Sir, I don't have an exact figure on the
    overseas BRAC for you, but I will say that the reduction of the
    $3.1 billion in the continuing resolution is a problem for the
    Department. We do not yet have a way forward on that. We're
    going to have to work with the Congress on that.
        It will affect forces coming home from Europe. Fort Bliss,
    for example, is one of the bases that forces will be coming
    home. So this will be difficult, and I know Phil Grone, who
    does our Installations and Environment, is looking very
    carefully at the implications of the funding resolution.
        Senator Stevens. Well, that was going to be my next
    question about the BRAC $3.1 billion. I don't think we have a
    guarantee, but we have sort of an understanding as the
    continuing resolution went through without amendment, that that
    money would be considered to be replaced in the supplemental. I
    hope that it is. We have some, even in Alaska, which is being
    delayed now because of the reshuffling of that money.
        But again, as I understand it, this whole reshuffling is
    going to be over in at least 3 years. Is that right?
    Repositioning back to the continental United States (CONUS),
    I'm talking about.
        Mr. England. We are, but at the same time we're also
    forward deploying other forces, so you know we have other
    forces moving to Guam, we have troops moving out of Japan into
    Guam. We have submarines moving into Guam. So there's other
    forces moving. So I'll have to get back and look at the entire
    overseas BRAC for you, because there are forces coming out of
    Europe. There's also forces moving in other areas, which is
    expensive when we move other forces forward. So I will get back
    with you on those specific details.
        For the $3.1 billion, I appreciate your comment about
    adding that $3.1 billion to the supplemental, because that is
    critical to us, that $3.1 billion. I mean, there are plans in
    the Army, when they move personnel back, this is, the whole
    BRAC as you know is an interlaced process. I mean, programs
    largely do not stand alone. They actually are all
    interconnected.
        And so when we disrupt the BRAC by taking out funding, that
    causes a lot of disarray for us. So it would be extraordinarily
    helpful if the subcommittee could help address that $3.1
    billion, because that will be a significant issue for us as we
    go forward if that $3.1 billion is not replaced.
        Senator Stevens. As we went over and looked at Aviano and
    the Army base in Italy where you're moving those people from
    Germany down there, and also the new upgraded air base in
    Turkey, we sort of envisioned that new alignment along the
    northern shore of the Mediterranean. All of that is BRAC,
    right? That's taking a considerable amount of money for those
    moves, isn't it? Is that in this budget?
        Mr. England. Senator Stevens, as Tina let you know, I just
    have to get back with you on that, Senator Stevens. We'll get
    an appointment, get the whole BRAC, overseas and domestic,
    together for you related to the 2008 budget. I just don't know
    specifically, but we will get back with you on that.
        Senator Stevens. Well, the reason for my question, it looks
    like this is all taking place in the same timeframe, bringing
    people back here and moving people overseas to different
    places. That's a substantial increase in BRAC over a period of
    4 years. I don't see it reflected here. I would appreciate it
    if you could give us a statement for the record.
        Mr. England. Yes, we'll definitely get back with you,
    Senator Stevens.
        [The information follows:]

        While BRAC and global defense posture realignment are
    mutually reinforcing efforts, overseas force posture changes in
    host nations like Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea are not part
    of the BRAC process. The funds to implement these posture
    changes reside in our traditional Military Construction and
    Operations and Maintenance accounts and are part of the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 (PB08). There
    is $953 million of Military Construction, Army, budgeted or
    programmed in the period fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year
    2013 to support global restationing, including $73.6 million
    requested in fiscal year 2008.
        Additionally, global posture has a BRAC 2005 component for
    construction of facilities in the United States to accommodate
    movement of forces from overseas. The fiscal year 2008 budget
    request identified $2.9 billion across implementation (fiscal
    year 2006-fiscal year 2011) to support the BRAC component of
    global posture.

                                     BUDGET

        Senator Stevens. Last, as I understand it, the
    authorization bill gave authority to the Department to train
    and equip counterterrorism forces in foreign military
    organizations. Can you tell us about that? What is the
    Department going to do with its authority to support
    counterterrorism capability of our allies?
        Mr. England. I believe this is a 1206 authority--Tina, do I
    have it right--which is, I believe, $500 million in the budget
    for that purpose, so we do have $500 million in the budget,
    what we call 1206 authority, being requested in the fiscal year
    2008 budget specifically to train and equip forces friendly to
    the United States in counterinsurgency operations. So there's
    $500 million, Senator Stevens, in the budget for that purpose.
        Senator Stevens. Does it identify the units that are going
    to be so equipped and trained? Admiral?
        Admiral Giambastiani. If I could, Senator Stevens, this
    money, the drawdown authority on this money, the countries that
    we would do this for are being recommended by each of our
    combatant commanders. For example, there are initiatives where
    Central Command would talk about Pakistan. There are specific
    commands. You have recommendations for countries like Thailand
    and others.
        So what I would tell you is, each of these initiatives has
    a specific tie to counterterrorism. One of the initiatives was
    to put radars, for example, to assist the local countries in
    the Straits of Malacca. This would help us significantly to
    follow maritime traffic, help the countries there locally.
    These are the types of examples, but we've got significant ones
    across the world.
        Senator Stevens. Does that include giving them Predators
    and things like that?
        Admiral Giambastiani. Generally, no, sir. Generally, that's
    done under a different authority.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you, and Ms. Jonas and Ambassador--
    excuse me--Admiral. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. England. He would make a good Ambassador, though, too.

                                     B-52S

        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask about the B-52s, which will not
    surprise you perhaps. We have 76 after the attrition reserve
    are all gone, and the Congress has instructed the Pentagon that
    that's the number that you must keep at this point. You,
    however, budget for only 56 in your budget.
        The initial 30 days of combat in Iraq, I recall the Air
    Force used more than 80 B-52s so it could sustain a deployed
    force of 42 at forward operating bases. Obviously they couldn't
    repeat that if they go to 56 B-52s. What I hear from the
    Pentagon is that the F-22 and the B-2 will go in and kick down
    the door with air power, and that is the case, I believe that's
    the case with those planes.
        And there's no better bomb truck around for the next couple
    of decades than the B-52, fully paid for, so I do not frankly
    understand the Pentagon's recommendation to go from 76 to 56 B-
    52s when the Congress has indicated it wishes and insists on
    76.
        I would also observe that a new bomber is scheduled to come
    on, at the very earliest, 2018. Most of us understand it's more
    likely to be 2020 or 2024, so you're talking about 15 years
    perhaps or more for a new bomber, and we're going to move B-52s
    that are fully paid for and capable for at least three decades
    in addition to their service, long service, we're going to move
    them to Davis-Monthan, to the boneyard? It doesn't make sense
    to me. Can you explain to me what the thinking of the Pentagon
    is?
        Mr. England. Senator, actually I can't give you the detail,
    but I can tell you I know the Air Force across the board has
    been trying to retire some of their older airplanes so they can
    afford to recapitalize. So this is the issue that we have,
    frankly, in a number of areas, that is the cost of maintaining
    older airplanes which get to be very, very expensive. And so if
    we keep those long tails, then we utilize the funds that we
    could otherwise put into the new bomber.
        So, I mean, I believe this is a dilemma the Air Force is
    in. I'll have the Air Force address this directly with you. But
    frankly it's just the dilemma we have in terms of trying to
    maintain older equipment versus transition to new designs.
        Senator Dorgan. And I've spoken to General Moseley about
    this subject, but my sense is that the Air Force, I guess at
    the direction of the Pentagon, is going to create a bomber gap.
    Quite clearly the Air Force, if they retire this number of B-
    52s beyond which the Congress said we're going to allow you to
    retire, the Air Force clearly could not do what they did with
    Operation Iraqi Freedom. They could not have 80 B-52s for
    forward deployment in order to be able to have 42 operational
    at forward locations.
        So I'm very concerned about that. I would hope you'll take
    a hard look at it. We have enough trouble funding new weapons
    programs, and we shouldn't be moving those that are fully paid
    for over to Davis-Monthan and put them in storage at a time
    when we need them in the fleet. So I will follow up again with
    General Moseley. He'll be here at some point.
        Mr. England. I will, too. And I think, Admiral, do you have
    some information?

                                     BOMBER

        Admiral Giambastiani. Yes, if I could. Senator, one of the
    reasons why from a military side we took a look at this and, if
    you will, reviewed the situation of the bomber inventory--and
    by the way, I'm a bomber proponent myself--is that we are
    shifting to small diameter bombs in addition to all of the
    larger pieces of ordnance. In fact, in our budget for 2008 we
    have a sizeable number of small diameter bombs being picked up.
    These are the 250 pounders that frankly have got some smartness
    built into them.
        The reason why that's significant is that you can carry
    many more pieces of ordnance, because of the size of these and
    the precision with which we can deliver them. So each platform
    that we have actually brings much more capability than we could
    before, so the numbers of platforms that we would need is
    reduced because of this increased capability that we bring on
    the weapons side. So there's a balancing act here between the
    number of platforms and the number of weapons that we would put
    on each one, but I'll get back to you.
        Senator Dorgan. I appreciate that.
        [The information follows:]

        The reduction in B-52s was taken in order to divest legacy
    aircraft for the purposes of modernization and
    recapitalization. The U.S. Air Force can still meet and exceed
    combatant command B-52 requirements for any single major combat
    operation (MCO). The risk associated with two near-simultaneous
    MCOs is increased, but within acceptable levels for the near
    term. The Air Force comprehensive plan for modernization and
    recapitalization outlines the prudent investments necessary
    today to avoid future capability risks.
        The Air Force also has a three-phase, long-range strike
    plan that modernizes the remaining legacy bomber fleet, fields
    a fleet-augmenting, long-range strike platform in the 2018
    timeframe, and develops a transformational long-range strike
    platform in the 2035 timeframe. In addition, the Institute for
    Defense Analysis has been tasked by Congress to examine the
    amount and type of bomber force structure required to
    accomplish the National Security Strategy.

        Senator Dorgan. Let me just say in last year's legislation
    you are not allowed to move the attrition reserves until you
    give us the study that we requested, and I don't think the
    study can be completed without showing that there is a bomber
    gap. I understand your point about platforms, but I also
    understand what the Air Force is talking about with respect to
    global initiatives and what they feel they need to do. And I'm
    just saying I've talked to a lot of experts. This doesn't add
    up when you get to 56.
        So I'd like to ask one additional question and then ask
    about two personnel issues very quickly. The $141.7 billion in
    fiscal year 2008, is that designated as emergency?
        Mr. England. I guess I'm not quite sure, but I guess it is
    designated because it's not in the base budget. So the request
    was, as I understand, Senator, Congress asked that we provide
    forward-looking cost of war and to have that available when the
    budget was submitted. So we basically took an extension,
    because looking ahead a year is hard to do, so we took our
    fiscal year 2007 and projected it forward.
        Frankly, it could go up or down. Not knowing, we pretty
    much have taken the fiscal year 2007, projected it in fiscal
    year 2008. So that's what the $141.7 billion is. But recognize,
    as we get closer and as conditions on the ground change, the
    number could go up or down because we're basically looking a
    year ahead when we put these numbers together.
        Senator Dorgan. The reason I asked the question, it seems
    to me emergency designations are things that one didn't
    anticipate, but if we can anticipate next year what that cost
    will be, I wonder if we shouldn't be paying for this? If we
    sent the soldiers to fight, I wonder if we shouldn't as a
    country pay for it, rather than designate it as an emergency? I
    just make that point.

                                 MEDAL OF HONOR

        Mr. Secretary, let me mention two other quick items.
        One, there is a request that has been pending for nearly 1
    year, previously approved by the Secretary of the Army, and I
    raise this because I watched on television last evening or I
    guess two evenings ago the presenting of a Medal of Honor.
    There is an American Indian named Woodrow Wilson Keeble, a
    remarkable, remarkable soldier, fought in the Second World War
    and in the Korean War, and the description of a battle in the
    Korean War was an unbelievable description.
        I have never known him, but at any rate, it had been
    submitted well after the Korean War that he receive the Medal
    of Honor. All of that information has been digested, went up to
    the Secretary of the Army. He actually recommended a Medal of
    Honor based on the facts of the battle in the Korean War. It
    has now been sitting at the Secretary's level for almost 1
    year. Would you be willing to look into that at this point? It
    does require the Secretary's approval, but it has been approved
    by the Secretary of the Army.
        Mr. England. Senator, I will. Actually, it has come to my
    attention a couple of requests like that are in OSD, so I've
    actually started to make inquiries as to why they haven't made
    their way to the Secretary, because ultimately it goes to the
    Secretary of Defense and then with his recommendation goes to
    the President of the United States for a final decision. I will
    definitely look into it. It's of interest to me also, and I'll
    follow up for you, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. I appreciate that.
        [The information follows:]

        Members of Congress introduced legislation during the week
    of March 26, 2007 to waive the period of time limitations for
    submission of the Medal of Honor (MOH) award recommendation for
    the late Master Sergeant Woodrow Wilson Keeble. This
    legislation enables the President to consider, and, if
    warranted, award the MOH to Master Sergeant Keeble.

        Senator Dorgan. I want to make just two other comments, Mr.
    Chairman. I know others want to make a comment.
        Mr. Secretary, you know you and I have had breakfast
    together. I have great admiration for your service, thought you
    did a great job as Secretary of the Navy and I'm glad that you
    are where you are. But I do want to just mention two issues.

                                CONTRACT ISSUES

        One, I'm going to ask for the inspector general to take a
    look at it, and that is a personnel issue. National Defense
    University gave a contract, which was cancelled I think 1 month
    later, for Mr. Feith, a $500,000 contract over 4 years for Mr.
    Feith from the National Defense University. And as I looked at
    this contract, the identical words were used in the contract
    solicitation as were used by Secretary Rumsfeld in the going
    away ceremony for Mr. Feith.
        It seems to me that there almost had to be collaboration in
    the preparation of the solicitation for the job and the remarks
    that were used at the going away ceremony, and I'm going to ask
    the inspector general just to look at that. The contract was
    cancelled several days after the press asked about it, but as I
    have dug through this, there's something wrong here, and I just
    wanted to tell you. You're not in a situation where you would
    know about it or be responsible for it, but I did want to
    mention that, that I'm going to ask for the inspector general
    to look at it.
        One final point. I did call you about Bunnatine Greenhouse.
    I did that because I'm very concerned about the contracting
    abuse that has occurred in some areas. She was the highest
    ranking civilian official in the Corps of Engineers.
        She said the contracting abuse, I believe it was on the RIO
    or the LOGCAP, I believe the LOGCAP contracts, the contracting
    abuse was the most blatant abuse she has seen in her career.
    For that, she was demoted. There have now, of course, legal
    activities been going on for some while, and she doesn't have
    any duties, yet she is still there, having been demoted for
    telling the truth. I believe she told the truth because I have
    dug into that at great, great length.
        Others in this town who worked when she was the highest
    ranking contracting official, others who worked outside, have
    told me she was one of the finest contracting officials we ever
    had, but she told the truth about some problems with
    contracting and as a result, over at the Corps of Engineers the
    old boys network decided that she was going to pay a price for
    it, and she has paid a very heavy price in her career.
        And I've called you about that. I do hope that there is a
    message sent here someplace, that we need the truth, all of us
    do: the American public, the Congress, and certainly you in
    your responsibility in the Department of Defense.
        But having said those things, let me again tell you I
    appreciate you, Secretary England, have always appreciated your
    work, and this subcommittee very much needs your advice and
    your thoughts about especially the budget issues, because it's
    so important. We spend so much money in support of our
    military, and need to do that.
        Mr. England. Senator Dorgan, thank you. Thanks for your
    comments.
        I will look back into that case. You know, I know we did do
    a lot of work, and I don't have all the details of that
    particular case. I will go back and see where that is today,
    because there was a lot of work done, and it did go into legal
    and that sort of prevented everybody from going further with
    it.
        But I'll tell you, you know, I mean, I always share
    everybody's concern whenever I hear anything about something
    that's either abusive or unethical, much less illegal. So I am
    where you are, to make sure we absolutely understand all these
    cases, and I do personally follow up on every single case of
    indiscretion that's brought to my attention. And I will look
    into this and see where it is, and I'll talk back with you
    again, sir, because obviously we do want to make sure that we
    carry out the responsibility of the Department appropriately.
        Senator Dorgan. Secretary, thank you very much.
        Mr. England. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start by thanking all of you, all three of you, for
    being here today. Regarding your budget request of $43 billion
    to recruit, train, and equip National Guard and Reserve forces,
    as you know, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
    released in January studies the National Guard domestic
    equipment requirements and readiness and indicates that as of
    November 2006, nondeployed Army National Guard forces in New
    Mexico ranked last in the Nation regarding equipment readiness,
    with less than 40 percent of the total amount of dual-use
    equipment that they are authorized to have for warfighting
    missions.

                              EQUIPMENT SHORTFALLS

        My first question is, how will the Department's $43 billion
    funding request in this budget be used to address the serious
    equipment shortfalls needed in New Mexico and many other
    States? And, second, what other action is the Department taking
    to ensure that the National Guard is equipped to do their job
    at home and abroad? The second one is general; the first one is
    New Mexico, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. England. Okay. I think between the three of us we can
    answer that question for you, Senator.

                             RECONSTITUTE THE FORCE

        Fiscal year 2005 was the first year that we started putting
    substantial money in the budget, at that time in the
    supplemental, to reconstitute the force. Up until then we
    didn't have--I mean, it was sort of understood that we wouldn't
    have those kind of funds in the supplemental account, but in
    2005 we started putting those funds in.
        We have now put in a lot of money--I'm not sure of the
    totals, perhaps Tina can help me here, of the total amount of
    money that has gone into this reconstitution and replacement,
    repair of equipment, so we now have the depots pretty much full
    and the equipment is flowing, and a lot of that equipment will
    be used to reconstitute the force, including the National
    Guard. And in addition, in the base budget from 2005 to 2013, I
    believe we have a total of $36 billion for Guard modernization
    and equipment.
        So there's a lag in the system, and the lag has frankly
    hurt us in terms of just being able to backfill, because once
    the money is made available it could be anywhere from 1 year to
    about 3 years before the equipment comes out of the pipeline,
    but we are working that for all the Guard. In the meantime, we
    do make sure that all the Guards activated have equipment that
    they, if they do not have the equipment at their home station,
    they fall in on that equipment while we try to backfill it here
    at home.
        So there are some lags in the system, but I believe that in
    my judgment the money that we have requested and the money that
    the Congress is appropriating is being very helpful to make
    sure that we backfill this equipment we have been using for the
    war purposes. So in general I will tell you, I think we're on
    the right path here. Money is in the depots. New equipment is
    being procured. Money is being allocated for the National Guard
    over the fit-up, and it will slowly start refilling the bins as
    we go forward.
        Do you have anything, Admiral?
        Admiral Giambastiani. Yes. If I could, Senator Domenici, I
    would just add simply that if I looked at the base budget that
    we've submitted for President's budget 2008 and the fiscal year
    2007 supplemental, and then the global war on terrorism
    supplemental for 2008, there's about $8 billion of this $36
    billion in those submissions.

                                   EQUIPMENT

        Second, in order to not exacerbate the problem with the
    National Guard, about 90 percent of the equipment that is stay-
    behind, that we use overseas, primarily in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, is actually active component equipment, so when we
    send brigade combat teams and others over to use this, they are
    falling in on equipments out of the active component, so only
    about 10 percent is actually out of the Reserve component.
        I guess the final comment that I would give to you with
    regard to these National Guard units is that yesterday I had
    the opportunity to go over and meet with all of the Adjutant
    Generals at the National Guard Bureau, with Lieutenant General
    Blum, and talk to them about their concerns on a wide variety
    of issues. Frankly, because of, I think, the amount of
    resources we're putting against this, and the amount of
    resources in the recruiting on the manpower side and the rest,
    this did not appear to be a big concern, if you will, that they
    expressed to me yesterday.
        Now, I'm not saying that they are not worried about the
    equipping piece. What I'm telling you is, I think they see the
    money the Deputy talked about in the pipeline and they know
    we're putting a focus and resources against it. So with your
    help here, this is going to be a significant change, I think,
    for the National Guard.
        Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that
    that's good to know. I think, if you don't mind, it would be
    good for me to be able to tell New Mexicans with a little more
    specificity that of the $43 billion you're saying will be used
    for the National Guard, some of it for equipment, that they
    won't be at the bottom of the list forever. We won't have
    guardsmen without equipment, for all intents and purposes,
    expected to go overseas, if deployed, and fight a war.
        Many New Mexico National Guardsmen have served already as
    part of the global war on terror, and many have redeployed and
    are going to be redeployed in the coming months. Are you
    assuring the Guards that they are going to have equipment and
    that they are going to be rested and ready in terms of what we
    expect for the average military units that are going now and
    are in this situation?
        Admiral Giambastiani. I guess what I would say, Senator, is
    that you can be assured that you have our commitment here, both
    on the civilian and military side of the Department. The Deputy
    and I sit with these folks every day, and we bring in General
    Blum and his staff, and he participates in our resourcing
    discussion, so I think you have a good solid commitment here.
        Mr. England. Senator, we'll follow up with you
    specifically, too, in terms of those allocations of funds, so
    we'll get back with you on that and give you some specific
    detail.
        [The information follows:]

        The New Mexico Army National Guard's current unfunded
    equipment requirement totals $244 million. If the appropriate
    level of funding was made available to the Department of
    Defense, equipment procurement would be executed by the Army.
    The National Guard Bureau allocates equipment to states' units
    based on their wartime mission requirements with consideration
    given also to the states' emergency response requirements.
    Given this practical consideration, it is not possible at this
    time to determine exactly how much of this $43 billion in
    funding will be used for New Mexico equipment requirements.

        Senator Domenici. I assume I'm out of time. I will come
    back. I'll just let you go by, and I have two more similar
    questions.
        You want me to proceed?
        Senator Inouye. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
    Former Chairman.

                      AIR FORCE SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

        Okay. Well, I have two more areas of questions. One has to
    do with Cannon Air Force Base. As you know, last year the
    Secretary of Defense assigned the use of Cannon Air Force Base
    to the Air Force Special Operations Command, AFSOC, to
    establish a western base.
        Now, I'm sure you know this, but I want to bring it up here
    today because I want to make sure that you are aware that in
    the BRAC findings Cannon was the only base that when they were
    finished, it was so hard to decide on that they put it in a
    special category and said, ``It will sit there so you can try
    to find a use for it.'' And the Air Force went to find a use
    right away and said, ``We think we need this for AFSOC,'' so
    it's going to be one of those bases. This was a very exciting
    thing for us to have the Air Force to have a new use for a very
    great base. It's going to be turned into a multipurpose base
    instead of one that has F-16s.
        It's my understanding that there is $70 million in the
    fiscal year 2008 unfunded requirement list for Cannon Air Force
    Base. It's also my understanding that much of the construction
    is needed for AFSOC to implement its plan for Cannon. My
    question is, what are the Department's plans to meet these
    unfunded requirements so that AFSOC can begin operating its new
    western base in October 2007?
        Mr. England. Well, Senator, I can address that for you. The
    Air Force Special Operations Command will take ownership. The
    base will be operational in October this year, so that will
    happen. The $70 million will not affect that. We will make that
    date.
        I also want you to know that our Special Operations
    Command, the U.S. Special Operations Command, has programmed
    well over $200 million, about $230 million across the FYDP for
    Milcon, and the Air Force has programmed another $400 million
    for both operation and maintenance (O&M) and Milcon, also
    across the FYDP. So there is well over $600 million for Cannon
    in terms of facilitizing it and operation and maintenance at
    the base.
        The $70 million was sort of a surprising number, to find
    out that it was unprogrammed, and I need to look into that
    although I understand some of it is to accelerate some of the
    money early. So we'll look into it, but I believe frankly that
    we have everything programmed appropriately, and we'll make
    sure we don't have a shortcoming that would jeopardize
    occupying the base and operating the base.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. It's very important,
    as you know. We no longer have that big base sitting there. And
    then we come up to the time of transition and to not have the
    money to make it what it's supposed to be concerns me.
        Mr. England. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. I have another one I'll submit in
    writing, Senator, so we can proceed. I thank you so much for
    your generosity.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I
    would like to be included in the record. I'll start with my
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the members of the
    committee in welcoming our witnesses this morning.
        This has been a challenging year for our Armed Forces and
    they have made us proud by the way they have stepped up to that
    challenge. The Global War on Terrorism requires constant
    vigilance and a winning strategy. Our Armed Services require
    the continued support of this Congress and the American people
    to help ensure the safety and security of our country.
        This challenge makes us aware of the importance of the 2008
    funding proposal for the Department of Defense. We must ensure
    our men and women in uniform have the equipment and training
    necessary to succeed and to return home safely.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for the outstanding
    leadership you are all providing for our armed forces in
    dealing with the challenges that we face in the global war on
    terror. When the President came before the Congress and made
    his State of the Union address, he mentioned a request for
    Congress to increase the end strength of the Army and the
    Marine Corps. Matter of fact, he specifically asked that in 5
    years there be an additional 92,000 Army and Marine Corps
    personnel added.
        This is, of course, going to inevitably increase the need
    for amphibious ships and other equipment, materiel, to support
    these troops. In looking at the budget request, there is one
    LPD-17 amphibious ship suggested in the 2008 budget proposal,
    but you look at the Navy unfunded program list and you see an
    additional LPD as being unfunded. As a matter of fact, it's the
    top item on the list.
        Can you tell us what the plans are of the Department of
    Defense to support the increase in marines and the end strength
    as it relates to ship capacity and the future needs that we
    have?
        Mr. England. Senator Cochran, I can. I know that Navy
    increased their budget substantially this year for
    shipbuilding, I believe like $3 billion increase in the 2008
    budget, so that has gone up appreciably. My understanding is
    they also, frankly, have some limitations, just numbers of
    workers available and working hours on ships these days. So I'm
    not sure they can accelerate, but I know that they are working
    to get the 313 ship Navy by 2020 and they have significantly
    increased funding.
        Above and beyond that, frankly I have not talked to the
    Navy about their plans. I mean, that's the latest I know, is
    what's in the budget, which is quite a significant increase. I
    think it went from $11.-some billion to $14.-some billion in
    shipbuilding. Frankly, as an old ex-Secretary of the Navy, I
    was pleased to see them reach that $14 billion because that had
    been the objective for some time, to get to that sustained
    level of funding.
        So if there's anything beyond that, however, I'm not
    familiar with it, Senator Cochran, but I'll be happy to address
    it with the Navy.

                                  SHIPBUILDING

        Senator Cochran. Admiral, you've got a Navy background and
    understand these needs. As Vice Chairman, what is your
    assessment of the ability of the Department to sustain the
    requirements that we have for the Navy and Marine Corps as far
    as shipbuilding is concerned in this budget request?
        Admiral Giambastiani. Well, I, too, like Secretary England,
    am very pleased that we have achieved $14.4 billion worth of
    shipbuilding. I will tell you, as a former director of
    resources on the Navy staff almost 7 years ago, I set a target
    at that time for a budget between $12 and $14 billion a year,
    and this was 7 years ago, to sustain the shipbuilding level to
    allow us to get to approximately this number of 313. We hadn't
    decided that number quite yet, but we knew the approximate
    band. And I will tell you that only with sustained funding
    levels like this will you be able to achieve and get back to
    that 313 from the 280 or so that we are right now.
        Senator Cochran. Are you saying that remains a goal?
        Admiral Giambastiani. Sir, I think the Navy's 30-year
    shipbuilding plan that Secretary England mentioned specifically
    states 313 ships, and their goal is to get that by 2020, and it
    will take that level of funding to get there.
        Senator Cochran. Okay. Thank you. Now we're pleased,
    Secretary England, to notice in your statement your comments
    about missile defense systems and our continued effort to
    improve those and deploy them. Could you elaborate on how the
    budget for fiscal year 2008 will be used to enhance our missile
    defense capabilities around the world?
        Mr. England. Senator Cochran, as I recall we have about
    $9.9 billion in missile defense this year, and it goes across
    the wide array of missile defense applications. As you know, we
    now have operational sites in our missile defense, so this is
    to expand the number of missiles. It also expands the
    capability into Europe, as we start those discussions for
    European deployments. But this is to increase the number of
    missiles both at fixed sites and also on our naval sites. It
    also continues a significant amount of research and development
    in our missile defense activities.
        And I would add, by the way, in my judgment this has been
    one of the most successful programs in terms of what has been
    achieved in missile defense. I know some years ago there was
    great controversy about the program, but it has made great
    strides. We now have capability in place, and in my judgment
    very important capability, with the world the way it is today
    in terms of what other nations are doing in both their missile
    systems and nuclear capability. So this is a very important
    capability for the Nation, and it has progressed significantly,
    and this budget allows us to continue the deployment of those
    missiles.
        Senator Cochran. Admiral Giambastiani, I know that you are
    aware the Navy has been talking about options for deployment of
    missile defense capabilities at sea, being able to have a
    mobile force. What is your assessment of the progress being
    made in that regard with respect to missile defense?

                               SEA AND LAND BASED

        Admiral Giambastiani. Overall, if I could just address not
    only the sea-based side but the sea- and land-based side, just
    to give you an example, over the next year we're going to
    triple, over triple the number of interceptor missiles, between
    ground-based and sea-launched, that we have available over the
    next 12 months. That is, in funding, this just under $10
    billion that the Secretary mentioned.
        So I think that's a very good news story. There are not
    going to be large numbers of these, but we will over triple the
    number that are available, and that includes the sea-launched
    side of this equation. We do have some sea-launched missiles
    available, very small numbers. I won't get into the specifics
    because of the classification, but I will tell you that those
    numbers are going up, and clearly we have to have not only a
    ground-based component of this missile defense, but we also
    need the sea-based and the air-based side of this.
        Senator Cochran. Secretary England, last month Secretary
    Gates announced a change in Reserve component policy that
    changes the way Reserve component forces are managed to support
    requirements for the global war on terror. The Secretary said a
    policy objective was for a mobilization ratio of 1 to 5 for
    National Guard and Reserve units. Does this funding request
    before our subcommittee adequately address the challenges of
    manning the force to achieve this goal?
        Mr. England. Yes, sir, it does, particularly between the
    base budget and the supplemental that we have turned in, it
    does support that. It also supports the equipment for that. So
    between the equipment, manpower, you know, periods of
    activation, that is what we have funded in this budget, so it
    does support that. And that was going from 18 months to 12
    months for reservists, so 12 months served time, and having an
    adequate dwell time, which I believe was the one-in-five for
    the Reserves. So that is the basis of our budget proposal,
    Senator.
        Senator Cochran. I have a couple of other questions which I
    will just submit for the record. One has to do with the
    continued problem of corrosion of equipment, maintenance costs
    that are attributable to that problem. We have some suggestions
    for research that's being done that's very encouraging, about
    some of the new countermeasures that are available and coming
    on line. We hope you'll take a look at that and make sure that
    we're taking advantage of new discoveries to cut down on the
    maintenance costs of our military forces.
        Mr. England. Sure.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
        Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, over the last recess I took
    the time to go visit the Predator factory and saw the new
    Warrior and some other things out there. I would urge you to
    take a look at some of the research that they've done now to
    try to adapt these unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems to
    urban warfare, and particularly to the monitoring of activity
    in the urban landscape. Part of it is classified.
        But I was concerned over the rate of production there. With
    the Army asking for the Warrior and the marines asking for some
    of the similar systems, it does seem that that's the most cost-
    effective system, what they're talking about now, in terms of
    urban warfare. I would urge you to take a look at it. I don't
    know if you have, but it's a great change and has great
    promise, in my opinion.
        Mr. England. I'm familiar with it. The Admiral and I work
    together on this, and with the improvised explosive devices
    (IED) task force. And you're right, I'd rather not talk about
    all the details, but you can elaborate some, Admiral.
        Admiral Giambastiani. Senator Stevens, I completely agree
    with you, there are some exciting things on the home front here
    with regard to these unmanned aerial vehicles. I have been to
    the plant. I have visited the factory myself. I have looked at
    it in detail.
        And in this budget request and also in the supplementals
    that we have submitted here with the President's budget, there
    are substantial requirements in there and funding, resourcing,
    obviously subject to Congress' approval, for Predators and
    Warriors. We have just deployed our first couple of Warriors. I
    agree with you, without going into a lot of detail, that we can
    put some changed detection improvements into these, and, in
    fact, are planning on doing that through the joint improvised
    explosive device defeat task force that Secretary England was
    talking about. So there are some real substantial changes here,
    but we are about doubling the number of requests for Predators
    that we had before in this submission.
        Senator Stevens. That's good to hear. I think that the
    concept of force protection that's involved in these new
    experiments is just staggering, and it is really an interesting
    combination of technology now. You're right, we shouldn't talk
    too much about it, but I do think that those systems have a lot
    to do with the safety of our forces and what's going on in Iraq
    right now.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. England. Senator Stevens, there's an aspect of that, we
    would like to have a private discussion with you because
    there's one aspect of that that's extraordinarily interesting
    and, you know, in a private conversation we'd like to be able
    to discuss a little bit further with you.
        Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Happy to do that.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me follow up
    on the unmanned aerial vehicle issue. My understanding is that
    there is a UAV program in the--well, I know there's one in the
    Air Force. I understand that the Army has a separate program,
    the Navy has a separate program, which seems to me to suggest
    almost everything that's wrong with the way we do business in
    the Pentagon.
        Why would we have three separate UAV programs? Why not have
    a UAV program in the Air Force and have, to the extent that
    there needs to be UAVs, Predators or whatever the UAV might be,
    have the Army and the Navy involved in it? Are there three
    separate areas of research? I assume the Army is doing certain
    UAV research, Air Force, Navy. I don't have the foggiest idea
    why that would be the case.
        Mr. England. Senator, there's more than three UAV programs.
    I'm not sure of the total number. There's quite a few
    different----
        Senator Dorgan. I meant the three services, though, engaged
    in their own programs.
        Mr. England. Yes. Just a comment, and then I will let the
    Admiral.
        First of all, we have a lot of different requirements, and,
    of course, the Navy typically has a totally different, just
    like their airplanes are different because they're carrier-
    based and stronger wings and corrosion, and all the things they
    face different from the Air Force. A lot of these also it
    depends on if they are tactical or if they are strategic, so
    there are different sizes and different ranges and different
    types of sensors.

                            UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

        But we do have collaborative research, so we do have one
    organization, DDR&E, that brings together all the research for
    all of the programs. So they will typically diverge at a
    program level, but they do use a lot of common technology and
    we do fund a lot of common, you know, fundamental technology
    programs that go into those UAVs. So it's not disjointed. I
    mean, it may look like they're disjointed because we have
    different products, but they actually serve different purposes
    and in different environments, typically.
        Senator Dorgan. Are you saying there is not duplication?
    Because some suggest there is substantial duplication between
    the services on UAVs.
        Mr. England. Well, I won't say there's no duplication. I
    will say that every program is examined before it's authorized,
    to make sure that it is filling a specific void and is not just
    duplicating what another program is doing. So we do actually
    look at every one of these to make sure that there is a unique
    mission or a need, you know, that could not be filled by
    something that we already have. So what you don't see are all
    the programs that don't go forward because we feel like we can
    do it with a lesser number of programs.
        Admiral, if you want to comment----
        Admiral Giambastiani. Senator Dorgan, it's a great
    question. There are a lot of folks out there building UAVs, but
    let me tell you that we share your interest in having joint
    programs.
        And on the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), of
    which I'm the chairman, we have established, about the time I
    arrived, a joint UAV office. It's actually commanded by an Army
    General, Brigadier General. The deputy is an Air Force officer.
    We have all three services in it. It has been operating now for
    about 18 months. As a matter of fact, within the last 2 weeks I
    had this Brigadier General in my JROC session, to come in and
    give us a report on how they were moving along.
        They are writing concepts of operations for all of these
    UAVs. Now, let me just quickly explain to you why you might
    think that everybody has their own UAVs. Some unmanned aerial
    vehicles operate at what I call the strategic intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance level. Then there's also an
    operational level, and then there's also tactical UAVs which
    generally are shorter duration. They fly at lower altitudes and
    are smaller aircraft, and they work directly assigned to a
    platoon, a company, a battalion of ground forces, for example,
    whereas generally the Predators are at a higher altitude. They
    have much longer durations. Global Hawk, same thing. And they
    operate with different intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance requirements.
        And what I would offer to you, without trying to go into a
    longer explanation, is I would be happy to come over and talk
    to you about how we're trying to move forward in a joint way
    here with the UAV program so that we don't waste the taxpayer
    dollar.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, going
    back to one other point, let me submit for the record on the
    Bunnatine Greenhouse matter, Mr. Secretary, for your perusal, a
    letter from the inspector general at the Defense Department
    which was November 2005.
        He says that he examined the allegations made by Ms.
    Greenhouse, principal assistant responsible for contracting for
    the Army Corps of Engineers, has shared his findings with the
    Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is in the
    process of considering whether to pursue the matter. As it is
    an ongoing criminal investigation, the requested information
    will be provided when the investigation is concluded.
        So, quite clearly, the inspector general felt there was
    something to the allegations, and for those allegations Ms.
    Greenhouse has been demoted, as you know. Again, I'm not laying
    this on your shoulders because you were not in charge at that
    point, but I want this for the record.
        Mr. England. No, but I will definitely follow up, Senator.
    It is of interest to me, and I'll definitely follow up and I'll
    close the loop with you on that, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

        Ms. Greenhouse was removed from the Senior Executive
    Service because of ``less than fully successful'' performance
    evaluations. Her removal was required by Title 5, Code of
    Federal Regulations, Section 359.501, because she had received
    two final performance ratings of ``less than fully successful''
    within three consecutive years. The first of those evaluations
    was given to Ms. Greenhouse before she made any allegations
    about what she felt were procurement irregularities. Because of
    the change in leadership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    these ratings were given by two different rating officials,
    each of whom arrived independently at the conclusion that her
    performance was not fully successful. Both evaluations were
    reviewed by the ASA (ALT), who has functional responsibility
    for all Army acquisition activities, and the ASA (MR&A), who
    has responsibility for management of the SES.
        In order to ensure that Ms. Greenhouse's removal was based
    entirely on her performance, the Army Corps of Engineers sent a
    memorandum through the Department of the Army Inspector General
    to the Secretary of the Army requesting authorization to
    proceed with her removal from the SES. The removal action had
    been suspended by the Acting Secretary of the Army in response
    to her contention that her removal was based on allegations she
    had made of improper contracting practices. The DA IG contacted
    the DOD IG and was advised by the Director of Investigations of
    Senior Officials in the Office of the DOD Inspector General on
    June 13, 2005, that, ``The criminal investigation into
    procurement matters of interest to Ms. Greenhouse is
    continuing. However, there is no basis to delay actions
    concerning Ms. Greenhouse pending the outcome of that
    investigation.'' The Director further found no basis to delay
    the proposed removal because of a possible reprisal allegation.
    The Department of the Army Inspector General also reviewed the
    two ``less than fully successful'' evaluations for regulatory
    compliance, and found that the regulations were satisfied. On
    July 14, 2005, the Army determined that the record showed Ms.
    Greenhouse's proposed removal was grounded in her poor
    performance and not because of any allegations she made of
    contracting irregularities or her decision to testify before
    members of Congress.
        Regarding the criminal investigation by the Department of
    Justice into possible contracting irregularities, we have not
    received any updates on the case from the DOJ. The Department
    of Defense has no information to provide regarding the
    investigation, including whether or not it has been completed.
        If the committee would like more detailed information on
    the matters regarding Ms. Greenhouse, her EEO complaint, or the
    outcome of the administrative process that investigated her
    allegations of discrimination, we would be happy to provide it
    if the Committee so requests.

        Senator Dorgan. And, Admiral, I will take advantage of your
    suggestion that at some point maybe we can meet to talk about
    the UAV issue.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, I will be submitting my questions and
    seeking advice, but I have one question I would like to ask. In
    yesterday's edition of the Army Times, an article appeared
    headlined ``Walter Reed Patients Told To Keep Quiet.'' Have you
    read that article?
        Mr. England. I saw it this morning, coming to work this
    morning, sir, and I haven't looked into it, but I did read the
    article this morning on the way to work.
        Senator Inouye. Will you look at it----
        Mr. England. I will.
        Senator Inouye [continuing]. And provide us with some
    explanation of what's happening?
        Mr. England. Absolutely.
        [The information follows:]

        The Army does not tolerate retribution or intimidation
    against Soldiers who report problems with conditions or medical
    care at any medical treatment facility. In fact, Walter Reed's
    Commanding General recently addressed Soldiers in the
    outpatient population and assured them that he would not
    tolerate retribution or retaliation for reports to the media.
    MG Schoomaker reaffirmed the rights of Soldiers to speak with
    the media and provided them with a written pledge that ``no
    Soldier will be penalized for coming forward with any of these
    issues and participating in any investigation, media story or
    the like. We are grateful for their candor and for helping us
    identify where we need to improve.''
        On July 1, 2006, the Walter Reed Medical Center Brigade
    Commander published a policy on Soldiers communicating with the
    media. This policy states that Soldiers assigned to Walter Reed
    are free to grant interviews to members of the news media.
    However, if Soldiers are acting in their official capacity, the
    WRAMC Public Affairs Office must approve visits by the media.
        The allegations that Soldiers' first amendment rights were
    violated are still under an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation.

        Admiral Giambastiani. I think it's important, though,
    Chairman, that we say that that's not our standard, to tell
    people to keep quiet. If they've got problems, we want to hear
    about them.
        Mr. England. Absolutely.
        Senator Inouye. Because this was rather specific.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Mr. Secretary, Ms. Jonas, and Admiral Giambastiani, the
    subcommittee thanks you for your testimony this morning and for
    your distinguished service to our Nation.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                     Questions Submitted to Gordon England
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
                        unmanned aerial vehicle programs
        Question. It is my understanding that the Air Force, Army and Navy
    all have their own medium/high altitude UAV programs.
        Don't the capabilities of the Army's Warrior UAV program
    essentially duplicate the existing or planned capabilities of the Air
    Force's Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk programs?
        Answer. No, the Army's Warrior Unmanned Aircraft System does not
    duplicate existing or planned capabilities of Predator, Reaper, or
    Global Hawk. While the Warrior is physically similar to the Predator,
    the improved design provides substantially greater endurance, greater
    payload capability, and improved reliability combined with reduced
    operating cost. The Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for each system
    supports specific and unique Service requirements. The Air Force's
    CONOPS for Predator relies on reach back and operates at the theater
    level. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the Army's
    Extended Range Multi Purpose (ER/MP) unmanned aircraft requirement. The
    Warrior capability is designed to operate in the tactical battle space
    in conjunction with the combat aviation brigade as a maneuver element
    conducting reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition through
    closely integrated manned-unmanned aviation and ground teaming. The
    Warrior does not compete with the Reaper or the Global Hawk; as those
    system capabilities are very different and their CONOPS are focused at
    the theater and strategic level, respectively.
        Question. Would it make sense to relieve the Division and Corps
    commanders of the responsibility for security, transportation,
    logistics and maintenance of high/medium altitude UAVs and to have the
    Air Force provide ISR support to Army forces under a joint CONOPS and
    with habitually aligned AF personnel and assets?
        Answer. Land warfare operational commanders, division and lower
    echelons, willingly provide the incidental support efforts to preserve
    the combat power of unmanned Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target
    Acquisition (RSTA). They conduct combat operations every day, 24/7,
    using this vital and proven capability. We cannot decrease the combat
    power or take away the force protection it affords out of the hands of
    the Soldiers and Marines. Land warfare combat operations are
    experiencing the benefits of Manned-Unmanned teaming (MUM) of manned
    aviation and unmanned air systems toward the full potential with
    initiatives such as Task Force ODIN. Correspondence and direct reports
    from the commanders in the tactical combat zone conducting lethal
    operations universally state moving to a centralized and remote
    employment of UAVs decreases their flexibility and combat
    effectiveness. Integration of multiple combat systems at the lowest
    possible echelon used in a synchronized and trained battle command
    means of employment reduces fratricide, increases lethality,
    responsiveness, and reduces collateral damage. Direct experience in the
    Army's 25th Infantry Division shows the immediate improvement in combat
    capability when tightly integrated RSTA is used with our air and ground
    weapon systems to prosecute the Counter Improvised Explosive Device
    (CIED) fight.
        Question. Isn't the Air Force best suited to serve as the Executive
    Agent for development, acquisition, operations and policy for all
    medium and high altitude Unmanned Aerial Systems?
        Answer. The Air Force Chief of Staff recently proposed that the Air
    Force be designated as the Executive Agent (EA) for all UAS operating
    above 3,500 feet. Each Military Service (Army, Navy, Air Force, and
    Marines) has UAS that operate in that airspace. The Joint Staff is
    leading the Department's review of the Air Force proposal and will be
    using a methodology similar to that used in 2005. The Department last
    addressed the question of an EA for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in
    2005. At that time, the Joint Staff formed a tiger team to determine if
    an EA for UAS was required. In lieu of an EA, the Department
    established a Joint UAS Center of Excellence at Creech Air Force Base,
    Nevada, to address doctrine and operational issues of unmanned
    aircraft. The Department also reorganized an existing organization, now
    called the Joint UAS Materiel Review Board, to address UAS materiel
    solutions. The Joint UAS Center of Excellence and the Joint UAS
    Materiel Review Board are performing the functions one would expect of
    an EA.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget contains $7 million for the
    Department of Defense Corrosion Prevention and Control Program and the
    fiscal year 2008 requests is just under $5 million. Since the return on
    investment is so great and the annual costs of corrosion so high, why
    does the Department of Defense continue to reduce the funding request
    for corrosion prevention and control?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
    appropriation was $7.7 million and Research, Development, Test and
    Evaluation (RDT&E) Budget Activity (BA) 4 was $7.1 million. The fiscal
    year 2008 President's budget request contains $8 million in O&M and $5
    million RDT&E for a total of $13 million for this program, which
    represents a slight increase from the fiscal year 2007 budget request
    of $12.6 million. The Department recognizes the importance of funding
    to prevent and mitigate corrosion in both weapon systems and
    infrastructure.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
        Question. As you know, Holloman Air Force Base is planned to be the
    sight of the next F-22A beddown. Does the Department plan to locate the
    20 F-22s requested in fiscal year 2008 at Holloman, and what do you
    need from Congress to make this transition a reality in fiscal year
    2009?
        Answer. The F-22A program beddown is progressing as planned. The
    first F-22As to be beddown at Holloman AFB, NM arrive the second
    quarter of fiscal year 2009, with aircraft delivery completed in fiscal
    year 2011. Temporary operations and maintenance workarounds exist for
    all operations in advance of facilities construction completion.
                             future combat systems
        Question. On a similar topic, the Army is testing much of its
    Future Combat Systems technology at White Sands Missile Range. Your
    fiscal year 2008 request includes $3.7 billion for research,
    development, test and evaluation of FCS technologies. What does the
    Department need from White Sands Missile Range to accommodate these
    efforts?
        Answer. To facilitate the test and evaluation of Future Combat
    Systems (FCS) technologies during the fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2008
    timeframe, Program Manger (PM) FCS requires the development of a Test
    Operations Complex (TOC) near the Oragrande Base Camp site. Currently,
    a complex of 6 buildings requiring varying amounts of upgrade has been
    identified for potential use to support FCS Spin Out 1 test and
    evaluation. PM FCS and White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) will jointly
    fund these upgrades. However, it is envisioned that a significantly
    larger TOC will be required to support System of Systems test and
    evaluation during both Integration Phases 2 and 3. Additional
    infrastructure includes the possible extension of the Fort Bliss Fixed
    Tactical Internet (FTI) to WSMR to support test and training and to
    Holloman Air Force Base to support JEFX 08. Finally, current plans
    require Army Evaluation Task Force (AETF) soldiers to commute from Fort
    Bliss to WSMR to support the execution of test events. As the FCS test
    program proceeds into subsequent Integration Phases, the size and scope
    increase to battalion size force-on-force events. Due to the large
    number AEFT soldiers required to support such events, the commuting
    concept of operations is not practical. Therefore, a review of the
    adequacy of soldier billets at WSMR to provide housing for soldiers
    during these extended events should be conducted. Pending the outcome
    of that review, a potential increase in the number of soldier billets
    at WSMR may be required.
                high energy laser systems test facility (helstf)
        Question. Lastly, the Army has proposed cutting funding for the
    High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) by about $13 million.
    HELSTF has a host of valuable capabilities to the Department for
    directed energy testing and evaluation. I am concerned about the future
    of directed energy tests if HELSTF is under-funded and inoperable and
    would like to know the Department's plans for conducting such tests in
    the future.
        Answer. Funding for HELSTF was reduced to provide funds for higher
    priority Army programs. HELSTF is an important test facility that will
    continue to support directed energy tests and evaluation needs of the
    Department of Defense. A capability to support solid-state laser
    development programs will still exist at HELSTF, and will be utilized
    by the Army. Specifically, a series of tests in support of the Army's
    High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator (HEL-TD) are planned in 2008
    thru 2013. A recent customer survey revealed that there are no
    identified test requirements for the Mid-IR Advanced Chemical Laser
    (MIRACL) or the Sea Lite Beam Director (SLBD), therefore the MIRACL and
    SLBD will be placed in storage.
        HELSTF will continue to support the Department's need for directed
    energy test and evaluation by standing up a Solid State Laser (SSL)
    testbed. The intent of the Solid State Laser testbed is to allow a
    laser weapon system developer to bring lasers to HELSTF at an early
    point in the weapon system development program. The SSL testbed will
    allow investigation of the systems engineering and integration issues
    associated with weaponizing lasers without having to build a prototype
    of the complete weapon system. A fixed testbed, based on existing
    hardware in place at HELSTF, provides a near laboratory environment and
    allows field-testing of lasers at HELSTF test areas. A transportable
    testbed, based on the existing ex-THEL hardware, and complemented by
    transportable diagnostic sensors, data collection, data processing and
    range control equipment, is planned to support field-testing of more
    advanced prototypes. Army funding allows these systems, operated by
    Government technical staff, to continue to support SSL weapon system
    development programs of the DOD. As with any complex program, there is
    some risk that should a major component fail, sufficient funds to
    affect a repair may not be immediately available.
        HELSTF will be positioned to support the Army's Counter-Rocket,
    Mortar, and Artillery (C-RAM) program, the Joint High Power Solid State
    Laser program, the Army's High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator in
    the C-RAM role, and other SSL programs. The present workforce is sized
    and trained to operate MIRACL and SLBD. This workforce will be released
    in December 2007. In the near term, the smaller workforce will reduce
    the capacity at HELSTF; tests previously conducted in parallel may now
    have to be sequential, but in time the all government staff will
    acquire the training and experience to enable the facility to continue
    to provide the unique capabilities that HELSTF has traditionally
    provided to Directed Energy weapon system development efforts of the
    DOD. The staff will continue to help plan, design, and execute laser
    test and evaluation. Contract mechanisms are in place to supplement the
    Government personnel with contractor support, should the customer-
    funded workload require this.
        Funding does not allow for acquisition of ``adaptive optics'' for
    the SSL Testbed. Without these optics to compensate for the effects of
    the atmosphere on the laser beam the range at which targets can best
    tested will be reduced. Modernization of other test capabilities to
    support Directed Energy are on going in the DOD Directed Energy Test
    and Evaluation Capabilities (DETEC) program funded by the Central Test
    and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP). These capabilities are
    presently focused on providing improved instrumentation to support
    Directed Energy T&E. The majority of DETEC capabilities will be fielded
    at HELSTF.
        The DOD's Directed Energy test and evaluation needs will continue
    to be supported by capabilities at HELSTF. It remains operational as
    the Nation's finest Directed Energy T&E Facility.
        Question. I understand the Department plans to expand Special
    Forces by more than 10,000 soldiers over the next 5 years. How many of
    these forces will be part of AFSOC?
        Answer. Over the next 5 years, fiscal year 2007-11, AFSOC will
    expand its force by 500 military and 155 civilians (this total includes
    classified personnel).
        Question. DOD has requested $1 billion to adjust the military's
    global posture. Why is this readjustment important to our defense and
    what can Congress do to help the process along?
        Answer. The Department's request of approximately $1 billion in
    PB08 for global defense posture realignment further advances critical
    posture changes already underway both overseas and as part of BRAC
    2005. These changes comprise a long overdue effort to transform our
    overseas legacy forces, Cold War basing structures, host-nation
    relationships, and forward capabilities to better contend with post 9/
    11 security challenges. In fiscal year 2008 these changes include:
    continued redeployment of heavy divisions from Europe to CONUS;
    shifting south and east in Europe with transformation of the 173rd
    airborne brigade in Italy and establishment of Joint Task Force-East in
    Romania and Bulgaria; planning and design for future USMC realignment
    in the Pacific as part of U.S.-Japan force posture changes; development
    of basic infrastructure for current and future operations in the
    CENTCOM theater, and; development of bed-down infrastructure for new
    capabilities in Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska. Congress' continued support
    to fully fund BRAC changes is critical to the successful implementation
    of global defense posture. The Department appreciates that support, as
    well as Congress' vision in working with DOD to adapt our posture
    network globally for greater flexibility in the long war and other
    contingencies.
                                     ______

           Question Submitted to Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr.
                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. I welcome this initiative and believe it should enhance
    our opportunity to build partnerships with the nations in Africa to
    help combat terrorism, reduce conflict, enhance stability, and promote
    the common values we share.
        Since this is a new initiative, I don't know if you were able to
    request funding in your fiscal year 2008 budget proposal. Could you
    outline for the committee the funding requirements and provide an
    overview of the Department's vision for Africa Command?
        Answer. In order to fully stand-up and operate the U.S. Africa
    Command (USAFRICOM) headquarters by the end of fiscal year 2008, we
    included a request for $75.5 million in fiscal year 2008 base budget
    submission.
        Our vision for USAFRICOM is that it will promote U.S. national
    security objectives by working with African states, allies, and
    regional organizations to strengthen regional stability and security.
    USAFRICOM will lead the in-theater DOD response and support other U.S.
    government (USG) agencies in implementing USG security policies and
    strategies. USAFRICOM will work closely with other USG and
    international partners to conduct theater security cooperation
    activities that build security and improve governance in the region.
        As directed, USAFRICOM will conduct military operations to deter
    aggression and respond to contingencies unilaterally or jointly with
    African states and regional organizations. Furthermore, USAFRICOM will
    address the threats in and from Africa through security cooperation and
    collaboration with other USG agencies to conduct humanitarian and
    disaster relief operations; strategic communications and information
    operations; provide medical and HIV/AIDS assistance; conduct stability,
    security, transition, and reconstruction activities; build partnership
    capacity; civic action; security sector reform; and military-to-
    military activities.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. This subcommittee will reconvene on
    Wednesday, March 7, when we will meet to discuss the military
    health program, and we will now stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, February 28, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    March 7.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Medical Health Programs

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

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. I would like to welcome all the witnesses
    today as we review the Department of Defense (DOD) medical
    programs. There will be two panels this morning. First we will
    hear from the service Surgeon Generals, General Roudebush,
    Admiral Arthur, and General Kiley. Next we will hear from our
    Chiefs of Nurse Corps, General Melissa A. Rank, Admiral
    Christine Bruzek-Kohler, and General Gale Pollock.
        We are all witnesses to the amazing advances in modern
    medicine which not only affect the daily lives of everyone in
    this room but also the impacts of lifesaving measures for our
    Armed Forces serving in harm's way.
        One of the true unsung heroes in this effort is the
    military medic. He or she is on the front lines every day,
    making critical decisions and delivering immediate medical care
    that determines the fate of our service members.
        So much has changed for the medic since I served in the
    military, yet the one thing that remains constant on the
    battlefields is the call for a medic from a wounded service
    member. Medics often endure the same hardships as the front
    line infantry soldier.
        When the Rangers came ashore on D-Day, their medics were
    right there, treating them on the beach. Seven of them were
    killed and another 25 wounded on that day. During World War II,
    medics worked miracles with few supplies. They had bandages,
    tourniquets, sulfa powder, and morphine.
        Medics played an equally critical role in both Korea and
    Vietnam. With the arrival of the mobile army surgical
    hospitals, military medicine was able to advance many of the
    lifesaving measures applied by the medic on the battlefield,
    but the tools of the medic's trade had not changed
    substantially.
        The global war on terrorism continues to utilize the
    critical skills of the medic, but today their tools contain
    advanced therapy and bandages to stop bleeding that once was
    considered uncontrollable. They also prevent the deadly effect
    of shock with the ability to warm injured shoulders far forward
    in the theater.
        With their tools, tourniquets, techniques, and skills, our
    medics have achieved groundbreaking results. Never before in
    our history has combat mortality been so low. I believe it's
    0.25 now, whereas it used to be 2.5 in World War II. I was one
    of the lucky ones to leave after suffering serious injury, but
    today service members are surviving much worse injuries.
        However, this means many more of our service members are
    returning home with significant injuries. Not only can these
    injuries take many months to recover, but we have yet to fully
    comprehend and diagnose the long-term effects of certain
    injuries such as traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic
    stress.
        Our challenge is to respond to these new challenges and
    realities. How we handle, treat, communicate, and house our
    service members and their families should be of the utmost
    importance to all of us. After everything they have gone
    through and continue to endure, our Government must ensure we
    are doing everything possible on their behalf.
        As recently exposed in the press, there is an area we have
    not addressed adequately. It now requires our complete
    attention and scrutiny. It affects both the Department of
    Defense and the Veterans Administration (VA), and it is not
    just a matter of medical care.
        We must recognize the changing indications of our service
    members surviving life-threatening injuries and the fact that
    many of them have the utmost desire to return to active duty.
    This process must not be rushed, but handled with appropriate
    manner and timeframe, with constant communication to the
    service members and their families.
        I look forward to the findings and recommendations from the
    task force established by Secretary Gates, and working with the
    Department to ensure the necessary resources are provided for
    this effort. But as one member I express my hope that it not be
    a finger-pointing exercise, or we should not be looking just
    for sacrificial lambs. I hope it will be something meaningful.
        And so, with that, I hope that the many issues related to
    the Department of Defense medical programs will be addressed
    this day. I look forward to your statements. I would like to
    welcome you all once again, and I now call upon our first
    witness, General Kiley.
        General Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        Senator Inouye. Before we proceed, do you have any
    statement. Excuse me, sir.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. I would just repeat your statement, sir. I
    second everything you said, and welcome the Surgeon Generals
    and the Chiefs of the Nursing Corps. I look forward to working
    with you to try and fix some of these challenges that you have
    mentioned. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Shelby.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, I'll be short. I'll be short
    here.
        Over the last 2 weeks, along with the rest of the country,
    I've been shocked to learn about the appalling and unacceptable
    conditions in which some wounded war veterans are living at
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I think that how well we care
    for our wounded service members when they return home from war
    in itself has profound moral implications.
        Does this instance show that we're failing to meet our most
    basic obligations to those who fight our battles? I believe
    that we all agree that our service members, in particular our
    combat veterans, deserve the best facilities and care in the
    world. Reports that our war injured are recuperating in
    substandard housing have shed light on a massive failure which
    I believe is inexcusable on every level.
        Yet what is perhaps more disturbing is, this problem is
    likely not the isolated incident I hoped it would be. The
    problem clearly goes deep, beyond the facilities at Walter
    Reed. And, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for this hearing. We're
    not looking for scapegoats, but we're looking for
    responsibility and we're looking to correction because we owe
    it to our soldiers.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby

        Over the last two weeks, I, along with the country, have
    been shocked to learn about the appalling and unacceptable
    conditions in which some wounded war veterans are living in at
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
        How well we care for our wounded servicemembers when they
    return home from war, in itself, has profound moral
    implications. Does this incident show that we are failing to
    meet our most basic obligations to those who fight our battles?
        Since 2002, we have sent hundreds of thousands of our armed
    forces into combat zones. With great medical advances in
    battlefield care, more of our servicemembers are surviving than
    in any previous war--nearly 50,000 from the conflict in Iraq
    and Afghanistan alone. The killed-in-action rate for Operation
    Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom is 12.5 percent, compared to
    18.6 percent for the first Gulf War and Vietnam, and 25.3
    percent for World War II. The care a servicemember receives in
    a combat zone or immediately following should be commended.
    Yet, what the Walter Reed incident shows is that there is
    clearly a major breakdown in our military health care system
    once a servicemember returns home. And this should not be the
    case.
        I believe we all agree that our servicemembers, and in
    particular our combat veterans, deserve the best facilities and
    care in the world. Reports that our war-injured are
    recuperating in substandard housing have shed light on a
    massive failure, which is inexcusable on every level.
        Yet, what is perhaps more disturbing is that this problem
    is likely not an isolated incident. This problem clearly goes
    beyond the facilities at Walter Reed. That is why we must take
    steps to improve the quality of the facilities at Walter Reed,
    but also to ensure that these standards are maintained
    throughout the entire Department of Defense health care system.
        If these issues are not addressed now, they will only get
    worse as the system becomes further stressed with more veterans
    returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Our support for our men and women who wear the uniform
    cannot end when they leave the battlefield. The cost of war
    cannot simply include funding our weapon systems. It must
    include the cost of taking care of our servicemembers who fight
    in it. To deliver anything other than the very best would be
    shameful.

        Senator Inouye. Senator Murray.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Senator Stevens, and I want to thank our witnesses for being
    here today, and I want to thank those service members who care
    for their sick and injured comrades, both in theater and back
    here at home.
        I am very concerned that while we have dedicated people,
    they are working in a system that is failing our soldiers. From
    what I have been hearing, Walter Reed is just the tip of the
    iceberg. This morning the Seattle Times detailed serious
    problems at the medical holdover unit at Madigan Army Medical
    Center in my home State.
        It detailed soldiers who are left to languish in medical
    units for nearly 2 years, soldiers who are being hurried out of
    DOD care before they receive the surgery they need, being given
    low disability ratings that don't reflect their injuries and
    deny them an Army disability pension, and being pressured to
    sign their medical evaluations to get them off the DOD books.
    If these reports are true, then the Pentagon is failing our
    service members at exactly the time that they need the most
    support, and that is really shameful and unacceptable.
        The Seattle Times article quotes Pamela Lane, whose
    husband, Specialist Steve Lane, was sent home without being
    diagnosed for traumatic brain injury. His wife said, ``I want
    people to know that if their loved ones are there, they will
    have to fight for their care. If they do not, they will get
    lost in the system.''
        The article says that soldiers who push for help are
    branded as malcontents, and there are conflicting reports. One
    soldier told the Tacoma News Tribune that he received excellent
    care and generally good casework at Madigan, but he also said,
    and I quote, ``If you want your care, you really have to fight
    for it. Their strategy,'' and I'm quoting him, ``is to get you
    so disgruntled that you just say screw it and go home.''
        So we've got, Mr. Chairman, very talented medical
    professionals who are trapped in a system that doesn't let them
    do their jobs fully, and to me that is an outrage. General
    Kiley, you're in charge of this system. I hold you accountable
    for every disturbing story I'm hearing in my home State, and
    I'm here today because I want answers.
        Walter Reed exposed the problems with military medical
    care, and the latest stories out of my home State show that the
    problems are much deeper and more painful than moldy walls and
    redtape.
        General, I want you to know many soldiers are very worried
    that if they speak out publicly, they're going to be punished
    or it will end their military careers. I want your personal
    assurance today that any soldier who blows the whistle on
    substandard care will not be retaliated against.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    members of the military. First of all, I think today we all
    know we were filled with shock and awe about what we have
    learned about the dysfunctional outpatient care system, both
    with military medicine as well as VA.
        We know that within this subcommittee we've been dealing
    with some of the structural issues confronting military
    medicine, the intensity of the nursing shortage and other
    allied health people supporting our doctors. We know the ops
    tempo has literally been a high burnout rate, as well as the
    grim and ghoulish injuries that are faced in theater. We
    actually salute those men and women in military medicine that
    have been delivering acute care from the battlefield until they
    arrive back home in these hospitals.
        But, however, we have now 22,000 Purple Heart men and
    women. We owe them a debt of gratitude related to what we need
    to do in terms of the next steps, and the next steps fall into
    outpatient care, rehabilitation medicine, and long-term care
    and assisted living. We have to look at care, facilities,
    social workers, and even the dysfunctional disability system
    itself.
        Yes, we have visited Walter Reed, and yes, we have visited
    other places. Some aspects are working wonderfully. Many staff
    are performing heroically, both in danger to their own lives on
    the battlefield, but at the ops tempo, whether it's in Germany
    or back here.
        We want to get to the bottom of this, so that we not just
    have phrases and yellow ribbons and ``We're going to stand up
    for our wounded warriors.'' I believe promises made are
    promises kept. We said, ``If you will go and fight for us, we
    will fight for you when you come back home.'' That's what we're
    here to do. We're here to fight for those wounded warriors, and
    all those who were wounded that we might not yet know how they
    were wounded, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.

              PREPARED STATEMENTS OF SENATORS BOND AND MC CONNELL

        Before you start General Kiley, I have received statements
    from Senators Christopher Bond and Mitch McConnell which I will
    place in the record at this point.
        [The statements follow:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond

        Thank you for appearing here today. The reports detailing
    the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center have gotten
    just about everyone's attention and if that means the quality
    of care for our military forces and our veterans improves then
    who can complain?
        LT GEN Kiley, your staff should have relayed to you my
    interest in revisiting an investigation I conducted along with
    my colleague Senator Leahy on the conditions for soldiers on a
    medical hold status at Fort Stewart back in October 2003. We
    issued a report on our findings, dated October 24, 2003.
    Paragraph three of the report, under the Summary, reads like a
    current recount of problems at WRAMC. ``The situation at Fort
    Stewart unfortunately was, and remains, hampered by an
    insufficient number of medical clinicians and specialists,
    which has caused excessive delays in the delivery of care.
    Exacerbating the situation, was the Army's placement of wounded
    and injured soldiers in housing totally unsuitable for their
    medical condition.''
        I call your attention to this report because the problems
    at WRAMC have been encountered before and they relate directly
    to the quality, and timeliness of care, and the administrative
    processing for injured soldiers. Furthermore, shortly after our
    staff visited Fort Stewart, they traveled to Fort Knox and
    observed that the military care system there was not optimized
    to care for, and expeditiously process, soldiers injured in
    Iraq and subsequently determined to be unqualified for further
    duty.
        Fast forward to 2007 and we find similar problems. Our
    findings do not negate the tremendous care and support so many
    of our soldiers and their families are receiving. One of the
    reasons for my visit was to meet a fellow Missourian recovering
    from a sniper's bullet that he encountered just four days prior
    to his scheduled end of tour date. This soldier and his mother
    were thankful for the care he was receiving and remain
    confident that they are receiving the finest care available--
    anywhere. I also met a soldier recovering from PTSD in the
    outpatient clinic. I asked this soldier about the quality of
    care and was told that it was outstanding. I asked her how she
    would explain the recent media reports on WRAMC and she
    replied, ``I should know, I am here every day, they are not.''
    I do not mean in any way to question the reports of others, but
    I recount a few of my conversations to share my observation
    that the best service the Army provides can be sullied in a
    moment by failing to serve just one soldier properly. I am sure
    you realize the gravity of the situation we are in. Perceptions
    are hard nuts to crack and we in government now must work
    overtime to regain the public's confidence.
                                    ------

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mitch McConnell

        I am deeply concerned about the recent details that have
    come to light regarding the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
    Our brave soldiers deserve the best possible care and the
    situation at Walter Reed is unacceptable.
        I commend both Secretary Gates and the President for their
    responsive action to this urgent problem. I am pleased they
    have acted quickly to address the long-term needs of our active
    duty warriors and veterans--not only at Walter Reed--but at
    military health service facilities across the country.
        My home state of Kentucky is home to Ireland Army Community
    Hospital at Fort Knox and Blanchfield Army Community Hospital
    at Fort Campbell. Kentucky is home to 360,000 veterans. The
    Kentucky National Guard has sent more than 3,200 men and women
    into combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. For
    Kentuckians, the situation involving the health care of our
    brave men and women in the military and veterans is not an
    abstract issue. It is a very real and immediate one.

        Senator Inouye. May I now recognize General Kiley.
        General Kiley. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Stevens and distinguished members. Thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the current posture of the Army Medical
    Department and any of the subjects that you have raised. I'll
    be happy to talk to the best of my knowledge on that.
        On any given day more than 12,000 Army medics, physicians,
    dentists, veterinarians, nurses, and other allied health
    professionals, administrators, and combat medics are deployed
    around the world, supporting our Army in combat, participating
    in humanitarian assistance missions and training throughout the
    world.
        The modern battlefield is incredibly complex, and Army
    medicine is engaged in every phase of deployment. Every soldier
    who deploys must meet our individual medical readiness
    standards, and once deployed our health professionals not only
    care for the wounded but sustain medical readiness to ensure
    combat effectiveness of deployed units.
        More than 50 percent of the Army Medical Department has
    deployed at least once to care for soldiers, sailors, airmen,
    and marines during the global war on terrorism, and their
    superb performance during this war cannot be understated. They
    are involved in more than caring for combat casualties.
        Last year Army medics supported our Nation's national
    military strategy, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but through
    nation-building and humanitarian assistance in other countries.
    Our medical logistics system has moved more than 17,000 short
    tons of medical supplies into Iraq and Afghanistan, and more
    than 70 percent of the patient care in Iraq is for Iraqi forces
    and Iraqi civilians injured in fighting.
        The toll has been high in terms of cost and human
    sacrifice. Army medics have earned over 220 awards for valor
    and more than 400 Purple Hearts. One hundred and one Army
    medical personnel have given their lives in Iraq and
    Afghanistan.
        These heroes represent all our corps. They are truly the
    best our Nation has to offer and will make any sacrifice in
    defense of their Nation and, most importantly, for the care of
    their patients.
        Despite these sacrifices, the morale of our healthcare
    professionals does remain strong, but I do have concerns about
    the long-term morale of our serving Army medical force, as well
    as the ability to recruit into the future. For the second
    consecutive year the Army fell short of its goal for awarding
    health profession scholarships in both Medical and Dental
    Corps.
        To help make up for these scholarships and make it more
    attractive, the Congress authorized an increase in the monthly
    stipend paid to these recipients, and I thank you for taking
    this important step to improve this critically important
    program. We are working hard to ensure every available
    scholarship is awarded this year, and I would be happy to
    discuss initiatives during the question period.
        The Army Medical Department is quickly integrating lessons
    learned from the battlefield into our training and doctrine,
    not only in military medicine but throughout the United States.
    Army medicine continues to lead the Nation in adopting new
    trauma casualty management techniques. Since 2003 we have
    provided rapid fielding of tourniquets, pressure dressings,
    hemostatic bandages, and the use of factor VII, teaching these
    new lessons at the Army Medical School and Center and in 18 new
    medical simulation training centers where we train our medics
    on the latest tactics, techniques, and procedure in combat
    medicine, to include operations in the tactical environment and
    evacuation. Today more than 17,000 combat medics have been
    trained in these training centers.
        As you have already recognized, post-traumatic stress
    syndrome and traumatic brain injury present long-term
    challenges to our soldiers, our healthcare system and our
    disability evaluation system. We know at least from some
    surveys that 10 to 15 percent of soldiers will be diagnosed
    with post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) within the first
    year after combat, and we know as many as one-third will
    exhibit some symptoms of PTSD, depression, or anxiety over
    time.
        Our screening also suggests that as much as 12 to 20
    percent of our soldiers have reported experiencing a traumatic
    brain injury (TBI) event, which is a significant number, at
    some point during their deployment. But we know very little
    about the most effective treatment strategies to apply in the
    first year after combat for TBI, and I'd be happy to talk some
    more about that also.
        During the last several months I've had the privilege of
    co-chairing the Department of Defense Mental Health Task Force
    with Dr. Shelley MacDermid from Purdue University. This task
    force, comprised of military, civilian, Department of Veterans
    Affairs, and Department of Health and Human Services
    representatives, have conducted site visits around the world to
    evaluate our mental health systems, identify trends and
    problems, and recommend changes to our mental health services.
    We are now drafting our report and will anticipate submitting
    it to Congress on time in May.
        In December 2006 I chartered an Army task force on
    traumatic brain injury, to review our policies, resources,
    research, therapeutics, and the way ahead for traumatic brain
    injury support to our soldiers and their families. This task
    force, led by Brigadier General Don Bradshaw, will include
    subject matter experts from across the Army. He has also
    included representatives from the Wounded Warrior Program, the
    Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and the Department of Veterans
    Affairs, and I expect General Bradshaw to provide me a report
    and recommendations in late spring of this year. I'll come back
    and report those findings to you if you're interested.
        America and Congress have known the long, rich legacy of
    excellence at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and it is a very
    highly regarded facility. Over the last 3 weeks you have
    learned that we are not living up to that legacy, and for that
    I am personally and professionally sorry, and I apologize to
    the soldiers and their families, the Department of Defense, to
    the Members of Congress and to the Nation, for this. I am the
    commander and I share in these failures.
        I also accept the responsibility and the challenge for
    rapid corrective action. Secretary Gates expects decisive
    action now, and he and our soldiers will get it. We're taking
    immediate actions to improve the living conditions at Walter
    Reed. The last soldier in that building, it was reported to me
    this morning, will be leaving to go home today. All the other
    soldiers that were in that building are on the campus in our
    Abrams Hall.
        We're taking steps to improve responsiveness of our leaders
    in our medical system and to enhance support services for
    families of our wounded warriors. We're taking action to put
    into place longer-term solutions for the very complex and
    bureaucratic medical evaluation process that, in fact, does
    impact on our soldiers.
        America's soldiers go to war with the confidence that if
    they are injured, the finest military medical system in the
    world will take care of them, evacuate them, sustain them, and
    ultimately save them. As I have said several times, no soldier
    will charge an objective out of sight of a combat medic or
    corpsman, and by extension, all the way back through the
    evacuation system, Walter Reed is part of that confidence.
        I am committed to regaining confidence not just in Walter
    Reed but across our entire military system. My entire
    professional life is dedicated to the sustainment of that
    confidence. I am worried that these soldiers, at Walter Reed
    and across the world, will lose that confidence if we do not
    act decisively, and I will.
        In closing, let me emphasize that the service and sacrifice
    of our soldiers and their families cannot be measured with
    dollars and cents. The truth is, we owe far more than we can
    ever pay to those who have been wounded and to those who have
    suffered. Thanks to your support, we have been very successful
    in developing and sustaining healthcare delivery systems that
    honor that commitment of our soldiers, retirees, and their
    families to our Nation. I know with your continued support we
    can overcome the present challenges and make this superb
    military healthcare system even better.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for inviting me today to participate in this
    presentation, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General Kiley.
        [The statement follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the current
    posture of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD). During the past 5
    years, military medicine has constantly exceeded any measure of success
    we could establish. By now America is well aware of many of the
    successes of our medical capability and the challenges we face as our
    Army remains engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    During these operations we have recorded the highest casualty
    survivability rate in modern history. More than 90 percent of those
    wounded survive and many return to the Army fully fit for continued
    service. Our investments in medical training, equipment, facilities,
    and research, which you have strongly supported, have paid tremendous
    dividends in terms of safeguarding soldiers from the medical threats of
    the modern battlefield, restoring their health and functionality to the
    maximum extent possible, and reassuring them that the health of their
    families is also secure.
        Army medicine is an integral part of Army readiness and, like the
    Army, is fully engaged in combat operations around the world. On any
    given day more than 12,000 Army medics--physicians, dentists,
    veterinarians, nurses, allied health professionals, administrators, and
    combat medics--are deployed around the world supporting our Army in
    combat, participating in humanitarian assistance missions, and training
    throughout the world. These medics are recruited, trained, and retained
    through a integrated healthcare training and delivery system that
    includes the AMEDD Center and School at Fort Sam Houston, Texas; 36
    medical centers, community hospitals, and clinics around the world;
    and, combat training centers and 18 Medical Simulation Training Centers
    wherever our combat formations are located. It is the synergistic
    effect of this system that enables us to place in our combat formations
    the Nation's best trained medical professionals while always ensuring
    the soldier is medically and dentally ready to withstand the rigors of
    the modern battlefield.
        The modern battlefield is an incredibly complex environment and
    Army medicine is engaged in every phase of deployment. Every soldier
    who deploys must meet individual medical readiness standards. These
    standards are designed to ensure soldiers are medically and dentally
    prepared to withstand the rigors of modern combat. Army medicine
    ensures each soldier is medically fit, has appropriate immunizations,
    and has no active dental disease before they leave the United States or
    Europe.
        Once deployed, our healthcare professionals not only care for those
    wounded but sustain medical readiness to ensure the combat
    effectiveness of deployed units. More than 50 percent of the Army
    Medical Department has deployed to the Central Command area of
    responsibility in support of combat operations. Twenty-six combat
    support hospitals have deployed (4 more than once); 41 forward surgical
    teams have deployed (11 more than once); 11 medical brigade/medical
    command headquarters have deployed (3 more than once); 21 aeromedical
    evacuation units have deployed (11 more than once); and 13 Combat
    Stress Control units have deployed (6 more than once). Like the rest of
    the Army, this operations tempo is beginning to take its toll on the
    equipment and people who are vital to success.
        The superb performance of our healthcare professionals during the
    global war on terror cannot be understated. What America doesn't know
    about these people is they are involved in much more than caring for
    wounded soldiers. AMEDD personnel supported nation building engagements
    not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in 15 countries during 25 medical
    readiness training exercises during fiscal year 2006. Our medical
    logistics system has moved more than 17,000 short tons of medical
    supplies into Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 70 percent of the
    workload in our deployed combat support hospitals is emergency care
    provided to Iraqi forces and Iraqi citizens injured in fighting. Today,
    we maintain one combat support hospital split between two detainee
    facilities in Iraq--providing the same care available to American
    soldiers in Iraq and in compliance with all internationally-recognized
    laws and mores for care of detained persons.
        The toll has been high in terms of cost and human sacrifice. Army
    medics have earned 220 awards for valor and more than 400 purple
    hearts. One hundred and one AMEDD personnel have given their lives in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. These heroes represent every aspect of Army
    medicine including Combat and Special Forces medics, Army Nurse Corps,
    Army Medical Specialist Corps, Army Medical Service Corps, Army Medical
    Corps, and Army Veterinary Corps. These men and women are truly the
    best our Nation has to offer and will make any sacrifice in defense of
    their Nation and, most importantly, for the care of their patients.
        Despite these sacrifices the morale of our healthcare professionals
    remains strong. Some data indicates that a deployment leads to
    increased retention for our physicians and we are looking carefully at
    the impact of deployments on nurses and other health professionals. The
    Deputy Surgeon General recently hosted a Human Capital Strategy
    Symposium to address growing concerns within Army medicine about
    accessions/retention, including well-being issues which have a direct
    impact on morale. In an effort to maintain and improve the morale of
    the Army's medical force, my staff has been working to make
    improvements to the monetary incentives offered as accessions and
    retention tools. Most recently, we established a 180-day deployment
    policy for select specialties, established a physician's assistant
    critical skills retention bonus to increase the retention of
    physician's assistants, increased the Incentive Special Pay (ISP)
    Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, and expanded used of the Health
    Professions Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). The physician's assistant
    and nurse anesthetist bonuses have been very successful in retaining
    these providers who are critically important to our mission on the
    battlefield.
        However, I do have concerns about the long-term morale of our
    serving Army medical force as well as our ability to recruit our future
    force. Fiscal year 2006 presented Army medicine with challenges in
    recruiting healthcare providers. For the second consecutive year, the
    Army fell short of its goals for awarding Health Professions
    Scholarships in both the Medical Corps (79 percent of available
    scholarships awarded) and Dental Corps (70 percent of scholarships
    awarded). These scholarships are by far the major source of accessions
    for physicians and dentists. This presents a long-term manning
    challenge beginning in fiscal year 2009. As part of the 2007 National
    Defense Authorization Act, the Congress provided important authorities
    to allow the Secretary of Defense to increase the monthly stipend paid
    to scholarship recipients. These increases will make this program more
    attractive to prospective students and ease the financial burden they
    face as students. Thank you for taking this important step to improve
    this critically important program. We are working hard to ensure every
    available scholarship is awarded this year. In conjunction with United
    States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) we have initiated several new
    outreach programs to improve awareness of these programs and to
    increase interest in a career in Army Medicine.
        The Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) is a primary source for
    our Nurse Corps Force. In recent years, ROTC has had challenges in
    meeting the required number of Nurse Corps accessions and as a
    consequence, USAREC has been asked to recruit a larger number of direct
    accession nurses to fill the gap. This has been difficult in an
    extremely competitive market. In fiscal year 2006, USAREC achieved 84
    percent of its Nurse Corps mission (goal of 430 with 362 achieved). To
    assist USAREC we have instituted an accession bonus for 3-year
    obligation and have increased the bonus amount for those who obligate
    for 4 years. Additionally, we raised the dollar amount that we offer
    individuals who enter our Army Nurse Candidate Program to $5,000 per
    year for max of 2 years with a $1,000 per month stipend. In 2005, we
    increased the multi-year bonuses we offer to Certified Registered Nurse
    Anesthetists with emphasis on incentives for multi-year agreements. A
    year's worth of experience indicates that this increased bonus, 180-day
    deployments, and a revamped Professional Filler system to improve
    deployment equity is helping to retain CRNAs.
        The Reserve Components provide over 60 percent of Army Medicine's
    force structure and we have relied heavily on these citizen soldiers
    during the last 3 years. They have performed superbly. But accessions
    and retention in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve continue to
    be a challenge. In fiscal year 2005 we expanded accessions bonuses to
    field surgeons, social workers, clinical psychologists, all company
    grade nurses and veterinarians in the Army National Guard and Army
    Reserve. We also expanded the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program
    and the Specialized Training Assistance Program for these specialties.
    In February 2006, we introduced a Baccalaureate of Science in Nursing
    (BSN) stipend program to assist non-BSN nurses complete their 4-year
    degree in nursing. This is an effective accessions and retention tool
    for Reserve Component Nurses who have only completed a 2-year
    associates degree in nursing. Working with the Chief of the Army
    Reserve and the Director of the Army National Guard, we continue to
    explore ways to improve Reserve Component accessions and retention for
    this important group.
        The high operations tempo has also placed strain on our equipment.
    The fiscal year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation request and
    the fiscal year 2008 budget request adequately funds the replacement
    and reset medical equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as
    equipment organic to units deploying to and redeploying from the Middle
    East. One area that requires our focused attention is the need for an
    armored ground ambulance. Because our current ground (wheeled)
    ambulances are not armored they are not employed outside the Forward
    Operating Bases on a regular basis. When the ground ambulances have
    operated outside the FOB perimeter it has led to the death of some
    medical personnel, and it reduces a maneuver commander's ability to
    employ ground ambulances in support of combat operations. The Army's
    modernization plan addresses this issue and your continued support of
    the Future Combat System, which includes an armored ground ambulance,
    will help alleviate this problem.
        America does not know that the Army Medical Department is a
    learning organization that seeks to quickly integrate lessons learned
    from the battlefield into healthcare training and doctrine not only in
    military medicine but throughout the United States as well. Most of the
    emergency medical response doctrine in practice in the United States
    today evolved from medical experiences in the jungles of Southeast Asia
    in the late 1960's. Today, Army medicine continues to lead the Nation
    in adopting new trauma casualty management techniques. Since 2003 we
    have provided rapid fielding of improved tourniquets, new pressure
    dressings, and the use of hemostatic bandages that promote clotting.
    Training for all soldiers in initial entry training has been revised
    and we continually revise Combat Lifesaver and Combat Medic training
    based on lessons learned on the battlefield.
        These lessons learned are incorporated in our doctrine taught at
    the Army Medical Department Center and School and in 18 new Medical
    Simulation Training Centers across the Army designed to ensure all
    Combat Medics are trained on the most current combat casualty care
    techniques under fire, in a tactical environment, and during
    evacuation. To date, more than 17,800 Combat Medics have received
    training in these Medical Simulation Training Centers which use
    computerized mannequins that simulate human response to trauma. Medics
    can practice their skills in combat scenarios at their duty station.
    Live tissue training is an integral part of Brigade Combat Team Trauma
    Training, building the confidence of 68W combat medics and providers in
    extremity hemorrhage control with use of various hemostatic agents. Use
    of live tissue best simulates the challenges and stress inherent in
    stopping real bleeding.
        The Improved First Aid Kit (IFAK) is the first major improvement in
    individual soldier care in the past 50 years. Today every soldier
    carries a first aid kit that provides intervention for the leading
    causes of death on the battlefield. The vehicle Warrior Aid Litter Kit
    (WALK) has enhanced the capability of soldiers to save lives when
    vehicles are attacked in theater. This is an expanded version of the
    IFAK with the addition of a collapsible litter to facilitate ground/air
    medical evacuation.
        Hypothermia was leading to poor casualty outcomes and, as a result,
    the Army added new equipment for patient warming and fluid warming to
    medical equipment sets including the combat medic's aid bag, ground and
    air ambulances, the battalion aid station, the Forward Surgical Team,
    and the Combat Support Hospital.
        The Joint Theater Trauma Registry is proving invaluable; rapidly
    collecting the lessons learned and guiding decisions about training,
    equipment and medical supplies based on near real-time data. An
    organized, systematic method to collect information and use it to drive
    improvements will be a key component of future military medical
    operations. As knowledge of the actual experience of U.S. medical units
    in Iraq and Afghanistan has grown, Army medicine has developed a
    Theater Combat Casualty Care Initial Capabilities Document under the
    Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System that captures the
    required capabilities and capability gaps in combat casualty care to
    guide research and development efforts and effect changes in doctrine,
    organizations, training, materiel, leadership, personnel and
    facilities.
        At the same time we are rapidly introducing new medical products
    and practices on the battlefield we are transforming our deployable
    units to better support the Army in combat. Last year we completed a
    reengineering of our aero-medical evacuation units, placing them under
    the command of the Army's General Support Aviation units to improve
    maintenance and training for our Dustoff units. We reviewed the
    doctrinal employment of forward surgical teams to ensure we are making
    the best use of this light, very mobile, far forward surgical
    capability. We also redesigned our Professional Officer Filler System
    (PROFIS) to improve the equity of deployments across regions and
    medical specialties.
        But our successes are evident in other aspects of medical care as
    well. America does not know that U.S. Army Medical Command is a $7
    billion a year business that provides care for more than 3 million
    beneficiaries world-wide. Civilian healthcare executives are frequently
    surprised to find that all of our hospitals and clinics are accredited
    by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.
    Our civilian peers are further surprised when they learn of the quality
    of our graduate medical education programs and the superb quality of
    Army healthcare professionals as evidenced by medical board scores,
    board qualified rates, and graduate and post-graduate education rates.
        This healthcare delivery system is essential to our success on the
    battlefield. It is within this system that our healthcare professionals
    train and maintain their clinical skills in hospitals and clinics at
    Army installations around the world everyday. These facilities provide
    day-to-day healthcare for soldiers to ensure they are ready to deploy;
    allow providers to train and maintain clinical competency with a
    diverse patient population that includes soldiers, retirees, and
    families; serve as medical force projection platforms, and provide
    resuscitative and recuperative healthcare for ill or injured soldiers.
    To accomplish this ambitious mission, we constantly strive to sustain
    appropriate staffing ratios, facility workspace, workload productivity
    and patient case-mix in our direct-care facilities while maintaining
    the right balance with an appropriately sized and supportive network of
    civilian providers for healthcare services we cannot effectively or
    efficiently provide on a day to day basis. In order to remain
    successful, however, we must transform Medical Command along with our
    battlefield system of care.
        The combination of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions,
    Army Modular Force (AMF) redesign and stationing, and the
    transformation of the Global Defense Posture (GDP) have presented us
    with a significant challenge to adapt in support of rapid change. But
    more importantly, these initiatives offer an unprecedented opportunity
    to improve the way we care for patients at affected installations. We
    are working with the Army Corps of Engineers to improve the
    historically long-lead time necessary to plan and execute military
    medical construction projects, especially given limited funding and low
    fiscal thresholds that we must work within. Although it will be a
    significant challenge, the Army Medical Department approaches this
    epoch as an opportunity to make significant strides not only to
    transform, realign and improve our vast and aging infrastructure, but
    also to integrate exciting new acquisition methodologies, cutting edge
    medical technologies, our robust information management system and
    emerging concepts of patient treatment and care, such as Evidence Based
    Design. I am confident that with the help of Congress, we will be able
    to leverage this once in a lifetime opportunity to advance healthcare
    further, by properly aligning and improving the enabling facility
    infrastructure.
        Despite our operations tempo, we have maintained and improved the
    quality of care and timely access to care for soldiers, their families,
    and our retirees. Private sector care enrollment and workload is
    increasing as we continuously evaluate and optimize our facilities'
    enrollment to ensure appropriate personnel and facilities are available
    to meet healthcare demand. We have prioritized workload to support
    casualty care and deployment medical screening, shifting a portion of
    our family member and retiree care to the private sector to ensure they
    will continue to receive continuous high quality care during ongoing
    deployment of our medical personnel. 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 additional enrollees.
        Going to war affects all soldiers. The number of soldiers with Post
    Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other stress-related symptoms has
    gradually risen. The AMEDD has been supporting our soldiers at war for
    5 years, during 9/11 at the Pentagon, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and
    around the globe. But America does not know about the extensive array
    of mental health services has long been available for soldiers and
    their families. Since 9/11, the Army has augmented behavioral health
    services and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) counseling
    throughout the world, but especially at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
    and at the major Army installations where we mobilize, train, deploy,
    and demobilize Army forces. Demand for these services will not decrease
    in 2007 and we are committed to providing the long-term resources
    necessary to effectively care for soldiers and families dealing with a
    wide variety of stress-related disorders.
        Soldiers are also now receiving a global health assessment, with a
    focus on behavioral health, 90 to 180 days after redeployment. This
    assessment, the Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA), includes
    an interview with a health care provider. The PDHRA provides soldiers
    an opportunity to identify any new physical or behavioral health
    concerns they may be experiencing that may not have been present
    immediately after their redeployment. This new program has been very
    effective in identifying soldiers who are experiencing some of the
    symptoms of stress-related disorders and getting them the care they
    need before their symptoms manifest into more serious problems.
        The AMEDD is also performing behavioral health surveillance and
    research in an unprecedented manner. There have been four Mental Health
    Advisory Teams (MHATs) performing real time surveillance in the theater
    of operations, three in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Colonel Charles
    Hoge has led a team from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in
    a wide variety of behavioral health research activities. His research
    shows that generally the most seriously affected by PTSD are those most
    exposed to frequent direct combat.
        Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in 2003 there
    has been a robust Combat and Operational Stress Control presence in
    theater. Today, more than 170 Army behavioral health providers are
    deployed in Iraq and another 25 are deployed in Afghanistan. Air Force
    and Navy mental health teams are also deployed and supporting soldiers,
    sailors, airmen, and marines in Iraq and Kuwait. The MHAT reports
    demonstrate both the successes and some of the limitations of these
    combat stress control teams. Based on MHAT recommendations, we have
    improved the distribution of behavioral health providers and expertise
    throughout the theater. Access to care and quality of care have
    improved as a result.
        There is a perceived stigma associated with seeking mental health
    care, both in the military and civilian world and we must take action
    to address this problem. Therefore we are moving to integrate
    behavioral health care into primary care, wherever feasible. Our pilot
    program at Fort Bragg, Respect.Mil, which provides education, screening
    tools, and treatment guidelines to primary care providers, was very
    successful. We are in the process of implementing this program at 13
    other sites across the Army.
        We continue to assess the access to and quality of our services
    using both internal and external methods. I directed and funded a
    review of behavioral healthcare services available across Army
    installations. This review is just being completed and will augment the
    impressions I have been developing as the co-chair of the Department of
    Defense (DOD) Mental Health Task Force, created by the fiscal year 2006
    National Defense Authorization Act. This task force, comprised of
    military, civilian, Department of Veteran's Affairs, and Department of
    Health and Human Services representatives is conducting site visits
    around the world to evaluate mental health systems, identify trends and
    to recommend changes to our mental health services. The task force will
    complete its work and submit its report to Congress in May 2007.
        Training in behavioral health issues is ongoing in numerous forums.
    The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research has developed a training
    program called ``Battlemind''. Prior to this war there were no
    empirically validated training strategies to mitigate combat-related
    mental health problems, and we have been evaluating this post-
    deployment training using scientifically rigorous methods with good
    initial results. This new risk communication strategy was developed
    based on lessons learned from Colonel Hoge's Land Combat Study and
    other efforts. It is a strengths-based approach that highlights the
    skills that helped soldiers survive in combat instead of focusing on
    the negative effects of combat. Two post-deployment training modules
    have been developed, including one version that involves video
    vignettes, that emphasizes safety and personal relationships,
    normalizing combat-related mental health symptoms, and teaching
    soldiers to look out for each other's mental health.
        The acronym ``Battlemind'' identifies 10 combat skills that if
    adapted will facilitate the transition home. An example is the concept
    of how soldiers who have high tactical and situational awareness in the
    operational environment may experience hypervigilence when they get
    home. The post-deployment Battlemind training has been incorporated
    into the Army Deployment Cycle Support Program, and is being utilized
    at Department of Veterans' Affairs Vet Centers and other settings. We
    have also been developing pre-deployment resiliency training for
    leaders and soldiers preparing to deploy to combat using the same
    Battlemind training principals, as well as training for spouses of
    soldiers involved in combat deployments.
        Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is emerging as a common blast-related
    injury. TBI is a broad grouping of injuries that range from mild
    concussions to penetrating head wounds. An overwhelming majority of TBI
    patients have mild and moderate concussion syndromes with symptoms not
    different from those experienced by athletes with a history of
    concussions. Many of these symptoms are similar to post-traumatic
    stress symptoms, especially the symptoms of difficulty concentrating
    and irritability. It is important for all providers to be able to
    recognize these similarities and consider the effects of blast
    exposures in their diagnoses. Through the Defense and Veterans Brain
    Injury Center (DVBIC), headquartered at Walter Reed, we understand a
    lot about moderate to severe TBI, including severe closed head trauma,
    stroke, and penetrating head wounds. What we do not fully understand is
    the long-term effects of mild concussion or multiple mild concussion on
    soldier performance. Through Congress' support of the DVBIC has been
    instrumental in providing the DOD with a firm foundation to quickly
    improve our understanding of mild TBI, but we must move quickly to fill
    this knowledge gap.
        In December 2006 I chartered an Army Task Force on TBI to review
    our policies and resources dedicated to TBI from scientific research,
    acute diagnosis and treatment, to long-term rehabilitation. This task
    force, led by Brigadier General Don Bradshaw, will include subject
    matter experts from across Army medicine. I have also invited the Navy,
    Air Force, and Department of Veterans' Affairs to have representatives
    participate in the task force. I expect General Bradshaw to provide me
    a report and recommendations by late spring 2007.
        America does not know that rapid growth in national healthcare
    costs threaten our medical system and, ultimately, Army readiness. The
    Army requires a robust military medical system to meet the medical
    readiness needs of active duty service members in both war and peace,
    and to train and sustain the skills of our uniformed physicians,
    nurses, and combat medics as they care for family members, retirees,
    and retiree family members. Therefore we share the DOD's concern that
    the explosive growth in our healthcare costs jeopardizes our resources,
    not only to the military health system but in other operational areas
    as well.
        DOD continues to explore opportunities to help control costs within
    the DHP and in many of these initiatives the Army leads the way in
    implementation and innovation. In 2006, I implemented a performance-
    based budget adjustment model throughout the Army Medical Command. This
    model accounts for provider availability, workload intensity, proper
    coding of medical records, and the use of outcome measures of as
    quality indicators to adjust hospital and clinic funding levels to
    reflect the actual cost of delivering healthcare. The Southeast
    Regional Medical Command implemented an early version of this system in
    2005 where it showed great promise. This enterprise-wide model focuses
    command attention on the business of delivering quality healthcare. It
    is a data-driven methodology that enables commanders at all levels to
    receive fast feedback on their organization's performance. Finally, the
    use of clinical practice guidelines encourages efficiency by using
    nationally accepted models for disease management. These adjustments
    provide my commanders the ability to reward high-performing activities,
    encourage best-business opportunities, and exceed industry-standard
    wellness practices.
        Fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 will be challenging years for
    the Defense Health Program (DHP) and Army medicine. Our estimates for
    cost growth through 2013 are not complete, but we are still witnessing
    sizable growth in the number of TRICARE-reliant beneficiaries in our
    system, and the pressures on the defense budget grow. Military health
    care costs continue to increase substantially. The fiscal year 2008
    President's budget request includes a legislative proposal that aligns
    TRICARE premiums and co-payments for working age retirees (under age
    65-years) with general health insurance plans. The Department may
    modify or supplement this request after it considers recommendations
    from the Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of Military
    Health Care that has been recently established with distinguished
    membership from within the Department, other Federal agencies and the
    civilian sector. A key area the task force will study and on which it
    will make recommendations is ``beneficiary and government cost-sharing
    structure.'' We believe this and the other recommendations they make
    will markedly benefit the MHS in the future.
        Simply put, the Department and Congress must work together to allow
    the Department to make necessary changes to the TRICARE benefit to
    better manage the long-term cost structure of our program. Failure to
    do so will harm military healthcare and the overall capabilities of the
    Department of Defense--outcomes we cannot afford.
        The Army continues to support the development of a Unified Medical
    Command and is working closely with our sister services and the Joint
    Staff to realize the full potential of this initiative. A fully
    functional unified command represents an opportunity to reduce multiple
    management layers within DOD's medical structure, inspire collaboration
    in medical training and research, and gain true efficiencies in
    healthcare delivery. These changes need to be made in conjunction with
    BRAC implementation and other actions to sustain the benefit if we are
    to realize the full potential of a streamlined, more responsive command
    and control structure.
        The DHP is a critical element of Army medical readiness. Healthy
    soldiers capable of withstanding the rigors of modern combat; who know
    their families have access to quality, affordable healthcare, whether
    the soldier is home with them or off to combat; and who are confident
    when they retire they will have access to that same quality healthcare
    is an incredibly powerful weapon system. Every dollar invested in the
    DHP does much more than just provide health insurance to the
    Department's beneficiaries. Each dollar is truly an investment in
    military readiness. In OIF and OEF that investment has paid enormous
    dividends.
        America has long known of the rich legacy of excellence for which
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center is so highly regarded. The issues
    highlighted in the Washington Post articles are not due to a lack of
    funding or support from Congress, the administration, or the Department
    of Defense. Nor are they indicative of any lowering of standards by the
    WRAMC leadership. We are aggressively working to address the problems
    highlighted in the media, both internally and in conjunction with the
    independent review panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense. Walter
    Reed represents a legacy of excellence in patient care, medical
    research and medical education. I can assure you that the quality of
    medical care and the compassion of our staff continue to uphold Walter
    Reed's legacy. But it is also evident that we must improve our
    facilities, accountability, and administrative processes to ensure
    those systems meet the high standards of excellence that our men and
    women in uniform so richly deserve.
        In closing let me emphasize that the service and sacrifice of our
    soldiers--and their families--cannot be measured with dollars and
    cents. The truth is that we owe far more than we can ever pay to those
    who have been wounded and to those who have suffered loss. Thanks to
    your support, we have been very successful in developing and sustaining
    a healthcare delivery system that honors the commitment our soldiers,
    retirees, and their families make to our Nation by providing them with
    world-class medical care and peerless military force protection.
        Thank you again for inviting me to participate in this discussion
    today. I look forward to answering your questions.

        Senator Inouye. And may I now recognize Vice Admiral Donald
    C. Arthur, Surgeon General of the Navy. Admiral?
    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL DONALD C. ARTHUR, SURGEON
                GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
        Admiral Arthur. Good morning, Senator Inouye, Senator
    Stevens, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you
    very much for recognizing the corpsmen and, by extension, the
    medics, and their contribution to the warfight.
        We have throughout history relied on our corpsmen to
    provide the first level of care, and although we have very well
    trained surgeons, nurses, and others far forward to do surgery,
    no marine, no soldier gets to a surgeon without having first
    been cared for by a corpsman or combat medic. We take our
    obligation to them seriously. Through the lessons learned
    system we have modified and improved their trauma training
    throughout their training back here at home, so that they are
    proficient at their combat skills when they get into combat.
        I also appreciate the collaboration between the three
    services, so that a soldier or a marine can get care at a Navy
    or an Army facility on the ground, be flown by the Air Force
    with their critical care air transport teams to Landstuhl and
    back to the United States in 36 to 48 hours, and be met by
    their family at one of our facilities back home. We are in
    combat today. We take that obligation very, very seriously.
        We are in combat also here in the United States, within our
    own system. We have been given efficiency wedges which have cut
    our budget. We have been given military-to-civilian conversion
    objectives. We have had our staff cut without conversions. And
    with these financial and personnel challenges, we may very well
    find it difficult to meet our combat missions in the future.
        We have been given many medical readiness review
    assumptions that minimize the number of casualties that are
    expected in the future, minimize the number of deployments that
    we will have, minimize the biological or chemical warfare agent
    threat, minimize or even eliminate the homeland security/
    humanitarian assistance and homeland defense components of our
    mission, and we will find, I think, those missions to be very
    difficult to meet in the future.
        We are concentrating very heavily during this war on
    traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorders
    because we have come to have a new realization of the magnitude
    of the combat stress that each of our veterans experience. When
    I first became Surgeon General, I had a brief that said that 25
    percent of people that go into combat are significantly
    affected by the experience. I disagreed, and still do. I think
    it's 100 percent.
        Having been in combat myself with the marines in 1991, I
    can tell you that everyone who experiences combat is
    significantly affected by the experience, and they develop a
    debt that we need to repay as soon as they come back. We need
    to be sensitive to their needs to readjust. The challenge is
    great for us because we do not want to see it in their
    employers, in their families or other indicators, where we have
    failed to recognize it first and taken effective action.
        I think we are becoming even more sensitive to mild
    traumatic brain injury and its effects on cognition, on mental
    function. I am acutely aware of this. You know that last year I
    was in a motorcycle accident with significant period
    unconsciousness which followed that, and I can tell you that it
    took many months to regain my memory, calculation, and some of
    my higher executive skills after that injury. That was a mild
    traumatic brain injury. So I'm sensitive to the fact that you
    may not pick it up in the normal tests that we give to our
    casualties.
        It may come up with the casualty coming to us and saying,
    ``You know, I have trouble reading a menu. I can't decide what
    to have. Even though I know what I want, I can't make a
    decision.'' And that may be a subtle sign of traumatic brain
    injury.
        We look forward to additional collaboration with the
    Veterans Administration as we become really one seamless system
    of Federal care for our veterans. We know that there are
    challenges with the medical records system, and we're dedicated
    to providing all of the medical record information that our
    veterans need to get care in the system.
        We know that the Veterans Administration has polytrauma
    centers and has the expertise in traumatic brain injury, spinal
    cord injury, and other very serious veterans' injuries, and we
    work with them in collaboration with all their centers. We use
    them not only for care of veterans who are discharged from the
    service but also for some of our veterans who will come back to
    active duty. I think the Navy's DOD/VA collaboration in Great
    Lakes, where we have truly combined the two facilities, is a
    good benchmark for how it can be done and also a test bed for
    where we can further integrate our electronic medical record
    systems.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, I have 2 days ago
    submitted my request for voluntary retirement after 32 years of
    naval service. It is my time to turn over to the next Surgeon
    General of the Navy, and I want to tell you how very honored I
    have been to wear this uniform for 32 years, to be in front of
    you with great pride in how we are serving our veterans. We
    have a philosophy in our system, that the honor of our care
    should be directly proportional to the courage of our veterans.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
        Senator Inouye. Admiral, I'm certain I speak for the
    subcommittee. I thank you very much for your service to our
    Nation.
        Admiral Arthur. It's been an honor, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, 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 across the globe and at home.
        Navy medicine remains steadfast in its commitment to provide care
    on the battlefield and meet the health care needs of our beneficiaries,
    active duty, reservists, military retirees, and family members, as our
    Nation continues to be engaged in combat operations fighting the Global
    War on Terror (GWOT).
        We are dedicated to maintaining a healthy and fit force that is
    ready to deploy and to deploying medical personnel to provide the best
    health care to our warriors on the battlefield. And when that is not
    enough, we are committed to restoring the health of those injured on
    the battlefield.
        At the same time, we are responsible for ensuring access to world-
    class health care for all eligible beneficiaries. Meeting these
    missions are an exceptional team of military, active and reserve, and
    civilian health care professionals who perform their duties with the
    same enthusiasm in deployed settings as well as at our Medical
    Treatment Facilities (MTFs).
      defense health program and navy medicine budget for fiscal year 2008
        In recent years, Navy medicine faced many fiscal challenges and
    anticipates that some will continue throughout fiscal year 2008. The
    President's budget for fiscal year 2008 funds healthcare operations;
    authorizes 1,011 military to civilian conversions; includes funding for
    the GWOT requirement; and assumes savings and efficiencies in several
    areas.
        Fiscal year 2008 provides funding challenges in that the efficiency
    wedge increases and certain assumptions regarding savings opportunities
    may not be borne out in execution. These reductions represent
    leadership and management challenges, which we must meet. We are
    vigorously integrating our fiscal challenges, and our military to
    civilian conversion program, into an ongoing business process review
    that is designed to make Navy medicine an efficient, effective care
    provider.
        As you know, the Department of Defense faces tremendous difficulty
    with balancing the growing costs and long-term sustainability of the
    military health system. We will need to consider all options available
    to ensure a superior benefit remains available for the long term and we
    look forward to the recommendations on fiscal and other issues that
    will come from the Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of
    Military Health Care that has recently been established with
    distinguished membership from within the Department, other Federal
    agencies, and the civilian sector.
                              combat casualty care
        We have made significant advances in combat casualty care and have
    redefined trauma management for military operational medicine. Navy
    medicine is continuously assessing its medical capabilities to make
    improvements resulting in real time adjustments to ensure the right
    health care capabilities are deployed as far forward as possible. These
    improvements are based on our experience and lessons learned, and on
    the requirements mandated by the warfighter. As a result of these
    improvements, only 2-3 percent of service members who are wounded and
    who reach medical care within 60 minutes are dying from their injuries.
        One of the most important contributors to saving lives on the
    battlefield, historically and currently, is Navy corpsmen--Navy
    medicine's first responders on the battlefield. The platoon corpsmen
    are supported by a team of field surgeons, nurses, medical technicians
    and support personnel in theater, who are supported by medical
    evacuation teams and overseas MTFs working together with MTFs in the
    United States--this is the Navy medicine continuum of care.
        Combat casualty care is a ``continuum-of-care,'' which begins with
    corpsmen in the field with the marines; progresses to forward
    resuscitative care; on to theater level care; and culminates in care
    provided in route during patient evacuation to a military hospital.
    Medical care is being provided in Iraq and Afghanistan by organic
    Marine Corps health services units which include Battalion Aid Stations
    (BAS), shock trauma platoons, surgical companies, and Forward
    Resuscitative Surgical Systems. Our forward-deployed assets include
    Navy surgical capabilities located in Al Asad and Taqaddum. These units
    are the first oasis of care for many warfighters who are seriously
    wounded fighting insurgents. At Al Asad the majority of the injuries
    treated have been from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). They
    provide patient resuscitation and stabilization for helicopter medical
    evacuations to higher-capability medical facilities, something no other
    medical unit in the surrounding area can offer.
        Sailors at the medical unit in Taqaddum treat the most serious of
    patients from the entire area of operations, most arriving by
    helicopter directly from the battlefield. The platoon is staffed by
    dedicated and highly skilled uniformed medical personnel who stand in
    harm's way ready to fight for the lives of our wounded service members.
        Changes have been made in the training of the physicians, nurses
    and corpsmen who first encounter injured service members, as well as to
    the way certain types of injuries are treated. In addition, new combat
    casualty care capabilities such as one-handed tourniquets and robust
    vehicle first-aid kits for use during convoys are being deployed. Navy
    fleet hospital transformation is currently redesigning Expeditionary
    Medical Facilities (EMFs) to become lighter, modular, more mobile, and
    interoperable with other Services' facilities in theater.
        As EMFs continue to evolve, so do Navy Medicine's Forward
    Deployable Preventive Medicine Units (FDPMU). These units include
    environmental health and preventive medicine professionals who play a
    critical role in force health protection services, including
    environmental site assessments, water quality analysis, and disease
    vector surveillance and control. The Marine Corps' remain the FDPMU's
    primary customer, however, these teams also provide preventive medicine
    support to Naval Construction Battalions/Seabee Units, Army, and Air
    Force personnel. Currently, the Navy has four FDPMUs, with teams that
    have deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
        Navy medicine's commitment to the warfighter is clearly seen in the
    combat casualty care provided to injured and ill marines and sailors
    engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and OIF since the beginning
    of the GWOT.
        Navy medicine is constantly looking at the next steps in improving
    combat casualty care. Our current efforts center on expansion of our
    health surveillance, combat and operational stress control programs,
    and improving care for certain types of injuries such as traumatic
    brain injury (TBI). Combat casualty care is not limited to the care
    received while in theater, but extends to the information and training
    we provide to service members to prevent physical and mental health
    injuries before, during and after deployment.
        Providing preventive and treatment services as early as possible is
    the best way to avoid or mitigate the long-term effects of war. Navy
    medicine is committed to monitoring the health of deployed service
    members with the use of pre- and post-deployment health assessments.
    These assessment tools are designed to identify potential issues of
    concern, both physical and mental. The program also provides service
    members information on how to access medical services for any physical
    or mental health issues that may occur after returning from deployment.
        We know that all service members who witness or are engaged in
    combat will experience some level of combat stress. To specifically
    address this challenge, Navy medicine launched the Operational Stress
    Control and Readiness (OSCAR) pilot project in January 2004, which
    embedded psychiatrists and psychologists at regimental levels in ground
    Marine Corps units. The primary goal of this program--to effectively
    manage operational stress at the tactical level--is central to the
    readiness of the Marine Corps as a fighting force. To date there are
    three OSCAR teams, one associated with each of the three active USMC
    Divisions: 1st MARDIV located at Camp Pendleton, 2nd MARDIV located at
    Camp Lejeune, and 3rd MARDIV located at Camp Butler (Okinawa). The
    personnel for the OSCAR teams are sourced from Navy MTFs or drawn from
    elsewhere within the Marine Corps structure.
        At Navy and Marine Corps bases across the country, Navy medicine is
    coordinating with line commanders and their organic medical assets to
    establish 13 Deployment Health Clinics (DHCs) to facilitate these
    health assessments. The DHCs serve as a non-stigmatizing point of entry
    for military personnel with deployment health and/or military readiness
    needs. These clinics by design will complement and augment primary care
    services that are offered at the MTFs or in garrison at the unit level
    such as BAS. Services provided will vary with patient and health
    concern, but the services will include screening, counseling and
    initial treatment for family problems, diet and exercise, substance
    abuse, sexual practices, injury prevention, stress, primary care and
    mental health concerns. The goal is to provide appropriate treatment
    for deployment-related concerns in an environment that reduces the
    stigma associated with the service member's condition. The clinics are
    staffed to support increased referrals as deploying units return from
    the theater of operations.
        In order for combat casualty care to be effective, Navy medicine
    has incorporated service members' families into the care model. We
    first launched this concept at the National Naval Medical Center
    several years ago and are now making it part of the way we treat our
    combat casualties at every Navy MTF. Recent developments in this area
    include the establishment of the Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care
    Center (C5) at Naval Medical Center San Diego.
        C5 is based on the models for amputee care developed at Walter Reed
    and Brooke Army Medical Centers, but is expanded to include other types
    of injuries such as TBI and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. C5 will
    monitor and coordinate the medical care of the service member in and
    outside of the MTFs. In addition, C5 will provide support to the
    families in every way possible and focus on ensuring that the service
    members and their families have a smooth transition to civilian life or
    continued military service. When completed, NMCSD will be the
    Department of Defense's comprehensive combat casualty care ``center of
    excellence'' for the west coast.
                        humanitarian and joint missions
        The role of Navy medicine has played in OEF and OIF illustrates
    only part of the increased operational tempo of our medical personnel
    across the spectrum of Navy medicine in recent years. We have new
    expanded missions which include humanitarian efforts, missions in
    support of joint military operations, and a greater role in homeland
    security.
        As demonstrated with the Pakistan earthquake in 2005 and return
    visits to areas struck by the Indonesian tsunami, America's compassion
    and generosity are a powerful force of good will. These missions have
    transformed fear into trust and animosity into handshakes--medical
    diplomacy--a recognized impact on the GWOT.
        The Navy and Marine Corps responded to the earthquake in Indonesia
    in June 2006 and the medical team treated over 2,000 patients. The
    earthquake's destruction displaced hundreds of thousands of
    Indonesians. A mobile medical unit was set up at a local soccer field
    in Sewon and provided a variety of medical services including surgeries
    and vaccinations. The vaccination efforts focused on reducing the
    significant risk of contracting tetanus, a devastating bacterial
    infection that usually originates from a contaminated laceration.
        USNS Mercy (T-AH 19), our hospital ship home-ported in San Diego,
    completed a humanitarian assistance mission to Southeast Asia last
    year. Mercy provided direct aid to more than 87,000 people in
    Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines. Mercy's team included an
    unprecedented group of volunteers and professionals, civilians and
    military, men and women, dedicated to saving lives, restoring hope and
    spreading good will. The team included a dozen non-governmental
    organizations (NGOs); U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and Public Health
    Service medical personnel, naval construction forces and medical
    professionals from Canada, India, Malaysia, Australia and Singapore.
        Mercy's deployment was an exciting and important opportunity to
    bolster security, stability and prosperity--both at sea and ashore--in
    a region where we have important interests. Mercy's deployment was a
    model of cooperation and deliberate planning with NGOs and partnering
    nations. This international collaboration underscores the Navy's
    commitment and tradition of providing medical and humanitarian
    assistance where and when needed and added a new dimension to forward
    presence.
        The hospital ship's state of the art operating rooms, CT scan
    equipment, laboratories and her ability to electronically transfer
    medical information allowed the staff to consult with physicians in
    other locations. The international team performed over 1,000 surgeries
    and cared for over 60,000 patients. Mercy visited 10 locations in four
    countries and demonstrated the great capability and capacity the ship
    brings without requiring a significant presence ashore. Mercy's crew
    played an important role as American good will ambassadors. Their
    actions demonstrated to thousands of people the true values and ideals
    we hold as Americans.
        Later this year, the Navy plans to deploy our East coast-based
    hospital ship, the USNS Comfort (T-AH 20), in support of a humanitarian
    mission to nations in the Caribbean and Central/South America. In
    addition, a robust medical staff based out of San Diego will deploy
    aboard the USS Pelelieu to the Western Pacific to continue our
    humanitarian efforts in that region.
        Also in 2006, Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) tasked the Navy with
    providing medical staffing in support of the Army's Landstuhl Regional
    Medical Center (LRMC) Germany. Upon arriving in November, this group of
    more than 300 Navy medical reservists and 30 active duty personnel
    became part of the LRMC team and are providing superior medical,
    surgical and preventive health care to wounded warfighters returning
    home. This mission demonstrates how our active duty and reserve
    components seamlessly integrate the talents and strengths of our
    reservists to accomplish the mission. This call to meet Landstuhl
    personnel needs also demonstrates the increased operational
    requirements and tempo to which Navy medicine has been responding since
    the beginning of OEF/OIF.
        The Expeditionary Medical Facility Kuwait (EMF-K) is in its third
    year as Navy medicine detachments staff the U.S. military hospital in
    Kuwait and its nine outlying clinics. This facility averages over
    17,500 monthly patient encounters and is staffed by Navy personnel from
    26 medical activities around the world.
        U.S. Military Hospital Kuwait is a Level 3 medical facility that
    provides outpatient, as well as inpatient, care and specialty services
    such as cardiology, pulmonary, critical care, internal medicine,
    general surgery, optometry, orthopedics, gynecology, laboratory,
    pharmacy, radiology, mental health, dental and physical therapy.
    Between December 2005 and October 2007, over 75 percent of troops who
    came to the facility were able to remain in theater. EMF-K also
    provides health care to Department of Defense personnel and Coalition
    forces stationed in the U.S. Army Forces Central Command area of
    responsibility--Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
        Joint initiatives are underway across the full spectrum of military
    medical operations around the world. Navy medicine is committed to
    increasing the ways 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
    information systems 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, sailor, airman, marine,
    or coast guardsman, or what color uniform the medical provider wears.
    Injured warfighters should receive the same level of care delivered by
    personnel with the necessary training, equipment and information
    systems to maximize our efficiency and achieve the best patient
    outcomes.
                     medical personnel and quality of care
        On an average day in 2006, Navy medicine had over 3,800 medical
    personnel from the active and reserve components deployed in support of
    operations, exercises or training around the world. While continuing to
    support our missions we have been challenged to ensure that sufficient
    numbers of providers in critical specialties are available to fill both
    the wartime mission and sustain our beneficiaries at home.
        Navy medicine is continually monitoring the impact deployments of
    medical personnel have on our staff and our ability to provide quality
    health in our MTFs. We continue to pursue an economic and quality-
    centered strategy focused on maintaining the right mix in our force to
    sustain the benefits of our health care system. Together with the
    network of TRICARE providers who support local MTFs, beneficiaries have
    been able to continue accessing primary and specialty care providers as
    needed. We closely monitor the access standards at our facilities using
    tools like the peer review process, to evaluate primary and specialty
    care access relative to the Department of Defense's standard.
        Providing quality medical care is Navy medicine's priority and we
    earn the trust of our beneficiaries by ensuring our health care
    providers embrace the highest standards of training, practice and
    professional conduct. Another means used to ensure quality is our
    robust quality assurance and risk management programs that promote,
    identify, and correct process or system issues and address provider and
    system competency issues in real time. Our program promotes a patient
    safety culture that complies with nationally established patient safety
    goals and we have an extensive, tiered quality assurance oversight
    process to review questions related to the standard of medical care.
        Navy medicine also promotes healthy lifestyles through a variety of
    programs. These programs include: alcohol and drug abuse prevention,
    hypertension identification and control, tobacco use prevention and
    cessation, and nutrition and weight management. Partnering with other
    community services and line leadership enhances their effectiveness and
    avoids duplication. We have established evidence-based medicine
    initiatives and currently measure diabetes, asthma and women's breast
    health. Soon, we will add dental health and obesity.
       recruitment and retention efforts of medical department personnel
        Navy medicine continues to face challenges in reaching the end-
    strength targets for our medical communities. This has resulted in
    shortages in several critical wartime specialties. Unfortunately,
    medical professionals are not considering the military for employment,
    especially as civilian salaries continue to outpace the financial
    incentives available.
        We are optimistic that new initiatives authorized in the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (NDAA FY07) will enable
    the medical department to address many recruiting issues. Some of the
    improvements include: increases to the Health Professions Scholarship
    Program (HPSP), increases in direct accession bonuses for critical
    wartime specialties, and expanded eligibility for special pay programs.
        Our losses have outpaced gains over the past several years and
    fiscal year 2006 was no exception, ending the year with a 93.5 percent
    manning across the Navy medical department. Our primary concern is
    attrition within critical wartime specialties. Additionally, concerns
    over excessive deployments and mobilization of certain specialties,
    especially in the Reserve Component where Reservists fear the potential
    loss of their private practice, have been a major deterrent to entering
    the Navy's medical department in recent years.
        As of December 2006, the Medical Corps remained below end-strength
    targets and continues to experience acute shortages in critical wartime
    subspecialties. Recruiting challenges continue to exist within the
    HPSP, the primary student pipeline for Medical Corps officers. The HPSP
    met only 56 percent of goal in fiscal year 2005 and 66 percent in
    fiscal year 2006 for medical students. These shortfalls will be
    realized in fiscal year 2009 and 2010 with 230 fewer accessions than
    required. Retention issues continue to be of concern for this community
    and the effect of increased medical special pay rates offered for
    fiscal year 2007 will not be known until the end of the fiscal year.
        The Dental Corps continues to remain under end-strength (at 90
    percent manned), especially in the junior officer ranks where attrition
    is high and accessions have been a challenge in recent years. The HPSP,
    also the primary student pipeline for the Dental Corps, met 76 percent
    of its goal in fiscal year 2006. However, like the Medical Corps, it is
    expected that program improvements recently approved will have a
    positive impact on our recruitment efforts. Finally, with regard to
    dentists, a Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) was recently
    approved to grant a $40,000 contract for 2 years of additional service
    to general dentists between 3 and 8 years of service. It is anticipated
    that this bonus will help mitigate the civilian/military pay gap,
    making Navy Dental Corps more competitive with civilian salaries, thus
    improving retention.
        The Medical Service Corps assesses to vacancies in subspecialties
    and success in meeting direct accession goals is largely dependent on
    the civilian market place. Last year the Medical Service Corps fell
    short of their direct accession goal by over 30 percent for the second
    year in a row, directly impacting the ability to meet current mission
    requirements. Retention of specialized professionals such as clinical
    psychologists and physician assistants remains the greatest challenge
    as deployment requirements increase for these professions. Shortages in
    these critical wartime communities are being addressed with increased
    accession goals and a CSRB for clinical psychologists. In addition,
    Navy Medicine is working within Navy to explore other incentive
    programs for this specialty. The Health Professions Loan Repayment
    Program has been a successful recruiting and retention tool for hard to
    fill specialties and is being expanded, as funding will allow,
    providing recruiting command with additional incentives.
        Navy Nurse Corps is the only medical department specialty
    projecting to meet fiscal year 2007 accession goals. The national
    nursing shortage and competition with the civilian market and other
    military services have continued to challenge recruiting efforts for
    scarce direct accession resources. To counter this, the Nurse Corps
    Accession Bonus was increased in fiscal year 2007 and the Navy Nurse
    Corps has continued to shift more emphasis onto its highly successful
    Nurse Candidate Program (NCP), requesting a permanent increase in new
    starts for this program and decreasing direct accession goals.
    Retention rates have slightly decreased, especially among clinical
    specialties with a high operational tempo.
        We met 99 percent of the active enlisted Hospital Corpsman (HM)
    goal and 94 percent of the Reserve enlisted medical corpsman goal. From
    January 2006 to January 2007, Navy medicine retained 52 percent of
    corpsmen in Zone A, 55 percent in Zone B, and 84 percent in Zone C. HM
    is slightly below overall Navy retention rates for Zone B, but is
    improving. The other two HM zones are either at or exceed overall Navy
    retention rates and exceeds goals set.
        The outlook of the medical department shows we have some
    significant challenges ahead, and Navy medicine is grateful for
    Congress' willingness to step in and help when needed. We continue to
    reach out to universities and medical and dental schools to encourage
    these students to join us and practice medicine where keeping service
    members and their families healthy, and not just treating disease, is
    our primary mission.
                        research and development efforts
        Navy medicine is actively engaged in the research, development,
    testing and evaluation of new technologies that improve the health of
    all beneficiaries, especially those technologies focused on enhancing
    performance and decreasing injury of deployed warfighters. A
    significant part of our R&D efforts are aimed at improving the tools
    available to combat support personnel, as well as disease prevention
    and mitigation of our forces at home and abroad. Our R&D efforts
    include specific areas of expertise such as undersea medicine, trauma
    and resuscitative medicine, and regenerative medicine. We have
    partnered with the other services and with world-class organizations
    like the National Institutes of Health.
        Navy medicine's researchers have recently begun phases two and
    three of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved trials for a
    vaccine developed to stop the adenoviral illness that can make sailors
    ill. This illness is caused by viral pathogens, or germs, that can make
    sailors sick and causes loss of valuable time in training. The results
    from this trial, which is led by the Army, could eventually reduce
    illness in as many as one-fifth of sailors in basic training. The U.S.
    Naval Health Research Center based in San Diego (NHRC) has a long
    history of successful research on respiratory infections, especially
    adenoviral infections, and NHRC houses the Navy Respiratory Disease
    Laboratory, making it the ideal partner with the Army research team.
        After years of research into malaria, the deadly mosquito-borne
    infection that kills more than 1 million people every year, Naval
    Medical Research Center (NMRC) in Silver Spring, Maryland, will begin
    human testing on an experimental malaria vaccine. Although there have
    been no malaria deaths of U.S. military personnel since 2002, when an
    Army Special Forces soldier died following a mission to Nigeria, the
    disease can have a significant negative effect on troop readiness. In
    August 2003, during a Marine Corps deployment to Liberia, a mission was
    aborted when 44 percent of the members of the Marine Expeditionary Unit
    acquired malaria after spending nights at the Monrovia airport.
        As I mentioned before, our high combat casualty survival rates are
    due to the training and commitment of our corpsmen, our willingness to
    implement lessons learned, and improvements in life-saving
    technologies. Navy Medicine R&D is evaluating the effectiveness of more
    than a dozen new hemostatic agents and devices. The outcome of this
    critical study will drive the Marine Corps selection of the component
    to be deployed as part of the Individual First Aid Kit that every
    marine and sailor is issued when entering the combat theater. NMRC
    evaluates the effectiveness of these devices, which are designed for
    application under battlefield conditions and removal in the operating
    room. In addition to the Navy and Marine Corps, we expect other
    services and civilian police departments to benefit from this
    development.
        Navy medicine is beginning the evaluation of devices that detect
    the early signs of TBI. We have seen an increased incidence of TBI
    resulting from exposure to explosive devices in theatre, particularly
    IEDs. Fielding such a device will allow earlier intervention and
    treatment that could prevent the longer term, often devastating,
    effects of TBI. Such devices are designed to detect even mild TBI and
    indicate to our corpsmen and physicians which casualties require
    further monitoring and treatment.
        Navy medicine R&D is working side by side with the Marine Corps
    finalizing development of a critical component of the En Route Care
    System. Called the MOVES (Mobile Oxygen, Ventilation, and External
    Suction), this single integrated device provides a capability for
    casualty management that reduces the weight and cube over current
    systems by nearly 75 percent. Because it does not require external
    oxygen, the device will allow our airlift assets to operate without
    dangerous high-pressure oxygen cylinders onboard. The MOVES is
    scheduled for delivery for field testing in fiscal year 2008.
              navy medicine and the department of veterans affairs
        As the number of injured service members who return in need of
    critical medical services increases, and due to the severity and
    complexity of their injuries, increased cooperation and collaboration
    with our Federal health care partners is essential to providing quality
    care. As an extension of Navy medicine's ability to care for patients,
    partnerships with the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) medical
    facilities continue to grow and develop into a mutually beneficial
    association. The VA's Seamless Transition Program to address the
    logistic and administrative barriers for active duty service members
    transitioning from military to VA-centered care is at most Navy MTFs
    with significant numbers of combat-wounded. This program is working
    well and continues to improve as new lessons are learned.
        Navy medicine and the VA also continue to pursue increased
    collaboration in resource sharing, new facility construction, and joint
    ventures. Using our sharing authority, we are rapidly moving toward
    functionally integrating the Naval Hospital Great Lakes and the North
    Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center and expect to fully complete
    the project by 2010. This facility will seamlessly meet the needs of
    both VA and Navy beneficiaries. Other locations identified for future
    physical space sharing with the VA include: Naval Hospital Charleston,
    Naval Hospital Beaufort and Naval Hospital Guam.
        Navy medicine is also exploring new relationships with the VA such
    as the Balboa Career Transition Center. NMCSD recently entered into an
    agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, the VA and the California
    Employment Development Department to provide quality VA benefit
    information and claims intake assistance, vocational rehabilitative
    services, career guidance, and employment assistance to wounded and
    injured service members and their families. This unique program will
    successfully coordinate all of the services available to these
    individuals.
                                   conclusion
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, distinguished members of the
    committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
    today about the state of Navy medicine and our plans for the upcoming
    year.
        It has been a privilege to lead Navy Medicine for the last 3 years
    as Navy medicine has risen to the challenge of providing a
    comprehensive range of services to manage the physical and mental
    health challenges of our brave sailors and marines, and their families,
    who have given so much in the service of our Nation. We have
    opportunities for continued excellence and improvement, both in the
    business of preserving health and in the mission of supporting our
    deployed forces. I thank you for your tremendous support to Navy
    medicine.

        Senator Inouye. May I now recognize the Surgeon General of
    the Air Force, Lieutenant General James Roudebush.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES G. ROUDEBUSH,
                SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
                FORCE
        General Roudebush. Thank you, Senator Inouye, Senator
    Stevens.
        Senator Inouye. Can you pull that mike up? I can't hear
    you.
        General Roudebush. Thank you. Senator Inouye, Senator
    Stevens, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you
    for the opportunity and the privilege of being here today to
    tell you about Air Force medicine on the battlefield and at
    home station.
        Up front, I would like to note that Air Force medicine is
    not simply about support and not simply about reacting to
    illness and injury. Air Force medicine is a highly adaptive
    capability, tightly integrated into Air Force expeditionary
    capability and culture.
        We build a healthy, fit force, fully prepared to execute
    the mission from each of our bases, whether deployed or here in
    the States, because every Air Force base is an operational
    platform. Whether launching bombers from Whiteman Air Force
    Base, or sitting alert in a missile control facility at Warren
    Air Force Base, or providing close air support from Balad Air
    Base in Iraq, we project airpower for our joint forces and
    provide sovereign options for our national leadership, all from
    our bases of operation.
        Air Force medicine supports that warfighting capability at
    each of our bases, and is, in fact, designed to prevent
    casualties and sustain our fighting strength. The result is the
    lowest nonbattle injury rate in the history of warfare, but
    when there are casualties, Air Force or joint, your Air Force
    medics are there with world-class care.
        In the deployed arena, our medical teams operate closer to
    the front lines than ever before, allowing us to provide
    warfighters advanced medical care within minutes. Underpinning
    this world-class healthcare for our joint warfighters is our
    system of joint enroute care. It does begin with a Navy
    corpsman or an Army medic providing lifesaving first aid at
    that point of injury.
        The casualty is then moved to the next level of care. For
    us in the Air Force that's our theater hospital at Balad Air
    Base, the hub of the joint theater trauma system, where
    lifesaving, damage control surgery is performed by Air Force
    surgeons and, on occasion, teaming with Army surgeons to
    provide that surgical care.
        The casualty is then prepared for safe and rapid movement
    in our Air Force air medical evacuation system to Landstuhl, an
    Army hospital manned by Army, Air Force, and Navy medics.
    Retriage and restabilization is then accomplished, and the
    casualty prepared for air evacuation back to definitive care at
    Walter Reed, Bethesda, Brooke Army, Wilford Hall, Navy Balboa,
    or perhaps a VA hospital.
        These capabilities combine to achieve an average patient
    movement time of 3 days from battlefield to stateside care.
    This is certainly remarkable when compared to the 10 to 14 days
    required during the Persian Gulf war and the average of 45 days
    it took in Vietnam, and it's especially remarkable when you
    consider the severity and complexity of the wounds that our
    forces are sustaining.
        In short, Air Force medicine is a key and central player in
    the most effective joint casualty care and management system in
    military history. Having just returned from Afghanistan and
    Iraq just last weekend, I personally observed this capability
    from that far forward care all the way home on the air
    evacuation to the United States, and it's truly lifesaving
    work.
        As our casualties move back to Landstuhl and on to our
    stateside military medical centers, our Air Force casualties
    are followed closely by their unit through an assigned family
    liaison officer to ensure needs of the casualty and their
    family are met. And if going through the disability evaluation
    process is the next step for our wounded airmen, the Air Force
    Palace Helping Airmen Recover Together (HART) program ensures
    the commander, we medics, and the family liaison officer
    continue eyes-on and hands-on throughout the disability
    process.
        Our Air Force medical capabilities go beyond home station
    healthcare and support of our warfighters. Our Air Force medics
    are globally engaged in training our allies, supporting
    humanitarian missions, responding to disasters, and winning
    hearts and minds in key areas around the globe.
        And as we focus on care for our warfighters, I believe it's
    vitally important to note that caring for the families of our
    airmen is also a mission-critical factor. Knowing that their
    loved ones are well cared for back home gives our airmen the
    peace of mind to do a critical job in a stressful and dangerous
    environment. The care we provide is an important factor in
    building the trust that is fundamental to attracting and
    retaining an all-volunteer force.
        This demanding operations tempo at home and deployed also
    means that we must take care of our Air Force medics. This
    requires finding a balance between these extraordinarily
    demanding duties, time for family, and time for personal
    recovery and growth.
        And it means developing the next generation of Air Force
    medics. My charge is to ensure that we recruit the best and
    brightest, prepare them to expertly execute our mission, and
    sustain and retain them to support and lead these important
    efforts in the months and years to come.
        In summary, the talent and dedication of our military
    medics ensure an incredible 97 percent of the casualties that
    we see in our deployed and joint theater hospitals will survive
    today. For our part in this extraordinary system, Air Force
    medics have treated and safely evacuated more than 40,000
    patients since the beginning of Operations Iraqi Freedom and
    Enduring Freedom.
        Globally, we have provided compassionate care to 1.5
    million people on humanitarian missions over the last 6 years,
    and at home station we continue to provide high quality health
    care for 3 million patients every year.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for your support and assistance in meeting this
    incredibly demanding and critically important mission. I assure
    you we will continue to work hard with you in the months and
    years ahead to sustain and improve our medical capabilities for
    this fight and for the next. Thank you, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General Roudebush.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James G. Roudebush
        Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of the committee, as the Air
    Force Medical Service's (AFMS) Surgeon General, it is a pleasure and
    honor to be here today to tell you about Air Force medical successes on
    both the battlefield and home front.
        The Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force set our
    priorities: Supporting the global war on terrorism, caring for airmen
    and their families, and recapitalizing our assets. The AFMS fully
    supports these priorities by: Taking care of joint warfighters and our
    Air Expeditionary Force; taking care of our Air Force family; and
    building the next generation of Air Force medics. And please note that
    when I say ``medics,'' I am referring to all our Air Force medical
    personnel-officer and enlisted.
        Upfront, I'd like to say, Air Force medicine is not simply about
    support, not simply reacting to illness and injury, and Air Force
    medicine is definitely not a commodity. Air Force medicine is a highly
    adaptive capability, a key part of Air Force expeditionary capabilities
    and culture. Our proactive and visionary work contributes heavily to a
    healthy fit force that is leveraged and designed, in fact, to prevent
    casualties. But . . . when there are casualties, we are there with
    world class care.
        We provide the same quality of care--and access to care--for all of
    our nearly 3 million beneficiaries. Our stand out health care and
    health service support worldwide ensures total force personnel are
    healthy and fit before they deploy, while deployed, and when they
    return home. This is our hallmark, and the result is the lowest
    disease, non-battle injury and died of wounds rates in the history of
    war. We are committed to providing the very best health care to our Air
    Force and joint warfighters.
          taking care of our expeditionary force and joint warfighter
        Our medical teams operate closer to the front lines than ever
    before, enabling us to provide warfighters advanced medical care within
    minutes. Without question, every day, Air Force medics save the lives
    of soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and civilians; Coalition, Afghani
    and Iraqi; friend and foe alike. Underpinning this world-class health
    care for our joint warfighters is our system of en route care. We
    ensure joint warfighters receive seamless care through the continuum of
    care from first battle damage surgery to definitive care and recovery
    back in the United States. En route care relies on our unique
    capabilities in Expeditionary Medical Support (EMEDS) and Aeromedical
    Evacuation (AE).
    Aeromedical Evacuation
        Aeromedical evacuation is distinctly Air Force, and a critical
    component of the Air Force's global reach capability. We safely care
    for and transport even the most severely injured patients to definitive
    care.
        Our expeditionary medical system and AE system combine to achieve
    an average patient movement time of 3 days from the battlefield to
    stateside care. This is remarkable when compared to the 10-14 days
    required during the 1991 Persian Gulf War or the average 45 days it
    took in Vietnam.
        Our modern AE teams--which include Active Duty, Guard and Reserve
    forces--coupled with our innovative Critical Care Air Transport Teams
    (CCATT), operate flying intensive care units in the back of virtually
    any airlift platform. This success resulted from our shift to
    designated, versus dedicated, aircraft and training universally
    qualified AE crew members able to execute their AE mission on any
    airlift aircraft. This transformation of AE has been repeatedly proven
    in the global war on terrorism, as evidenced by the safe and rapid
    transfer of more than 38,000 Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
    Iraqi Freedom patients from overseas theaters of operation to stateside
    hospitals!
        To illustrate this capability, consider Marine Sergeant Justin
    Ping's story. As a result of a suicide bomber attack in Fallujah, Iraq,
    Sergeant Ping sustained severe burns to his face and hands, blast
    injuries to his right arm, and shrapnel embedded in his leg and right
    eye. Without immediate care, the shrapnel to his eye would have
    undoubtedly resulted in permanent loss of sight. After receiving superb
    first aid from his Navy corpsman immediately after injury, Sergeant
    Ping was flown from the battlefield to the Air Force theater hospital
    at Balad where his injuries were stabilized. It was quickly determined
    that Sergeant Ping's injuries would be best treated in the United
    States. Major (Dr.) Charles Puls, (a CCATT physician) provided full
    life support for Sergeant Ping during the 17-hour, 7,500 mile
    aeromedical evacuation flight from Balad to Brooke Army Medical Center,
    San Antonio, Texas. Major Puls said, ``The patient was stable
    throughout flight . . . we cared for him prior to and during the
    flight,'' referring to his team comprised of Captain William Wolfe, a
    nurse, and Senior Airman Bertha Rivera, a respiratory therapy
    technician. His team ensured Sergeant Ping received the best en route
    care and most expeditious transport all the way back to definitive
    care. There is no doubt that this superb en route care saved Sergeant
    Ping's eyesight. Sergeant Ping is doing quite well today thanks to all
    the medics--Navy, Army, and Air Force--who were dedicated to his care.
        Barbara Wynne, spouse of our very own Secretary of the Air Force,
    recently expressed the importance of our capability when she wrote in a
    letter to all airmen, ``We visited the hospitals in Balad, Landstuhl,
    and at Walter Reed . . . The doctors, nurses and technicians are the
    cream of the crop. Their expertise, saving so many lives, is the silver
    lining to this conflict. It truly is the ``Miracle of Iraq and
    Afghanistan.''
    Commitment to Jointness
        I am proud to say that the AFMS is all about ``Joint.'' Not only do
    we run the renowned Air Force theater hospital in Balad, as well as
    smaller facilities in Kirkuk and Baghdad, 300 Air Force medics jointly
    staff Landstuhl Medical Center, Germany. Additionally, we are about to
    assume operational control of the theater hospital at Bagram Air Base
    in Afghanistan this month.
        The AFMS has been deeply involved in establishing the most
    effective joint casualty care and management system in military
    history. Whether stabilizing a casualty, preparing a casualty for
    transport, providing continual care at stops along the way, or moving
    the patient in our AE system; what matters is providing the very best
    care possible to every injured or ill warfighter at every point in the
    care continuum. Everything medical in theater is designed to support
    moving casualties from the point of injury to the right level of care,
    at the right place, in the least amount of time.
        To that end, we believe it is critically important to work closely
    with our sister Service medics in leveraging our joint capabilities.
    Working to improve our common ``enabling'' platforms--such as
    logistics, information management, information technology, and medical
    research and development--will serve to make all medics better prepared
    to support the Joint warfighter. Side by side with our Service
    counterparts, we recently concluded a 72-day humanitarian and civic
    assistance deployment with the Navy on board the USNS Mercy. Yes, we
    are all about jointness and supporting the joint warfighter.
        However, our focus is not just the war. Our Air Force medics are
    globally engaged in training our allies, supporting humanitarian
    missions or responding to disasters. To assist in this role, this year
    the Air Force built a new type of unit--the Humanitarian Operation
    Relief (HUMRO) Operational Capabilities Package (OCP)--a streamlined
    package of 91 medics and 133 base support personnel designed to support
    a humanitarian relief mission. This HUMRO OCP will provide a rapid and
    tailorable response to a disaster; and by leaving the deployable
    hospital and medical equipment, it will provide an enduring medical
    capacity for the host nation following redeployment of our U.S. Air
    Force personnel.
        Delivering this remarkable medical care across the full spectrum of
    missions takes trained, clinically current physicians, nurses and
    technicians. The AFMS concentrates on joint medical education programs
    and has developed clinical training platforms providing surgical and
    trauma care experience. Our readiness training platforms, including
    training arrangements with Baltimore Shock Trauma, Cincinnati-Center
    for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills (C-STARS), and St.
    Louis-C-STARS, ensure our Air Force medics are the best trained in
    history.
        Taking care of the expeditionary force and warfighter is job number
    one. But crucial to that mission is taking care of our Air Force
    family.
                      taking care of our air force family
        When our airmen join the Air Force, we make a commitment to them
    and their families that we will care for them throughout their period
    of service, and into retirement for career airman, whether at their
    home station Medical Treatment Facility (MTF), in a deployed MTF, or
    through private sector care Tricare contracts. To that end, we have an
    integrated delivery system throughout our Air Force community to
    support our airmen's health, including physical, mental, and dental
    needs. We work closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs and our
    Tricare networks to provide seamless care.
    Warfighter Fitness and Deployment Health
        We begin by ensuring a fit and healthy force at home station. We
    maintain every warfighter's health and fitness through periodic
    assessments of their health and workplace, and support them with an
    effective physical fitness training and testing program. Before they
    deploy, we ensure they are medically ready.
        In theater, our preventive aerospace medicine teams assess the
    austere environment to which our forces deploy, and continue to provide
    surveillance of their health and environment while deployed. If our
    airmen and joint warfighters become ill or injured, we rapidly
    transport them with cutting edge en route medical care to expeditionary
    medical support and then to definitive stateside care.
        Prior to deployment and upon redeployment home, we evaluate our
    airmen's health--physical, mental, and emotional--through the use of a
    Pre- and Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA). We then reevaluate
    at 3 to 6 months post deployment using the Post Deployment Health
    Reassessment (PDHRA) as the next link in the continuum of care. To
    date, 70 percent of required PDHRAs are completed. Thirty-eight percent
    of them were considered positive due to a possible physical or
    emotional condition, with 2 percent reporting a Post Traumatic Stress
    Disorder (PTSD) symptom. Less than 0.5 percent have been positively
    diagnosed as actually having PTSD. Each positive finding is assessed by
    health care providers and appropriate treatment provided if required.
        The AFMS is committed to providing our airmen the most current,
    effective, and empirically validated treatment for PTSD. To meet that
    goal, we are training our behavioral health personnel to recognize,
    assess, and treat PTSD in accordance with the VA/DOD PTSD clinical
    practice guidelines. Using nationally recognized civilian and military
    experts, we have trained 89 psychiatrists, psychologists, and social
    workers representing 45 Air Force installations. Our goal is to equip
    every behavioral health provider with the latest PTSD research,
    assessment modalities, and treatment techniques.
        Caring for the families of our airman has a mission impact.
    Assuring high quality and timely care for our family members at home
    gives our airman the peace of mind they need to do a critical job in
    stressful and dangerous environments.
    Partnerships
        Our commitment to the health of our airmen and their families also
    includes partnerships with leading civilian institutions. For instance,
    the AFMS and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center have teamed in
    collaborative efforts to prevent and/or delay type II diabetes,
    including associated complications, through education, early treatment
    modalities and community outreach. Other critically important efforts
    include the development of collaborative relationships with various
    Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and a robust Tricare network.
    Throughout this continuum, we work closely with our sister Services and
    civilian counterparts to provide preventive health care, interoperable
    surveillance, research and development, outreach, and treatment. Caring
    for our Air Force team and family also means taking care of our medics.
    We ensure that they are healthy and prepared for the mission they will
    face. With that in mind, our next priority involves taking care of our
    Air Force medics.
                           taking care of each other
        The AFMS is committed to providing our Air Force medics the
    resources needed to perform the mission. To this end, we developed a
    new ``Flight Path'' to guide our organizational structure and the
    development of each of our Air Force medical personnel.
    Professional Development
        We created a clear ``Flight Path'' to match Air Force needs with
    individual professional growth requirements. The overall goal of the
    ``Flight Path'' is to develop a streamlined, consistent medical group
    structure, from clinic to medical center, that provides a ready and fit
    medical force in support of the Air Expeditionary Force. It assures
    military and functional medical competence; provides a power projection
    platform to deploy medics forward; and delivers high quality, cost-
    effective care.
        The ``Flight Path'' fosters corps-specific force development,
    requirements-driven leadership opportunities, and balanced leadership
    teams within the MTF. It also assures compliance with military and
    civilian certification requirements, access to graduate medical
    education, and cost-effective mission support at home and when
    deployed.
        In these ways, our ``Flight Path'' is helping us develop the next
    generation of Air Force medics. The way I view it, my charge is to
    ensure we recruit the best and brightest people, prepare them to
    expertly execute our mission, and retain them to support and lead these
    important efforts. Ideally, we do this in a way satisfying for them,
    and in a fashion that enables a balance between duty and family.
    Balance
        An essential part of taking care of each other is to make sure our
    medics have the right balance in their lives between their professional
    duties and their families. We create better balance through staffing,
    finding the right mix of military, civilians and contractors, and by
    focusing our recruiting and retention efforts to maintain this mix. In
    these ways and others, we are recapitalizing our greatest resource, our
    people.
    Air Expeditionary Force and Constant Deployer Model
        We believe the Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) rotational construct
    is the right construct for the AFMS. It provides the predictability
    needed for planning, training, deploying and reconstituting our force
    that leads to an effective long-term strategy and, just as crucial,
    outstanding quality of life for our airmen.
        Another innovation geared toward taking care of our people is our
    Constant Deployer Model (CDM), which provides a continuous deployed
    capability with sustained access to care at home station as well as
    maintaining a balance between our people's deployed, professional and
    personal lives. This model has ensured access to care at home via
    contracted personnel and improved quality of care at deployed
    locations. We believe working in more efficient ways lends itself to
    taking care of each other.
    Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century, AFSO21
        An important tool--implemented Air Force-wide by the Secretary of
    the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne and the Air Force Chief of Staff,
    General T. Michael Moseley--is the Air Force Smart Operations 21
    program. Using a variety of tools, including Lean and Six Sigma, AFSO21
    is being used to streamline operations through process changes to
    improve efficiency and reduce waste.
        As medics, AFSO21 will make us more effective in supporting both
    the Air Force expeditionary mission and the joint mission. The use of
    process analysis and lean thinking will be essential in making sure
    that we are both relevant and cost-effective in support of our mission
    today, and tomorrow.
    Challenges Ahead
        Today we are faced with the most challenging of times. We must
    implement BRAC while we simultaneously support the global war on
    terrorism. The BRAC process has given us a tool to reposture several of
    our key MTFs. We are also creating efficiencies outside of the BRAC
    process, restructuring some MTFs to better meet today's demands.
        Attracting and retaining the very best medics builds morale and
    trust to sustain the all volunteer force. Professional development, AEF
    rotations, AFSO21, BRAC, and military construction work together to
    recapitalize our Air Force Medical Service. Air Force medicine cares
    for our most treasured national asset--America's sons and daughters.
                                    summary
        The talent and dedication of military medics ensures that an
    incredible 97 percent of the casualties we see in our deployed and
    joint theater hospitals will survive today. We safely aeromedically
    evacuated and treated more than 38,000 patients from theaters of
    operations since the beginning of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
    Freedom, provided compassionate care to 1.5 million people on
    humanitarian missions over the past 6 years, and continued to care for
    3 million patients annually all over the world.
        Despite our successes, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
    we are far from a position where we can rest on our laurels. I assure
    you we will continue to work hard with you in the months and years
    ahead to perfect the joint continuum of care for this fight, and the
    next! Thank you for your outstanding support.

        Senator Inouye. Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.

                  BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE RECOMMENDATION

        General Kiley and Admiral Arthur, I am told that less than
    87 percent of the medical facilities' sustained restoration and
    modernization requirement is funded in the budget through 2008,
    and we all know that base realignment and closure (BRAC)
    funding was reduced by $3.1 billion in the enactment of the
    continuing resolution. Under these extreme circumstances--I
    would like both of you to comment--do you still believe that
    the BRAC recommendation to consolidate Walter Reed and the Navy
    hospital at Bethesda should go forward?
        General Kiley. Go ahead.
        Admiral Arthur. Senator Stevens, we have already been in
    process of merging the two facilities, and General Kiley and I
    have been very active with our staffs. The plan, the vision is
    to have a state-of-the-art medical center at Bethesda, on that
    campus, that modernizes the facilities and provides the care
    that people need in the northern part of the national capital
    area, with the southern part of the national capital area being
    cared for by an enriched facility at Fort Belvoir.
        If the plans were to change, it would, of course, change
    the shape of what our plans are at Bethesda, but I think in the
    future we have a vision of a very fine facility at Bethesda
    that combines the talents of the Army and the Navy and the
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and the
    National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Suburban Hospital
    Trauma Center that's adjacent to NIH. So the plans are for a
    very robust, modern, and state-of-the-art facility.
        But there is a lot of advantage to combining the
    facilities, combining the staffs, and having a single DOD
    mission at a joint command.
        Senator Inouye. Do you agree, General?
        General Kiley. Sir, I have said since the law was passed
    and the decision was made to move Walter Reed over to the
    National Naval Medical Center, that the challenge and the risk
    was in properly funding this. To get to the vision that the
    BRAC saw, of a unified program on the Bethesda campus and a
    large 150-bed facility at Belvoir to manage the healthcare of
    the population to the south, was going to take a lot of money,
    and I think it still remains a significant risk to do this
    thing, this process, properly.
        In addition, consistent with what we have seen in the news
    in the last 3 weeks, the combat casualty care at Walter Reed is
    not just about in-hospital operating capability, it's about
    continuing to care for soldiers and families on the campus. The
    Chief of Staff has made it clear this is a long war, so my
    concern is, are we going to have an ability to maintain for
    however long we're in combat operations around the world, this
    same capability which we'll get right here real quick at Walter
    Reed, maintain that while making the moves and the building and
    the construction to transform it?
        My comments in other hearings were that this might require
    some more national discussion, that we may need to take a look
    at this, and I'm not in a position to proffer a recommendation
    at this time, but I clearly think it needs to be looked at in
    light of our current operations and our proposed future
    operations.
        Senator Stevens. I opposed it in the beginning because I
    didn't think it was timely in view of the flow of combat
    wounded coming back at this time. I don't know why we would
    spend money on modernization and really on consolidation. I
    think that money ought to be spent to take care of these people
    that are coming back, and I really hope it's looked at again in
    terms of the time. It's a wonderful vision when the war is
    over, but right now I think our first call ought to be to put
    all the money we can find in treating these people properly and
    getting them home, and getting the post-medical treatment piece
    of this care that's so needed right now, getting it funded.

                        MILITARY-TO-CIVILIAN CONVERSION

        I am told that the medical readiness review directed you,
    Admiral Arthur, to convert an additional number of medical
    billets to civilians, and I wonder about that. General
    Roudebush, you're involved in this, too. I'm told you're
    converting 123 of the nurses to civilians. I don't know how you
    can do that with the nursing shortage that exists in civilian
    life.
        I really wonder about some of these instructions you all
    have received, particularly in view of the fact that we're
    going to increase the end strength of the Army and Marine
    Corps. How can we find enough physicians and corpsmen to
    support the additional marines if we're going through this
    conversion to civilian positions? Can you all comment on that?
    Are you going to be able to do it? General Roudebush?
        General Roudebush. Sir, in terms of the conversions that we
    currently have programmed, we have done both the analysis to
    look at whether the capabilities are available and affordable,
    and what we have programmed at the moment, we believe we can
    convert and sustain.
        Now, going beyond that, however, we think is going to be
    very problematic, and we're very concerned about going any
    further than we've gone as we have currently programmed. So
    that is a matter of great concern to us, and what we need to do
    is to examine very closely our success in both converting and
    hiring as we go forward with those that we have currently
    programmed, and I think that will dictate in many regards the
    success of whether we can sustain this or not. So that has yet
    to be told.
        Senator Stevens. Any comments, Admiral?
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir. We have planned to come down from
    about 36,000 active duty members to a little over 30,000. I
    think that the assumptions that were made in the medical
    readiness requirements review were overly optimistic about the
    small number of casualties, the small number of missions, and
    the extent of deployments that we'll have to do in the future.
        For example, no one is planning to deploy multiple times to
    a theater of operations. I think we're setting ourselves up to
    disappoint our line commanders in not being able to provide
    combat service support.
        The military-to-civilian conversions that we have already
    been trying to do have been successful to about the 80 percent
    level. We are not able to fill about 20 percent of those
    positions. My fear, as we get into the more critical skills, is
    that we'll not be able to find the people that we need with the
    skills that we require for the money that we're offering, and
    they will answer a contract for money. There aren't many people
    who are on active duty today, although they earn their
    paycheck, who are working primarily for the money. They work
    for other values and other principles.
        For example, we have a radiologist in the Navy. The
    programming rate for that radiologist is $124,000. The
    composite rate, with bonuses, is $168,000. And we are only able
    to hire them, we just hired one at Bethesda, for $400,000. Now,
    the difference in pay is one thing, but when you place----
        Senator Stevens. $400,000?
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, sir, and that's cheap for a
    radiologist. And when you place a $400,000 radiologist right
    next to an active duty service member who's making less than
    half of that, the morale factor for retention of those good
    active duty officers is striking. The contractor is making
    Lexus payments and our radiologists are making Toyota payments,
    not that Toyota is a bad car, but to sit side by side, there is
    an effect on retention.
        When you combine the military-to-civilian conversions with
    the various wedges that we have been given in our funding--for
    example, next year Navy medicine is predicted to have a wedge
    of $343 million out of about a $2.4 billion budget--we are not
    going to be able to maintain services at the level that we have
    now with a one-sixth cut in our funding.
        So we are facing a number of challenges that are coming
    together in a perfect storm. It's the funding, it's the people,
    and it's the increasing mission not only for combat service
    support but for those casualties who are coming back, who need
    even more services. There are places where we have physicians
    who are doing their own administrative work, filling out
    workers' compensation forms and other paperwork, because we
    don't have the support staff because they have been
    systematically cut over the last few years. It's degrading our
    efficiency, it's degrading our morale, and it's degrading our
    ability to take care of combat-wounded veterans.
        Senator Stevens. General?
        General Kiley. Senator, I echo everything my fellow Surgeon
    Generals say. The Army's numbers were in some cases smaller,
    but the Army's Medical Department has been working for several
    years now with the Army, attempting to capture spaces to build
    brigade combat teams. And so in support of the Army's effort to
    do that, the Army Medical Department, active duty, enlisted,
    and officer have been part of the pool that has been looked at.
        To date we have been able to do the military-to-civilian
    conversion, as they say. DOD and the Army have given us the
    replacement dollars. As Admiral Arthur has outlined, we have
    attempted to avoid--in fact, we have avoided--converting some
    of the more expensive specialties, as you've heard, and
    radiology is only one of them.
        But we're at the point now where my concern is along the
    lines of second and third order effects of this, and we've
    talked about recruiting and retention and morale. We've talked
    about a rotating base of active duty. More than 50 percent of
    our medical personnel have deployed at least once, and so if we
    talk to doctors about coming into the service and they know a
    lot of doctors have already deployed, we have to show them this
    is about service to the Nation.
        We got full support from the Congress as it relates to
    resources, and by that I mean money, to contract healthcare
    personnel of every level in taking care of our wounded
    soldiers. And I can talk some more about the impacts of other
    pieces of caring for wounded soldiers. Our core budget, though,
    as Admiral Arthur has alluded to, we are now facing this wedge,
    which is a notional decrease in our budget which the Department
    of Defense is----
        Senator Stevens. That was going to be my next question.
    Efficiency wedge, I think it's called, right?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir, and I don't believe I was the
    Surgeon General when these decisions were originally made, but
    the intent was to motivate, I think, the medical services
    facilities in an effort to improve their efficiencies, find
    ways to save money, and identify those dollars so that you were
    actually not spending as much as years went on, in an effort to
    control a not insignificant inflationary rise in the DHP.
        This year it's $80 million in my core budget. Next year
    it's on the order of $142 million. I can make some adjustments
    this year to an extent. Working with the Department of Defense
    in budgeting, as we show that they're doing more work, they are
    rewarding us with more resources in a more businesslike
    environment. Now, that's not just for combat soldiers. That's
    for all our family members, retirees, et cetera.
        But I absorbed it last year. We were fully funded last
    year. This year we're challenged. It remains to be seen whether
    we'll close the budget this year. I can't find $142 million in
    efficiencies, and I have asked my hospitals to transform and to
    become more businesslike, so we can document what we're doing
    and show the Congress that we are getting the most bang for the
    buck, if I may, for that.
        So I am concerned about military to civilian. We're
    watching it very carefully. As you know, the Army may be
    expanding. We may have a larger mission, and we're dealing
    almost daily with the Army on this. And our numbers appear to
    be consistent with what the MRR asked for, so at this point
    we're not in the same position as the other two services with
    MRR.

                               EFFICIENCY WEDGES

        Senator Stevens. And I can't take any more time. I'm
    appalled. I note this efficiency wedge, Army for 2008 is $142.3
    million, Navy $147 million, and Air Force $197.5 million. For
    2008, however it goes up: the Army, $227.3 million, $234
    million for the Navy, and $323.7 million for the Air Force.
        That's on top of the assumption that we're going to enact
    the increased deductibles and charge annual enrollment fees for
    TRICARE. That has not been approved by any congressional
    committee that I know of. The assumptions, I think, Mr.
    Chairman, we need to get the budgeteers in here and ask them to
    explain to us where they found all these numbers.
        It is shocking to see, at a time when military medical
    facilities need more money, that we have budget people
    directing reductions on the basis of efficiency or increased
    payments that the military people have to make, that are
    unrealistic, totally unrealistic. I'm really, really alarmed at
    that.
        As I've said, I've taken too much time. I congratulate you
    on what you're doing, but I do think that the conversion at
    Walter Reed ought to slow down. I think the movement of the
    troops from Germany to Italy ought to slow down. I think we
    ought to start spending the money where it's needed right now,
    on the people who have been wounded in these combat activities,
    and follow them through, and put on hold a lot of these things
    the Department is suggesting.
        So I'm hopeful that we'll get the Department back in here
    again, and we'll have a chance to discuss these assumptions
    that you can make these changes and still deliver the quality
    care that these guys and ladies deserve for having served our
    country so well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Kiley, as I said in my opening statement, I was
    deeply disturbed by what I was reading in my Washington State
    papers today. As you can imagine, since we've heard about what
    happened at Walter Reed, my office and others have been hearing
    from a number of soldiers who are on medical hold in our State.
    They have been talking to us, but as I sort of indicated, they
    have been very worried to talk publicly.
        We can't get to the bottom of this and we can't do our job
    unless we know exactly what's happening out there, and I want
    your personal assurance, if you would please give that to me,
    that no soldier who blows the whistle on substandard care will
    be retaliated against.
        General Kiley. Senator, you have my word. There's a law
    that prevents that also, the whistleblower law, and I share
    your concern that soldiers either feel that they can't talk,
    certainly talk to their representatives, certainly we want them
    to talk to us, but we've never put a prohibition or a threat of
    retaliation, for example, if they talk to the press.
        And I would ask that I, at your convenience, come back and
    report to you. I spoke to the hospital commander this morning.
    She's investigating that, and I think----
        Senator Murray. The retaliation, or what's in----
        General Kiley. No, ma'am, the issues that were--and I have
    not seen the article, but she has identified issues, the
    concern about asbestos in the living facility where the
    soldiers are, as an example. And I am told that yes, there is
    asbestos, and it is sealed. It has been investigated. It is not
    a risk to the soldiers.
        So there are issues that we need to deal with across the
    Medical Department. Many of them, and I've said this in other
    testimony, really revolve around this very complex and
    inefficient and in many cases confrontational process between
    the medical boarding process and the physical evaluation
    boarding process. Soldiers don't feel like they've gotten the
    respect they deserve for their sacrifices when they're given a
    small disability from the Department of Defense.
        Senator Murray. Well, let me ask you a number of questions.
    First of all, I am hearing from soldiers who say they are
    languishing for months and even years in military holdover
    units without the care that they need. The Seattle Times
    article that I mentioned to you tells the story of a woman,
    Captain Mary Maddox, who said, ``The biggest problem with
    Madigan is that they are understaffed and overworked, and I
    ended up getting bounced from clinic to clinic.''
        Other press reports mention other soldiers who have been in
    medical hold for years. How can this be happening, 4 years into
    this war? Is it lack of staff? Is it lack of accountability? Is
    it a lack of caseworkers? A lack of leadership? What is
    happening?
        General Kiley. It's not acceptable to have soldiers
    languishing, and I'll be the first to say that, and clearly we
    are taking action to make sure we don't. But I have said before
    that there are some soldiers who feel like it has taken a long
    time for their evaluation, and other soldiers----
        Senator Murray. What do you think is a long time?
        General Kiley. Well, this is what I was getting to. It
    depends on the condition. And the problem that we face across
    our military systems is that these are not simple injuries and
    diagnoses. They are----
        Senator Murray. Is 18 months too long?
        General Kiley. It may not be too long, ma'am, if there are
    a series of operative procedures that a soldier needs, and then
    they need to fully recover from each one of those. It may not
    be too long if they have a condition like TBI and PTSD and
    they're undergoing therapy, rehabilitative therapy. It may take
    as long as 1 year for us to get to a point where the soldier
    and the physicians feel that that soldier has reached the
    maximum therapeutic benefit.
        Senator Murray. Well, you can understand what it's like for
    18 months for someone to sit there day after day, appointment
    after appointment, being told one thing or another, and feeling
    like their life is absolutely on hold.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. You can imagine what it's like for their
    families. So we----
        General Kiley. It's very difficult, I agree with you, and
    we're going to take----
        Senator Murray. It seems to me way too long. I think it's
    an issue we need to address.
        Let me focus on artificially low disability ratings--you
    mentioned that a second ago--which we all know will limit their
    military disability pension. It has a huge lifetime impact. I
    understand that lifetime pension requires a 30 percent
    disability rating?
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. Well, one soldier told us that in more than
    1 year he has only seen one person receive a 30 percent rating.
    There is a woman named Sergeant Jane Sullivan. She was granted
    only a 10 percent disability rating. She's in a wheelchair. Her
    medical problems include a back injury and heart condition.
        And I have to tell you there is a suspicion that medical
    and physical boards are giving artificially low disability
    ratings simply to save money for the Army. At a hearing
    yesterday it was revealed that while other branches grant full
    disability about 20 percent of the time, for the Army it's only
    about 4 percent.
        So, General Kiley, I want to know, has anyone suggested to
    you or have you suggested to anyone that there are problems
    with giving service members high disability ratings?
        General Kiley. First of all, Senator, the medical personnel
    do not give the disability rating. The medical personnel do not
    do that. The personnel community does that, through the G-1 of
    the Army and the TAG of the Army down through the physical
    disability system. What the medical personnel do is, they treat
    and document the conditions and then present them.
        I agree that the system that we have and that we have had
    since we first developed this is clearly perceived as unfair,
    particularly when it is compared with the VA system of
    disability. And I have suggested and we have already started
    discussions to change that. Some of this is in the law, some of
    it is in Department of Defense directives, and some of it is in
    Army regulations.
        The other day General Cody used an example of an
    individual--the Department of Defense disability makes the
    determination that a soldier is unfit for a particular
    condition, as an example, if a soldier loses an eye, they are
    unfit for further service.
        Senator Murray. Yes.
        General Kiley. That's a disability of 40 percent. Now, the
    soldier may have other conditions that the VA would increase
    the disability, but the Department of Defense can't do that.
        Senator Murray. I understand that. Will you send guidance
    to all of your board members, telling them that you expect
    disability ratings to reflect accurately a service member's
    injury?
        General Kiley. I will send to all of my medical personnel
    to ensure that the medical evaluation board, which is in my
    lane, which is my responsibility, will, in fact, accurately
    reflect that. Yes, ma'am.

                             TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

        Senator Murray. Okay, and let me ask you one other quick
    question, and that's regarding traumatic brain injury. Many of
    you mentioned it. You know this is the signature issue of this
    war. We have a guardsman at Madigan who was sent home for a
    different injury, and it was his wife--who kept saying, ``Well,
    he's not remembering things''--that actually got him back in.
        The Department of Veterans Affairs announced several days
    ago that they are going to start screening for this, but I want
    to know if the Army and other services are going to start
    screening service members when they come home, before they have
    to wait forever to get into the VA system to discover this.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am, and I agree that that's
    something that we have not done a good job at, for the simple
    reason that some of the mildest TBI can be difficult to
    diagnose, and in the face of all of these conditions----
        Senator Murray. But it seems to me that if you are asking
    soldiers if they've been in the vicinity of an explosion, you
    will have an indication----
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. Fairly soon that they should
    be watched for this, that they should have the knowledge that
    this may be happening, so if they see symptoms, or their family
    does, they can get care immediately rather than struggling for
    months not knowing what has happened to them. So I would like
    to ask a commitment from you that we start screening these
    soldiers and finding out if they have been in the vicinity of
    an explosion, so that they don't get lost for months on end.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am, and Secretary Winkenwerder, as I
    understand it, is in the process of changing the post-
    deployment screening to specifically ask soldiers that, number
    one. Number two, my TBI task force is about to come back to me
    with recommendations of exactly how to go about doing that,
    what's the best format, and then what are the best therapeutic
    modalities. So I'm taking that on very----
        Senator Murray. And I hope that's soon, because every day
    that goes by we're losing.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am. I agree.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Admiral Arthur. May I add that we don't wait until they
    come back? We have the military acute concussion evaluation
    that we do in theater for people who are in the vicinity of a
    blast and they have a concussive injury, and we do that
    evaluation, and if they are deemed to have an injury, then we
    take them out of----
        Senator Murray. So you ask everyone before they leave the
    theater?
        Admiral Arthur. If they are in the vicinity of a blast. We
    don't screen everyone in theater, but when we do have a blast,
    an improvised explosive device (IED), and there are casualties
    who are moved out but there are others who are in the vicinity,
    we do an evaluation on them.
        Senator Murray. Do you have any indication of the
    percentage of marines who have been impacted by that?
        Admiral Arthur. No, and it's very difficult, especially
    with mild traumatic brain injury, to assess very slight
    cognitive----
        Senator Murray. Do you have any numbers of how many marines
    have been in the area of a blast?
        Admiral Arthur. No, I don't, but we could get that.
        Senator Murray. I would like to know.
        Admiral Arthur. There are also confounding variables of
    combat stress and others that we have to tease out. It is a
    stressful environment and it's difficult to assess mild
    traumatic brain injury, in theater or even when they first come
    back, with all the confounding stress issues.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

        The Navy/Marine Corps does not maintain an electronic
    database to track Sailors and Marines that have been in the
    area of a blast. Given the erratic nature of combat theater and
    the likelihood of taking indirect fire, all service members are
    at risk, both inside and outside the wire. Navy Medicine's
    approach has been to focus on effective screening,
    identification, and treatment for all service members.
        Navy medical personnel in theater utilize the Navy-Marine
    Corps Combat Trauma Registry (CTR) to assess and document
    Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in those service members treated
    at Level 1 and 2 medical facilities for battle injuries. The
    consistent use of the CTR to identify TBI is in an early stage
    of development and available data is being analyzed by Naval
    Health Research Center (NHRC). Preliminary analysis of data
    from CTR for 5,087 service members injured in the Iraq area of
    operations from March 2004 to January 2007 suggests that
    approximately 1,700 personnel were diagnosed with a mild to
    severe TBI (33 percent). NHRC estimates that approximately 80
    percent of TBI diagnoses were blast related, and that most
    service members were returned to duty. Currently, NHRC is
    evaluating level of risk by occupational specialty. It is
    important to note that reporting by field units has been
    inconsistent and that CTR data is limited to diagnoses in
    theater.
        The Post Deployment Health Re-Assessment (PDHRA),
    administered to service members 90 to 180 days post deployment,
    includes the question: ``Do you have any persistent major
    concerns regarding the health effects of something you believe
    you may have been exposed to or encountered while deployed
    [such as] blast or motor vehicle accidents.'' Approximately 4
    percent of Navy and Marine Corps active and reserve personnel
    responded yes to this question. It is not possible to
    differentiate between members exposed to a blast and a motor
    vehicle accident. DOD/Health Affairs has recently directed
    additional TBI-related screening questions to the PDHRA, the
    Post Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA), and the Periodic
    Health Assessment (PHA).
        Finally, the Marine Corps has issued guidance strongly
    encouraging the use of the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation
    (MACE) to screen injured personnel for possible TBI. Medical
    personnel document MACE results in the service member's field
    medical record. Currently, the data is not tracked in a
    centralized database. As a result, we are unable to provide
    Congress with an accurate number of Sailors and Marines that
    were in the area of a blast and received the MACE at this time.

        General Roudebush. Senator Murray, if I might add, since we
    do a great deal of the definitive care through our theater
    hospital, both in Bagram and at Balad, as well as our combat
    stress teams which are out working with their Army and Navy
    counterparts, one of the things in my recent trip was an
    awareness of traumatic brain injury and the fact that the
    stress teams, for example, are much more sensitive to that,
    since that can be a very much related issue. So the awareness
    is there. I cannot give you the numbers, but awareness of this
    as an issue and the effort to both identify and vector toward
    treatment I think is moving in very much the right direction.
        Senator Murray. We're 4 years into this conflict. We've had
    thousands of people impacted that have gone home and are out of
    the system. We need to really work on this, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Kiley and panel, when we neglect our wounded
    soldiers, basically we stain the reputation of America
    regarding the support for our soldiers. Would you agree with
    that?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Okay. That's obviously, to all of us,
    shameful and unacceptable. We know that Walter Reed has been
    not just a premier hospital, it has a worldwide reputation as a
    premier hospital. A lot of us have spent time there. We know it
    has been a good hospital.
        You were the commander, is that correct, at Walter Reed?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. And from what year to what year?
        General Kiley. 2002-2004.
        Senator Shelby. And during that time, did you ever go to,
    is it Building 18?
        General Kiley. No, sir, I did not.
        Senator Shelby. You didn't? Why not?
        General Kiley. For several reasons, the first of which was
    that I didn't have patients in that building when I was the
    commander there.
        Senator Shelby. What was in that building?
        General Kiley. We had transient students, student trainees.
        Senator Shelby. Students training in a medical profession?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir, but not patients. We did not have
    patients there when I was there.
        Senator Shelby. As commander, did you visit all the other
    facilities at Walter Reed?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Except Building 18?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. And that's the only one you failed to----
        General Kiley. Well, I can't say I was in every office of
    every building, but it was my intent to visit the buildings
    that we had combat casualties in, Malone House, Delano Hall.
        Senator Shelby. Is Building 18 basically a dilapidated
    building? Is that a fair assessment?
        General Kiley. I don't believe that's a fair statement.
        Senator Shelby. How would you describe it?
        General Kiley. I would describe it as an old building with
    some humidity problems that requires constant maintenance and
    upkeep.
        Senator Shelby. Have you visited Building 18 in the last
    several weeks?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Who was assigned to Building 18?
        General Kiley. Until today, there were soldier patients
    assigned to 18.
        Senator Shelby. Wounded soldiers?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir, wounded and ill. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. And how many would be there assigned,
    roughly?
        General Kiley. Sir, even in the last couple weeks the
    numbers fluctuated between mid-70s and mid-60s. I think it has
    54 rooms. It has a maximum capacity of about 100, 108.
        Senator Shelby. Had it ever come up through the command to
    you as the Surgeon General that there were deep problems at
    Walter Reed?
        General Kiley. Not as it relates to these articles, no,
    sir.
        Senator Shelby. Nothing? In other words, you had no
    inclination--you're the Surgeon General, a former commander of
    Walter Reed--you had no inclination, no knowledge, no
    information whatsoever that the conditions were deteriorating
    at Walter Reed?
        General Kiley. I had no information that there were issues
    of mold and other maintenance problems in Building 18. I knew
    that Walter Reed had a large number of casualties that were
    recovering, with a very active amputee center, and that we had
    some of the same issues we have at all of our facilities with
    the MEB/PEB process.
        Senator Shelby. After you became Surgeon General of the
    Army, have you been to Walter Reed?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Recently?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. And how many times have you been to Walter
    Reed?
        General Kiley. Oh, pretty frequently, at least once every
    couple of months if not once a month, but not any more
    frequently than that.
        Senator Shelby. Did you ever ask questions of the commander
    who succeeded you as to the conditions at Walter Reed, were
    they understaffed, were the facilities in good shape, and so
    forth?
        General Kiley. My discussions with General Farmer, who was
    my successor there for 2 years, were along the lines that they
    were with my other commanding generals of the regions, which
    was to continue to watch the process of receiving, and whenever
    they needed resources, if they had a problem that they needed
    my help with, they could come to me. And, as I have said
    before, for the care of wounded soldiers, we have the resources
    in terms of money in our budget to help them.
        Senator Shelby. Shouldn't the care of our wounded soldiers
    be one of our highest, highest priorities?
        General Kiley. Absolutely.
        Senator Shelby. And especially the Surgeon General of the
    Army, is that your highest priority?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir, it is.
        Senator Shelby. Did you minimize these complaints when you
    read about them? Did you take them lightly, or were you
    cavalier about it?
        General Kiley. Absolutely not, Senator. And I know that
    that's been perceived.
        Senator Shelby. Yes, it has been.
        General Kiley. I apologize for that. This is very serious
    business. I was devastated, frankly, to read about some of
    these cases and to see that some of this was going on, and
    immediately began investigating.
        Senator Shelby. Did you go out there yourself, immediately,
    and see what was going on?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. You did?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Did you take a team of your people with
    you?
        General Kiley. Well, when all of this broke, we sat down
    with the commander and we started analyzing what was going on.
    Yes, sir. I have a team that has gone out subsequent to that,
    visiting other facilities.
        Senator Shelby. What are you doing about it? What three
    steps have you made since the revelations have come out
    regarding the conditions at Walter Reed, of all hospitals?
        General Kiley. First, I think the command has taken on the
    infrastructure, the brick and mortar. The building was
    immediately repaired. The mold was removed. That was number
    one.
        Number two, the commander directed formal AR 15-6
    investigations, both into the chain of command and into the
    quality of care delivered in terms of medical records,
    appointments, et cetera. The Vice Chief of Staff established an
    action plan to make some other corrections, and to appoint a
    colonel to command and control the med hold. General Weightman
    was in the process of making changes and improving things. It
    was clear we needed to accelerate that.
        Senator Shelby. Sir, have you checked the record thoroughly
    to make sure that if there were any complaints bubbling up from
    the lower echelons at Walter Reed to the higher-ups that were
    never heeded, never considered?
        General Kiley. Any complaints that came directly to me, I
    certainly would ask the commanders to brief me on what was
    going on.
        Senator Shelby. What about complaints now, as you look
    back, that came to others, that maybe should have come to you?
    Have you dug into that?
        General Kiley. Not at this time, no, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Do you plan to? Don't you need to know
    everything about what was going on, or it never got to your
    desk, or your attention, perhaps, if it did, and how this could
    have been prevented?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir, and I'm looking back at that. I
    intend to talk to my commanders. It's clear I need to have much
    closer, more intense supervision of this process so that I
    don't miss this again.
        Senator Shelby. But you're the Surgeon General of the
    United States Army. What's the chain of command as far as you
    are concerned in your duties over Walter Reed? You were the
    former commander, but you're the Surgeon General.
        General Kiley. I'm the Surgeon General and the Commander of
    the U.S. Army Medical Command----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        General Kiley [continuing]. So my next subordinate
    commander is now General Schoomaker for Walter Reed, and he
    is----
        Senator Shelby. So basically, as the Surgeon General, you
    are the overall responsible person dealing with the Army
    medical centers, wherever they are. Is that correct?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Do you believe you have fulfilled your
    duty?
        General Kiley. I believe that the management of Walter Reed
    and the accountability, which I am accountable for----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        General Kiley [continuing]. Similar to my accountability
    for places like Landstuhl and Brooke, clearly it's not the only
    responsibility I have. I have many other responsibilities of a
    global nature, to include broad strategic and policy issues.
        Senator Shelby. Well, what's your number one obligation?
    It's the soldiers, isn't it?
        General Kiley. Getting soldiers off the battlefield alive,
    getting them through Landstuhl, and getting them to all of my
    medical centers.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely. Let's talk about Walter Reed
    and the future of Walter Reed. You know, this was made by the
    base closing commission.
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. I think we have to think about today's
    care, that's very important, and the standard of that care at
    Walter Reed, or lack thereof. But we have to think about
    tomorrow, too, the new Walter Reed, because it seems to me to
    be very logical to build a state-of-the-art medical facility at
    Bethesda, where you have the medical school, where you have the
    NIH, where you have Bethesda. And of course you plan, I think,
    that we're going to name it Walter Reed, which is fitting. But
    we have to deal with the present, but we've got to deal with
    the future, too, and I think we can do both if we do it right.
    What do you think?
        General Kiley. I absolutely agree with you, Senator, with
    the proviso that, one, it must be fully funded and, two, we
    must recognize, in the new Walter Reed at the National Military
    Medical Center Campus, that much of the work we're doing right
    now at Walter Reed as it relates to families and family support
    and outpatient work will have to continue in that new campus.
    And I think if we recognize all that and we coordinate this
    process of transformation over to the Bethesda campus, I don't
    think we will drop a single soldier through this from our
    current operations. But it has to be fully resourced.
        Senator Shelby. Well, you're before the Defense
    Appropriations Subcommittee. We are responsible for funding the
    military, wherever they are, including our hospitals and
    everything. Do you believe that we have adequately funded our
    medical, Army medical team and so forth, including Walter Reed?
    And if not, would you speak out for it?
        General Kiley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. This is where the money comes from, right
    here in this subcommittee.
        General Kiley. Yes, Senator, I understand, and I have said
    in the previous 3 fiscal years that I have served as the
    commander that as it relates to the global war on terrorism and
    everything Army hospitals do, that everything I've asked for,
    you have given us, and I have not gone wanting there.
        Senator Shelby. Have you asked for everything you need to
    run a first-class hospital at Walter Reed and anywhere else
    that you have our wounded veterans?
        General Kiley. I have asked. Part of that is a core budget
    that endures past combat operations, that may not have global
    war on terrorism funding, and in that respect we have had to
    deal with the wedge and efficiencies and taxes, and it has made
    it more challenging. And this wedge, this notional wedge in the
    coming budget, is going to make it even more challenging for
    us.
        Senator Shelby. I believe myself, as a member of this
    subcommittee, both sides of the aisle, Democrats or
    Republicans, we will fund whatever is necessary to treat our
    veterans more than right, the best in the world medical
    treatment, if you ask for it.
        General Kiley. Yes, Senator. Thank you. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    thank you and the ranking member, Senator Stevens, for your
    longstanding leadership and commitment on military medicine.
        I think the issues raised by the leadership and the panel
    in the BRAC situation are really very well taken. We understand
    why there was this whole desire for a joint facility, but in a
    minute I'll get into privatization, which shows that perhaps
    some assumptions are dated. I'd like to suggest to the
    subcommittee we ask the military to review that, and also that
    the Dole-Shalala Commission take a look, so that at the end of
    their report we might have a comprehensive list on that,
    because my concern--well, first of all, you know, we have
    phrases like ``wounded warrior.'' They evoke nostalgia.
        What we're talking about, we ought to start calling it the
    50-year care program. We have men and women who were injured
    and they are 19 or 20 years old. They are going to be alive for
    50 years, if it all works the way it should. So for 50 years,
    what does this mean to TRICARE? For 50 years, what does this
    mean to the VA?
        Yes, we can look at Walter Reed. Then where do they go to
    rehab? And then when they leave rehab, where do they go from
    there? Are they going to go into nursing homes? Are they going
    to go into assisted living? If they get home healthcare, who is
    going to help the families, these 19-year-old brides, with
    assistance with living for a guy who may have 40 percent of his
    brain shot off, or no arms or no legs, and the stress on the
    family?
        So we have to be thinking of this not as--I love the
    phrase, ``wounded warrior.'' It's very respectful and shows an
    emotional commitment, but I think we have to start calling it
    the 50-year commitment. And then how do we do this? Because the
    facilities here at the acute care and the outpatient care are
    only the first step to a series of steps that will last 50
    years, so let's take a look at that.

                                 PRIVATIZATION

        But this question about what did you know and when did you
    know it and all that, I'd like to bring to the subcommittee's
    attention and a question to General Kiley and to the other
    Surgeon Generals about privatization. I am concerned that the
    administration's relentless pursuit of privatization has caused
    dire consequences at our facilities.
        If we go to Walter Reed, there was a relentless effort to
    privatize the 300 employees who did building maintenance. Three
    hundred employees who did building maintenance. The
    administration spent $7 million on an A-76 process and then
    another $5 million to implement it, $12 million to get rid of
    300 employees. I protested it along the way, with my former
    colleague, Senator Sarbanes, but I wasn't the only one. I
    wasn't standing up for Maryland employees, though I was. I
    thought I was standing up for Walter Reed.
        Then Colonel Garibaldi sent a letter or memo on September
    6. This is the famous Garibaldi memo that said all of the
    contracting out of building maintenance was based on criteria
    for the year 2000, a year before 9/11 hit, 3 years before we
    went to war in Iraq--well, 2 years before Afghanistan, 3 years
    before Iraq. So we were functioning on outmoded data, once
    again not planning for war, not planning for the casualties of
    the war, not planning for the care of the casualties of the
    war. We took data from the year 2000.
        Garibaldi says we've got to do this, we've got to staff and
    implement something very different here. He cries out, saying
    the Army initiated this study in 2000. The current workload in
    the hospital has grown significantly. He goes on that the A-76
    in 2000 didn't even think about what we were facing. And the
    punch line here, he says without favorable consideration of
    these requests--which means don't do this--patient care and
    services are at a risk of mission failure.
        Well, while he was writing his memo, Sarbanes and Mikulski
    were doing an amendment on the Senate floor to overturn that A-
    76. We lost it, 50 to 48. We went from 300 employees very
    quickly to 50, 300 employees to 50.
        I'm going to ask that the Garibaldi memo be submitted for
    the record.
        [The information follows:]
                            Department of the Army,
                           United States Army Garrison,
                               Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
                                             Washington, DC 20307-5001.
    MEMORANDUM THRU MG George W. Weightman, Commander, NARMC and WRAMC,
            6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 30207
    FOR COL Daryl Spencer, Assistant Chief of Staff for Resource
            Management, MEDCOM, 2050 Worth Road, Bldg 2792, Suite 9, MCRM,
            Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6009
    Subject: Challenges Concerning the Base Operations A-76 Study and
            Resulting Reduction In Force (RIF) at Walter Reed Army Medical
            Center (WRAMC)

        Walter Reed Army Garrison and Walter Reed Medical Center (WRAMC)
    requests approval and financial support as the Base Operations A-76
    Study proceeds toward a reduction-in-force (RIF) and the date when the
    contractor will assume duties. Specifically we are requesting the
    following to prevent possible mission failure:
      --Approval and funding of the personnel in the ``bridge
            organization'', and fiscal year 2007 funding for VERA/VSIP.
      --Establishment of a larger than approved Continuing Garrison
            Organization (CGO).
      --Formal implementation of the Directorate Of Logistics (DOL) and
            Plans Analysis and Integration Office (PAIO) organizations.
        Since the Army initiated the A-76 study in 2000, the current
    workload in the hospital and garrison missions has grown significantly
    in the past six years due to our need to care for and support Wounded
    Warriors from Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
    other outcomes of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). As a result, the
    Army performed the competition with dated workload data and
    expectations created before the GWOT began in 2001. Now in 2006, we
    need more personnel than the study had anticipated. To rectify this
    situation, we need more government employees to remain on staff and
    need to implement a garrison DOL and PAIO.
        As a direct result of the A-76 study, its associated proposed RIF,
    and eventual Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) of WRAMC's Main Post,
    we face the critical issues of retaining skilled clinical personnel for
    the hospital and diverse professionals for the Garrison, while
    confronted with increased difficulties in hiring. In our efforts to
    manage the RIF, we implemented a Voluntary Early Retirement Authority/
    Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VERA/VSIP) effort. As a result
    we lost 21 personnel in June and nine more in July; an additional seven
    personnel will leave at the end of September while 30 to 35 more will
    depart after due course notification of Congress. Due to the
    uncertainty associated with this issue, WRAMC continues to lose other
    highly qualified personnel. A planned Priority Placement Program (PPP)
    registration will allow other employees to be placed into Department of
    Defense jobs at other locations. So far 67 personnel have registered
    for this program, which will become effective on 26 September 2006.
        The bump and retreat process that follows a RIF will impact the
    Hospital's patient care mission as highly skilled and experienced
    personnel in the current workforce are moved in to other jobs or
    involuntarily separated. The danger of an ``under-lap'' of personnel to
    perform vital functions could decrease our ability to complete the
    garrison mission and provide world class patient care. To ensure
    WRAMC's primary mission experiences little or no disruption, we request
    you approve a personnel ``bridge organization'' (attached as Enclosure
    1) to support the transition process until the contractor performance
    period begins.
        Compounding the issue is Medical Command's (MEDCOM's) non-
    concurrence with our requested residual organization, the Continuing
    Garrison Organization (CGO). Using the older workload data in 2004,
    WRAMC proposed a relatively small CGO of 25 government personnel.
    Earlier this year, with a better understanding of the greater workload
    requirements, the WRAMC Leadership submitted to MEDCOM a request for 63
    CGO positions (Enclosure 2) to be spread across the WRAMC garrison to
    provide effective oversight and monitoring of contractor activities
    proposed to implement the BASOPS support. After MEDCOM reviewed the
    request and sent a manpower analyst to discuss the revised CGO with
    each of our directors proposal they reduced the approved CGO total to
    26 slots (Enclosure 3).
        WRAMC established its garrison command in 2002 when the Army
    established the Installation Management Agency (IMA). Consequently the
    A-76 study data in 2000 did not include other areas of the garrison
    command necessary to run a full service BASOPS organization. These
    include the DOL and the PAIO; therefore, the final contractor
    submission did not include positions for them. Furthermore, MEDCOM did
    not approve any full time equivalents for the Garrison DOL or PAIO
    functions anywhere in the CGO.
        No provisions were made for a PAIO which has created additional
    problems. The PAIO is the Garrison Commander's right hand in the areas
    of planning, assessment and improvement. Working hand in hand with the
    BRAC office, the PAIO facilitates and maintains the BIG PICTURE
    Garrison planning efforts. Working with cross-functional planning teams
    we truly considered all aspects of every challenge facing the Garrison
    during the A-76, the RIF and BRAC processes, as well as the programs
    and services we provide to our customers on a daily basis. The PAIO
    consolidates all Garrison plans (Master Plan, Human Resource Plan,
    etc.) into an over arching Garrison Strategic Plan governed by an
    Installation Planning Board. This board is designed to be made up of
    the Installation Chain of Command, MEDCOM representatives, other tenant
    organization representatives and chaired by the Installation Commander.
    It is imperative that we continue ongoing measurements, analysis,
    assessment and adjustments that result in our goals and objectives
    being met at the installation level. Meeting these goals and objectives
    guarantees improvement of the Garrison BASOPS mission for the MEDCOM,
    our tenant units, our soldier's and their family members.
        Our last point has to do with section C.5.10 of the Performance
    Work Statement that was submitted for contracting, where DOL functions
    are represented. These functions relate to the ``Hospital'' DOL and do
    not consider Garrison DOL functions. The Garrison DOL is the property
    accountability and supply and services authority for the Garrison
    organization. Without these essential offices, WRAMC, MEDCOM, the Army
    and the U.S. taxpayer are vulnerable to property loss amounting to
    hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next five years. DOL's hand
    receipt system and follow on Financial Liability Investigation of
    Property Loss (FLIPL) process were implemented to hold hand receipt
    holders accountable for lost property and is a systematic and proven
    means of ensuring government property is tracked and accounted for. In
    addition, the disposition and transfer of property, equipment and
    facilities are all logistical functions and during BRAC the Vice Chief
    of Staff of the Army expects accountability from closing installations.
    Once the hospital is relocated this becomes a Logistics action and the
    hospital DOL will not be here to perform that function. After BRAC
    there could be a AAA Audit or GAO review to see that the correct steps
    were taken. The DOL also serves as a central office for supply
    acquisition and distribution thereby building a more efficient and
    effective means to procure supplies and equipment for the entire
    Garrison operation. A central supply system reduces redundancy and
    increases availability of supplies to Garrison organizations.
        Without favorable consideration of these requests, WRAMC Base
    Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure.
        Thank you for your interest in and support of our challenges. The
    POC is the undersigned at (202) 782-3355.
                                            Peter M. Garibaldi,
                                           COL, MS, Garrison Commander.

        Senator Mikulski. But I'm saying to General Kiley, the
    Surgeon General, could I have your word now that you're going
    to evaluate the privatization, to evaluate the privatization
    efforts that are going on at these facilities and the impact
    that this is having on patient care? I want to know, and this
    subcommittee wants to know, why did we spend $12 million to get
    rid of 300 people so we now have 50 people? Okay, so that's the
    privatization. Can I have your word to do that?
        General Kiley. Senator, I will take----
        Senator Mikulski. Were you there during this A-76?
        General Kiley. Oh, yes, Senator, I was.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, what did you do about it?
        General Kiley. Senator, the A-76 as I understood it was the
    law. It was required of us to do a privatization across--for
    MEDCOM purposes, across three----
        Senator Mikulski. But you could have challenged it. The
    assumptions were based on the year 2000.
        General Kiley. That's correct, and----
        Senator Mikulski. Did you challenge the assumptions of the
    A-76 with your higher-ups and say, ``Let's take another look
    here?'' There were 16 different appeals.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am, and at the time that that began,
    I was then the MEDCOM commander. And I know that General Farmer
    worked through that, to include the issue about 2000 data, and
    as I understand it, as it has been explained to me, they
    updated the data a little bit.
        But you have identified the problem. The problem was as
    much a function of the morale of the employees, and the fact
    that Garibaldi----
        Senator Mikulski. No, my identification of the problem was
    that the A-76 was based on 2000, the year 2000, data. That was
    the problem. And we spent $7 million to implement something
    that was based on it. That was what the problem was. Did it
    have an impact on you now? Yes.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am, it did.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay, so yes, it did. What about you,
    Admiral Arthur?

                                  A-76 STUDIES

        Admiral Arthur. Yes, ma'am. We have not had similar
    incidents of A-76 studies on as grand a scale as Walter Reed
    has, but I would tell you in general whenever you promulgate an
    A-76 study, the very best people that we have start looking for
    other jobs, and we end up with a dearth of people in the
    billets that are currently filled. And very often I think it
    comes out that a government worker, someone on the General
    Schedule or one of our contractors, is at least as cost-
    effective as a privatization would be.
        Senator Mikulski. I think this is something, again, that we
    need to be looking at, I mean truly looking at, and that also
    goes to Dole-Shalala.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, ma'am.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. General?
        General Roudebush. Yes, ma'am. I think it's very pertinent
    to go back and look at the privatization issue, and I think
    that's an exercise that is certainly worthy and will press on
    that.
        For us in the Air Force, we have a mix across our
    facilities of privatized contracts or base support. For us it
    has worked reasonably well. However, I think the opportunity to
    go back, revisit it, take a look, is something that we will
    certainly press on.
        [The information follows:]

        Approximately 72 percent (53 of 74) of Air Force Medical
    Service medical treatment facilities (MTFs) use contractors to
    provide day to day facility maintenance. The external
    accreditation body for health care facilities (Joint Commission
    on Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities) has had high praise
    for many of the contract maintenance companies in terms of
    processes and documentation of the work performed.
    Additionally, facility satisfaction with contract Maintenance
    is very high.
        On March 9, 2007, the Air Force Surgeon General asked the
    Auditor General of the Air Force to provide audit support for
    oversight of contractors responsible for medical facility
    cleaning and maintenance.
        While the Air Force Medical Service has never previously
    had an audit to evaluate the Performance of a contract
    maintenance provider, we take several measures to ensure we
    received quality maintenance. Each site has a contracting
    officer representative to ensure compliance with the specified
    level of maintenance. The contractors are required to provide
    monthly status reports on their performance. Notably, we also
    have a central cadre of experienced technical staff that
    further reviews the performance status reports. This staff,
    comprised of military and government civilian experts, provides
    oversight and support to the local representatives. We manage
    preventive maintenance and demand maintenance needs of our MTFs
    through the Facility Management Module of the Defense Medical
    Logistics Support System allowing us to monitor the state of
    equipment and trend the performance of our contractors. We
    ensure past performance is a key evaluation factor when we
    award new contracts and decide to exercise option years. Our
    maintenance contracts are structured to place full life-cycle
    liability for covered building systems on the contractors;
    therefore, the contractors have an inherent incentive to
    accomplish appropriate maintenance. If a system fails, they are
    financially liable to make all repairs or replacements.
    Collectively, these measures ensure we are providing quality
    maintenance of our medical infrastructure.

                               CONTINUITY OF CARE

        Senator Mikulski. Yesterday in the Levin hearings, the
    Assistant Secretary for Health said one of the most important
    things to ensure continuity of care was continuity of the
    caregivers, and he talked about the need for a cadre, and I'll
    use the term, of civil servants. It goes to, should military
    people even be running these hospitals? Should there be a cadre
    of civil servants that do this? And that also goes to the
    privatization question.
        I'm not questioning that but, as you know, in the private
    sector doctors don't run hospitals anymore. But you know tours
    of duty change. Since you were at Walter Reed, General Kiley, I
    think we've even had a third or a fourth----
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am. A fourth now, yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And that's the military way, so they come
    and they go, they come and they go, and they come and they go.
    So there's the loss of institutional memory, the culture the
    institution needs to maintain.
        I believe that there needs to be military leadership at
    military facilities, but I think we've got to take a look at
    the role of civil service here and now. It also goes to the
    contracting out of other services, because we not only have the
    wounded warrior, we have the wounded waiting warrior. Now, that
    takes me----
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, ma'am. May I comment, ma'am, just
    briefly?
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Admiral Arthur. The CNO asked me, when I first took this
    job, could we have our casualties seen at Mayo Clinic or Johns
    Hopkins? And I said they could treat their injuries and
    illnesses, but the advantage of having a military hospital with
    military commanders and people in charge is, we understand what
    our mission is and whom our population is.
        We never ask our patients how sick they can afford to be.
    And all of our people, all of our uniform people, have been to
    combat or at least have been exposed to the operational
    scenario so that they know what our patients have gone through,
    and I think there's great benefit to understanding the patient
    who has been in combat, the family needs, et cetera. So having
    someone other than military run our basic facilities runs the
    risk of not understanding who----
        Senator Mikulski. No, no. I'm not talking about contracting
    it out to Hopkins or to Mayo. I'm talking about who should be
    there all of the time, which is the chief executive officer
    (CEO) manager. No, I in no way would mean to dilute that.
        But let me go on. In TRICARE you do contract it out. There
    is TRICARE, but you reach a point where you do contract it out.
    That's one of the reasons, and one of the reasons these guys
    and gals are wild to get a 30 percent disability, so that they
    can get TRICARE for life, because they fear if they go into the
    VA they're going to wither away, exactly for the reasons you
    said.

                               DISABILITY RATINGS

        Which then takes me to this. General Kiley, of the 22,000
    Purple Hearts that we have, how many of them have achieved a 30
    percent or more disability?
        General Kiley. Senator, I can take that question for the
    record. I do know that in 2006, as I understand it, the active
    force had about a 4 percent permanent disability, so about----
        Senator Mikulski. Which goes to the Murray point. Thank
    you.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        [The information follows:]

        The Department of the Navy has identified 362 military
    personnel (326 Marine Corps/36 Navy) who have been awarded a
    Purple Heart and a combined disability rating of 30 percent or
    greater for injuries sustained while participating in
    Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM.

        Senator Mikulski. Admiral?
        Admiral Arthur. All Purple Hearts are given to active duty
    military. I'm not sure how many have received a disability.
    We'll take it for the record. But there are a lot of injuries
    which are minor, for which a Purple Heart is awarded.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we don't know how minor is
    ``minor,'' now. That's the whole point about this war, that
    ``minor'' might become ``major,'' which is one of the reasons
    they're talking about, when you are discharged and you have
    been handed over to the VA, which there's a lot of flashing
    lights about, that there is no goodbye physical that's uniform
    and passed on to them.
        Admiral Arthur. Well, we do have a joint physical that
    we're piloting and we've had for several years with the VA, so
    that we----
        Senator Mikulski. Let me tell you why I asked about the
    disability. So, okay, they're at Walter Reed, and we clean it
    all up and everybody is jazzed, and we ought to be jazzed.
    Well, what I worry about is what happens after they leave
    Walter Reed.
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, ma'am.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And that's why I was asking for this.
    Now, what is the plan, and have you taken the action that----
        General Kiley. The plan, to address your question, Senator,
    from my view is for the Army to get together very quickly----
        Senator Mikulski. But have they? Have they? Have you met?
    What is your plan?
        General Kiley. Well, I have not yet met, since I started
    working through this process here at Walter Reed----
        Senator Mikulski. But how long have you been Surgeon
    General?
        General Kiley. Two and one-half years.
        Senator Mikulski. And how long have we been at war in Iraq?
        General Kiley. A pretty long time. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. I think it's since March 2003, isn't it?
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. We went to war, so we have been at war
    there as long as World War II.
        General Kiley. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. And you don't have a plan for these----
        General Kiley. In terms of the issues of addressing what we
    have been talking about, which is what appears to be and to me
    is a disparity and a confrontational position, we have to take
    this on, and I----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, that's the disability of 4 percent,
    but what is your plan for even the 4 percent?
        General Kiley. In terms of taking care of those soldiers?
        Senator Mikulski. Yes. What is the long-term care plan? Do
    you have a plan for TRICARE for them? Do you have a plan for
    assisted living? Do you have a plan for long-term care? Do you
    have a plan for family assistance? Do you have a plan to pay
    for the divorce lawyers? Do you have any plan at all for any of
    this?
        General Kiley. For the 50-year plan, no, ma'am, I do not.
        Senator Mikulski. Do you have it for the next 3-year plan?
        General Kiley. Not yet. We have not addressed----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I find this shocking. This is a war
    that we have been fighting for 5 years. One hundred and fifty
    thousand people will now be there, if the President gets his
    surge way, but even now, 128,000. Five years, longer than World
    War II, where these men fought and bear the permanent wounds of
    war. That's why they are so passionate about this. They know
    what good care and good follow-up care means.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. I have heard their personal stories, and
    been touched and motivated and been inspired by them. How about
    you? Now, you said, when the problem with the Post article
    occurred, that it was yellow journalism and you wanted to reset
    our thinking. What thinking now do you want to reset? You
    wanted a private meeting with me. I want a public hearing. What
    part of that do you want to reset? You said it at the press
    conference.
        General Kiley. Senator, I did not call the Post series by
    reporters Priest and----
        Senator Mikulski. No, but you said you wanted to reset our
    thinking. Here is your moment in the sun. What part of that
    Dana Priest series do you want to reset our thinking on?
        General Kiley. I don't want to reset anyone's thinking,
    Senator. I share the concern of----
        Senator Mikulski. But you did when you said it. You did in
    your first press conference, said you wanted to reset thinking.
        General Kiley. I wanted to assure the American people that,
    one, we were as concerned as the report was, that we wanted to
    work through solutions, we weren't sitting back on our heels. I
    clearly was not attempting to suppress or in any way mitigate
    the circumstances.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, let me tell you what I'm hearing.
    I'm hearing from soldiers where they wanted to appeal their
    benefits, but they told me I can't use their stories because
    they fear retaliation.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am, and I----
        Senator Mikulski. That people fear retaliation, you need to
    know that. They fear retaliation about speaking up at
    facilities, so you need to know that.
        General Kiley. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. So there is a culture here, and I think
    the culture has got to change.
        General Kiley. And I agree.
        Senator Mikulski. This is why we think it's a failure of
    leadership. But I'm going to come back to the leadership of
    this subcommittee, who have devoted their life to military
    medicine, and who I'm proud to serve with. I think we've got to
    look at this, the fact that here we are in the fifth year of
    the war in Iraq, and we don't have a plan for what happens when
    these men and women leave truly acute care, not only the 50-
    year plan, but we don't have a 3-year plan.

                 MILITARY MEDICINE AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

        Now I'm going to ask, have the Surgeon Generals of military
    medicine met with Nicholson at the VA to talk about that
    continuity handoff? Have you as a group met with him?
        Admiral Arthur. Not as a group, ma'am, but I've met with
    him individually and have met when Secretary Perlin was the
    Under Secretary for Health of the VA.
        Senator Mikulski. And do you have a plan for doing this,
    for handing off the marines?
        Admiral Arthur. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And other Navy personnel?
        Admiral Arthur. The marines also have a plan for the
    marines, the Marine for Life Program and others that take care
    of marines even after they are discharged, active duty or
    reserves. The marines have been very, very forthcoming and
    forward-leaning in taking care of their own marine casualties.
        Senator Mikulski. Have you met with them?
        General Roudebush. Yes, I've met off line with Secretary
    Nicholson on at least one occasion, talking about this, as well
    as----
        Senator Mikulski. Do you feel you have a plan?
        General Roudebush. Ma'am, the plan that the Air Force uses
    is something that we call our wounded warrior plan, with the
    Palace HART, which actually follows our individuals through
    their hospitalization, through their disability processing, out
    into the civilian life, and continues to track them to assure
    that their needs are, in fact, met.
        Senator Mikulski. Have you met with them?
        General Kiley. I have not met with the Secretary on this
    subject. I have met with, had discussions over the last several
    years with Dr. Perlin and particularly with Dr. Kussman about
    the handoff from our facilities to the VA. I have put U.S. Army
    personnel into our multitrauma centers as liaisons to
    coordinate that. I have visited the polytrauma centers myself.
    I am very concerned about and think that that's the next great
    plan we need, which is to make sure the VA can continue to
    support these soldiers.
        Senator Mikulski. I find this horrifying, after 5 years, I
    just find this, the lack of a continuum. But I have confidence
    in the leadership of this subcommittee and look forward, and
    now the Dole-Shalala investigation, where we can continue this.
    Let's start with the BRAC, look at the facilities, and then the
    human infrastructure and the plan.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. My comment to the Surgeon Generals would
    be that both of our Senators have spoken up very strongly. I
    particularly want to go back to what Senator Murray said,
    though. We have all heard, from the families of these wounded
    members of the military, an expression of fear if they speak
    up. Somehow or other that has got to be dispelled.
        General Kiley. Yes, Senator, I agree.
        Senator Stevens. And I think it applies across the board. I
    would urge that you ask that there be just a flat statement
    that there is no retaliation. We welcome those comments. Those
    comments help us find ways to solve the problems, and I think
    many times they will help you.
        General Kiley. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. I would hope that we find some way to
    dispel this and start retaliating against the people who put
    that fear in these people. That should not be. There should not
    be any fear of speaking up about the quality of care or the
    future plans for these people. I don't think we can emphasize
    that too much. That has just got to stop.
        General Kiley. I agree completely, Senator, and I send
    surveys directly to med holdover soldiers and ask for their
    direct feedback to us, and we're getting that back. We've had
    over 1,000 surveys come back. Many of the comments are
    negative.
        It's not about going and reprising against someone. It's
    about finding out what's going on out there and letting us
    know. I can travel every camp, post, and station, and I do. I
    talk to soldiers. I was in Puerto Rico talking to med holdover
    soldiers. They have issues. We need to get on with it, and
    there will be no reprisal. It's absolutely unacceptable.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Like all citizens, when I began reading the articles in the
    Washington Post, I began to reflect, and I thought about a
    moment just about 1 year ago when a group of high school
    students converged into my office to interview me. And the
    first question I asked was, I suppose, a soft one: What happy
    moments have you had in your life? What were the happiest
    moments of your life?
        And my answer was a shocker for them because I said, ``The
    21 months I spent in the Army hospital after my injury.'' They
    couldn't understand that. In fact, they were my most enjoyable
    moments in my life. I had a ball in the military hospital.
        But as you think about it, you realize that there was a
    difference in culture. The President of the United States in my
    time, World War II, was very popular. The people were almost
    100 percent in favor of the war. Veterans were treated like
    gods. We would go into a restaurant and ``Anything you want,
    fella.'' Times were different.
        And then, well, I got hospitalized in the most unlikely
    place. We took over the best places in the United States. For
    my surgery it was Atlantic City. That's where it was. We took
    over Haddon Hall and Chalfont Hotels, huge hotels.
        When the Miss America program was finally restored, we got
    the front rows. And although I don't have a leg injury, I asked
    the surgeon to put a cast on because I wanted to get on a
    wheelchair to sit up in front. And I think I'm the only Member
    of Congress of the United States who was kissed by Miss America
    at that time.
        Senator Mikulski. And you well deserved it.
        Senator Inouye. These were happy moments for me. I spent 21
    months. The average GI spends 5 months in surgical, medical,
    and then he's an outpatient. I was not an outpatient. I was a
    member of the population there. We had 7 months of surgery and
    medical treatment and 14 months of what we called rehab.
        Had a group of carpenters from the carpenters group in that
    town who came out to teach us how to do carpentry. I built my
    own desk. Plumbing. To do electrical work, so that we won't be
    afraid to fiddle around with wiring, electrical wiring.
        We had to demonstrate that we can play sports. We had a
    choice. I decided not to take golf because after three rounds
    it was 92, and that's pretty high. I took up basketball and
    swimming, passed those tests.
        I took a driving course because I never drove before I got
    in the service, and they taught me how to drive, gave me a
    certificate to qualify me to drive in all States, all
    territories, all possessions, because at that time you know
    States had different driving laws.
        I had to play a musical instrument. Before the war I played
    a saxophone and a clarinet, but that was impossible, so they
    tried a trumpet and they said, ``No, your lips are too soft for
    that.'' And so they said, ``How about the piano?'' I said,
    ``You must be out of your mind,'' but I passed the test.
    Someday I'll demonstrate to you.
        They even taught us how to make love. Someday I'll say so
    in public, not for the record here, but I can assure you it was
    the best lesson I ever got. I've never made a mistake since.
        They taught us self-defense. They taught us how to dine,
    how to dress, how to dance. When you ask for a dance for the
    first time since your injury, how do you hold the lady? With
    your right? With the left? These are things you think about.
        When we learned how to swim, we were all required to swim,
    it was not in the hospital pool. It was in the public lake, so
    you had to swim in the presence of normal people. You know, the
    average guy who is injured is reluctant to show his ugliness
    and scars to others. That's human nature. He has to be taught.
    I'll go out here anytime, it doesn't bother me. I walk around
    the house and the backyard with shorts on. Doesn't bother me.
    But I think it would bother some of those who are just coming
    back because they haven't been taught how to do it.
        Well, the culture is different. As far as I'm concerned,
    you people are doing the utmost you can. And when you consider
    that since 2002 Walter Reed, for example, has handled over
    6,000 war-injured veterans, that's a load that's suddenly
    thrust upon them. Outpatient load since the war has gone up
    from 100 to about 800 a day.
        At the same time, as Barbara Mikulski, Senator Mikulski,
    has pointed out, you had this BRAC. When people were moving up,
    they wanted a permanent job. They knew that 2011 was right
    around the corner, so they wanted a job with some pension plan,
    so they were leaving. And Bethesda, because of the new orders
    of opening up a good, first class hospital, began recruiting.
    And voluntarily I know that six anesthesiologists have left,
    and if you don't have an anesthesiologist, you don't have
    surgery.
        And so in the beginning I said I hope this is not a finger-
    pointing exercise or fault-finding, scapegoating, sacrificial
    lamb, because all of us have dirty hands. Some got dirtier
    hands than others but we all do.
        So let's do our best. The soldiers deserve much better. I
    was horrified to see that mold and stories of rats around the
    place. These things didn't happen, I don't recall happening in
    my time.
        We had great socials. I don't know if they do have great
    dances today, but we had some good ones. And the first woman I
    ever fell in love with was a nurse. You couldn't help it. They
    were that good.
        So, with that, I'd like to thank the three gentlemen, and
    now may we call the nurses.
        General Kiley. Thank you, Senator.
        Admiral Arthur. Thank you.
        General Roudebush. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I would like to welcome the Nurse Corps
    Chiefs: Major General Gale Pollock, Chief of the U.S. Army
    Nurse Corps; Rear Admiral Christine Bruzek-Kohler, Director of
    the Navy Nurse Corps; and Major General Melissa Rank, Assistant
    Air Force Surgeon General for Nursing Services.
        As I have indicated, as a veteran the first woman I fell in
    love with was a nurse, and I'm still in love with them. You're
    doing a great job. And with that, got any words, Ted?
        Senator Stevens. No, I don't have a similar experience to
    talk about.
        Senator Inouye. Well, well, well. May I call upon General
    Rank?
    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MELISSA A. RANK, ASSISTANT
                SURGEON GENERAL FOR NURSING SERVICES,
                DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
        General Rank. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, I am pleased to represent nearly 8,000 men and
    women of the total nursing force. It has been my privilege to
    lead and serve alongside my senior advisors, Brigadier General
    Jan Young of the Air National Guard and Colonel Ann Hamilton of
    the Air Force Reserve.
        Air Force nursing is an operational capability, and
    strengthening clinical currency remains a priority. I have
    connected with each unit level nursing leadership for updates
    on their top initiatives. I can assure you that our clinical
    sustainment policy of 168 hours at the bedside has returned
    seasoned clinicians to inpatient settings to refresh skills and
    mentor the less experienced.
        Since September 2001, more than half of the Air Force
    service deployments have been filled by the total nursing
    force. We are in demand, serving in the air, on the ground, in
    every time zone, theater of operations, and level of care. Just
    as the global war on terrorism triggered an evolution in combat
    medicine, the unrelenting volume of complex trauma patients has
    generated an unprecedented demand for nursing resources.
        In the words of deployed Reserve officer, Lieutenant
    Colonel Dawn Smith, ``We do more than change dressings,
    maintain airways, stabilize blood pressure, and control
    bleeding. We provide the human touch. The hands I have held,
    the stories I have listened to, and the blank stares I have
    helped to find focus again, that is the essence of nursing.''
    And that is why we are here. I couldn't describe Air Force
    nursing any better.
        This type of nursing care rivals that of any stateside
    facility. We are providing phenomenal critical trauma care and
    maximizing survivability for patients during high volume air
    evacuation missions and in theater hospitals at Balad and
    Bagram.
        To provide this operational capability, we increased
    production of critical care trauma nurses. Building upon the
    successful joint training program in San Antonio, we awarded 30
    critical care and emergency nursing fellowships, and are
    expanding our training sites to Bethesda and St. Louis
    University Hospital in Missouri.
        The Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services
    University is the primary source for training our certified
    registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) and perioperative nurse
    specialists. We are particularly pleased with the operational
    focus of their programs and the collaborative initiatives of
    the current leadership. We would also like to recognize the
    TriService Nursing Research Program which funds a number of
    expeditionary-focused studies conducted by Air Force nurses.
    Thank you for your continued support of both programs.
        The national nursing shortage is posing a threat to our
    recruiting and retention efforts. Overall, we accessed 92
    percent of our goal for fiscal year 2006, reflecting a 10-
    percent increase from the previous year. We attribute our
    success to offering higher accession bonuses and more loan
    repayment options. We are implementing a specific Nurse
    Enlisted Commissioning Program similar to the successful Army
    and Navy programs. We have secured 12 student starts, and
    anticipate exponential growth of this program over the next 5
    to 10 years.
        Of grave concern is our current inventory, which has
    dropped to 85 percent. We are evaluating the downward trend in
    retention rates, and are now offering a $15,000 critical skills
    retention bonus to nurses completing their initial commitment.
    For the first time, we are also considering monetary incentives
    to impact retention at the 9- to 15-year point.
        On a positive note, we are encouraged by gains in master
    clinician billets. We anticipate this will allow nurses to stay
    at the bedside and remain competitive for promotion to colonel.
    Our powerful retention tool is professional development, and we
    continue to invest in advanced military and professional
    education programs. We are moving forward with plans to
    relocate enlisted medical basis and specialty training to a
    TriService Medical Education and Training Campus at Fort Sam
    Houston.
        We have fiercely maintained our ability to grant Community
    College of the Air Force degrees to Air Force students, and are
    exploring the feasibility of extending that benefit to our
    sister services. We are also investing in remarkable
    individuals like Staff Sergeant Victoria Weiger, who enlisted
    in 2001 at the age of 17. She has deployed twice to Iraq, and
    refers to helping injured U.S. and coalition forces as her most
    rewarding military experience.
        Sergeant Weiger expanded her scope of practice as an
    immunization technician and then as a critical care technician.
    She has earned an associate degree, and will be attending our
    Independent Duty Medical Technician Program early this summer.
    She aspires to commission as a Nurse Corps officer and becoming
    an Air Force CRNA.
        Last fall, I received an e-mail and photo from one of our
    deployed nurses. He was holding an Iraqi baby. This e-mail
    said: ``This child is one of our better outcomes. We see quite
    a few children here, and some very sad outcomes. We had three
    come in yesterday. One had both legs blown off near the hip, a
    very beautiful 8-year-old girl. I stopped by to see her. She
    was on continuous pain medication, and she looked like a
    sleeping angel. I didn't stay long because I couldn't keep the
    tears from welling up. No regrets about being here in Iraq. I
    love my work. Thanks for your support, and you take care.''
    Signed, Captain Jose P. Jardin III.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished subcommittee members,
    Lieutenant Colonel Smith, Captain Jardin, and Sergeant Weiger
    are representative of Air Force nursing. It is imperative that
    we recruit and retain quality airmen, afford them the best
    training and equipment, and safeguard clinical platforms to
    operationally prepare them and their replacements. We will look
    after their families while they are far from home, and be
    prepared to care for them when they return.
        We need to optimize the potential in our enlisted force
    with the opportunity to commission, and I must work diligently
    to improve Nurse Corps promotion opportunity and timing so that
    we can retain these airmen and capitalize on their leadership,
    clinical expertise, and operational experience. They are the
    symbol of the future of Air Force nursing.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I am extremely honored to be here today. Thank you for the
    considerable support you have given us this year, and thank you
    for inviting me to tell our Air Force story.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General. Would you
    share with us the names and addresses of those three gallant
    nurses?
        General Rank. I would be proud to.
        Senator Inouye. We would like to send a note to them, a
    note of appreciation.
        General Rank. Yes, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Major General Melissa A. Rank
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is my
    honor to be here today representing Air Force Nursing Services. The
    Total Nursing Force encompasses officer and enlisted nursing personnel
    of Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command
    components. It has been my privilege to lead and serve alongside
    Brigadier General Jan Young of the Air National Guard and Colonel. Anne
    Hamilton of the Air Force Reserve Command, my senior advisors for their
    respective components this past year.
        The Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force have set three
    priorities: Win the global war on terrorism, develop and care for our
    airmen, and modernize and recapitalize our assets. I assure you Total
    Nursing Force objectives align with, and directly support, these
    priorities.
                             expeditionary nursing
        Air Force nursing is an operational capability, and Air Force
    Nursing Services remains in the forefront supporting the warfighter.
    Between January and December 2006, 12 percent of the Total Nursing
    Force inventory (2,187 personnel) deployed to 43 locations in 23
    countries. Within the active duty component, 13 percent of our nurses
    and 15 percent of our medical technicians were deployed in 2006. The
    average deployment length was 110 days. Since September 2001, the Total
    Nursing Force has completed 53 percent of all Total Force deployments
    within the Air Force Medical Service. Total Nursing Force nurses and
    medical technicians are providing remarkable operational support. We
    are a well-trained, highly motivated capability serving in every time
    zone, every theater of operations, and at every level of care.
        In January 2007, we activated the 455th Expeditionary Medical Group
    and assumed operational control of Craig Theater Hospital located at
    Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan. We have received impressive reports of
    life-saving care at the 455th. For one Afghani National admitted with
    multi-organ failure, classic medical-surgical nursing care saved his
    life. Over a 3-week period, Captain Cindee Wolf saw to his daily care
    and treatments. Providing frequent personal care, administering
    countless intravenous and oral medications, cajoling ``one more bite''
    at mealtimes, and performing multiple range of motion exercises were
    just a few of the interventions nursing teams employed. Disease,
    compounded by poor nutrition and harsh living conditions, proved just
    as life threatening as an insurgent's bullet. The compassionate care of
    everyone assigned to the 455th Immediate Care Ward contributed to this
    patient's recovery and discharge home.
        The 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group remains the epicenter for
    wounded in Iraq. Located at Balad Air Base, this Air Force theater
    hospital treats more than 300 trauma patients every month and provides
    care to another 400 sick and injured patients. Of the roughly 700
    patients seen per month, about 500 (71 percent) are U.S. troops, 170
    (20 percent) are Iraqi soldiers, police and civilians, and the
    remaining 30 (10 percent) are foreign national contract employees,
    insurgents, or those of unknown status.
        Nursing teams are providing phenomenal emergency trauma care and
    maximizing favorable outcomes for patients in these high-volume theater
    hospital environments. U.S. casualties making it to Balad have an
    unprecedented survival rate of 97 percent to Landstuhl Regional Medical
    Center in Germany. Describing the response of medics to an influx of
    casualties, 332nd Chief Nurse Colone Rose Layman said, ``. . . we had
    such a smooth rhythm as we worked together . . . we were able to take
    20 patients with multiple traumatic injuries and triage, treat, and
    move them . . . without calling any additional staff. I stood in that
    empty emergency room (exactly 1 hour after the first casualty came in
    and simply thought, wow!''
        Our nursing care rivals that of any stateside facility. In the
    words of one of our experienced Air Force Reserve Command nurses, ``I
    had the best experience in my entire 20 years as a trauma nurse
    [because] I saw how trauma patients should be treated--I saw the best
    possible care done on the worst traumas I have seen in the shortest
    time imaginable. I work at one of the largest trauma centers in my
    State and just realized we could learn a lot.'' What a testimony to the
    Air Force Medical Service!
        The en route care construct has significantly decreased our
    footprint on the ground. Since October 2001, the Air Force Medical
    Service Aeromedical Evacuations System has moved nearly 40,000
    patients. To put this in terms you may appreciate, this equates to
    evacuating the entire population of Annapolis, Maryland. In an excerpt
    from the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's ``Portraits of Courage'',
    General Moseley recognized our Aeromedical Evacuation flight nursing
    teams. Although written with the 86th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron
    (AES) in mind, his comments described the mission performed by any one
    of our 31 Total Force Aeromedical Evacuation units. ``. . . wounded
    warriors, premature babies, accident victims, retirees falling ill and
    other Department of Defense (DOD) beneficiaries needing medical care
    are routinely transported by [teams of] flight nurses and aeromedical
    evacuation technicians . . . Our Nation asks much of her military and
    she provides an unsurpassed transportation of the sick and injured
    around the world . . .''
        The challenging task of facilitating Aeromedical Evacuation
    missions rests with our four Global or Theater Patient Movement
    Requirements Centers. The Theater Patient Movement Requirements-Europe
    provided around-the-clock support during the Beirut, Lebanon Non-
    combatant Evacuation Operation. Working in concert with DOD, Department
    of State, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Consulates in Nicosia,
    Cyprus, and Frankfurt, Germany, they synchronized patient movement of
    evacuees. In one case, the U.S. Consulate in Nicosia contacted Theater
    Patient Movement Requirements-E and requested assistance moving an 84-
    year-old Lebanese-American. At the outbreak of hostilities, this
    gentleman was evacuated from Beirut and admitted to the American Heart
    Institute in Nicosia for treatment of his chronic cardiac and
    respiratory problems. Theater Patient Movement Requirements-E validated
    the need for en route medical care, coordinated an accepting physician
    at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, and secured airlift
    for an Aeromedical Evacuation mission. Within 24 hours, the mission was
    complete and the patient was receiving care at Landstuhl Regional
    Medical Center.
        Members of the Total Nursing Force, like Aeromedical Evacuation
    Technician Staff Sergeant Jason St. Peter, saved lives using their
    extensive medical and combat readiness training. While on a rescue
    mission into a high threat area of anti-coalition militia activity,
    SSgt. St. Peter was informed that the casualty count had quadrupled.
    Taking decisive action, he directed reconfiguration of the aircraft to
    accommodate additional patients. Upon landing, he triaged and
    prioritized treatment under infrared illumination provided by overhead
    aircraft. SSgt. St. Peter was credited with saving eight soldiers, as
    well as eliminating the need to bring additional rescue teams into
    harm's way. He was nominated for a Distinguished Flying Cross.
        In the Pacific theater, crews from the 18th AES moved six
    critically burned sailors from Guam to Hawaii and then on to San
    Antonio. During the final leg of this 6,000 mile journey to Brooke Army
    Medical Center, the sailors received en route critical care from a team
    of burn specialists. This feat showcased Tri-Service interoperability,
    validating the joint capability of moving patients in an efficient
    manner and providing the greatest opportunity for survival and
    rehabilitative care. Notably, it was during this mission that our C-17
    fleet logged its one-millionth hour.
        For some, duties were performed along our Nation's border in
    support of Operation Jump Start. One hundred fifty-five Air National
    Guard nurses and medical technicians from four States were activated
    for 1 to 4 month rotations supporting this Homeland Security Border
    Control mission.
                         operational skills sustainment
        The global war on terrorism demand for operational, clinically-
    current specialty nurses has steadily grown. In response, we have
    increased production of critical care and trauma nurses and returned
    nurses with specialty nursing experience to the deployment pool.
        Encouraged by the success of our joint training pipeline in San
    Antonio, we awarded 30 critical care and emergency fellowships this
    year and expanded our joint training platforms to include the National
    Naval Medical Center in Bethesda and St. Louis University Hospital in
    Missouri. We have not stopped there. We are revising our support
    agreement with the University of Cincinnati Medical Center in Ohio to
    accommodate critical care nursing fellows.
        We continue to rely on our Centers for Sustainment of Trauma and
    Readiness Skills (C-STARS). These advanced training platforms are
    embedded into major civilian trauma centers throughout the continental
    United States. In 2006, this invaluable clinical immersion enabled 614
    doctors, nurses, and medical technicians to refresh operational
    currency while preparing them to deploy as Critical Care Air Transport
    Team (CCATT) members or clinicians in expeditionary medical support
    (EMEDS) facilities. Many of our chief nurses consider the Centers for
    Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills an essential component of
    their clinical competency programs and the majority of the graduates
    tell us it is one of the best training experiences of their military
    career.
        Strengthening operational clinical currency remains a priority. Now
    11 months old, our clinical sustainment policy continues to gain
    momentum. The concept is simple: providing opportunities for nurses
    temporarily assigned in out-patient or non-clinical settings to refresh
    their technical skills by working a minimum of 168 hours per year at
    the bedside. For many of our out-patient facilities, this means
    affiliating with local medical centers for innovative patient care
    partnerships. Where available, our medical technicians are capitalizing
    on these partnerships. Said an airman from Kirtland Air Force Base
    (AFB), New Mexico, ``The Veterans Affairs (VA) rotation . . . was a
    great way to get hands-on experience and exposure to emergency and
    inpatient settings.''
        In 2006, we gained access to eight complex medical-surgical,
    emergency trauma and critical care training platforms in which to
    sustain clinical skills for our officer and enlisted nursing personnel.
    An extraordinary benefit emerging at nearly all training sites has been
    exposure to--and appreciation for--the unique missions of various
    agencies. We are encouraged by reports of how affiliations with our
    Federal health partners have fostered collegiality between nurses.
    Among these affiliations, two are with civilian organizations (Miami
    Valley Hospital in Dayton, Ohio and Iowa HealthCare in Des Moines,
    Iowa). Federal Tort Laws make securing affiliations with civilian
    organizations particularly challenging, so I applaud the hard work
    expended at the local level. Nursing personnel from the 3rd Medical
    Group (MDG) DOD/Veterans Affairs Joint Venture Hospital and the Alaska
    Native Medical Center have collaborated on continuing education and
    professional development programs for many years. Their partnership
    expanded recently to include rotations in pediatric, medical-surgical
    and critical care units--experiences long-sought to bolster currency at
    home station and in deployed settings.
        In addition to sustainment, we have robust entry-level training
    platforms. The 882nd Training Group at Sheppard AFB, Texas graduated
    1,638 Total Force Aerospace Medical Service Apprentice (AMSA) students
    in fiscal year 2006. AMSA students have the unique experience of
    training on technologically advanced simulations systems. Life-like
    mannequins simulate clinical patient scenarios, allowing students to
    learn and gain hands-on experience in a controlled environment. As they
    progress through training, students are challenged with increasingly
    complex scenarios. This training module was recognized by 2nd Air Force
    as a ``Best Practice''.
        Landstuhl Regional Medical Center became our 10th Nurse Transition
    Program (NTP) training site and the first NTP hosted in a joint
    facility. With the addition of the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
    NTP, we have increased overall enrollment to 160 nurses in this Air
    Force Medical Service entry-level officer program.
        We depend on the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences (USUHS) Graduate School of Nursing (GSN) to prepare many of
    the Family Nurse Practitioners (FNPs) and Certified Registered Nurse
    Anesthetists (CRNAs) needed to fill our mission requirements.
    Currently, 57 percent of our 49 FNPs and 52 percent of our 143 CRNAs
    are USUHS graduates. The GSN enrolled 46 Air Force nurses this fall in
    Perioperative Specialty, FNP, and CRNA programs. Overall, Air Force
    nurses represented 41 percent of the GSN student population. Once
    again, all 13 of our CRNA candidates passed the National Certification
    Exam before graduating this past December. We would like to acknowledge
    the support of faculty, and recognize Lieutenant Colonel Adrienne
    Hartgerink for her selection as Military Faculty Member of the Year.
        We are pleased with the collaborative research endeavors available
    to GSN students. Air Force nurses have published their research in
    professional journals and presented their work at the national level.
    Ten of our nurses were among the GSN students contributing to a
    landmark study that analyzed more than 11,000 reported perioperative
    medication errors. The recommendations emerging from this research have
    significant implications for patient safety, and will lead to better
    outcomes for patients in all U.S. healthcare organizations.
    Collaborative clinical training occurred as well. The Mike O' Callaghan
    Federal Hospital at Nellis AFB in Nevada and National Naval Medical
    Center were formally designated as Phase II Nurse Anesthesia Clinical
    Sites. Air Force nursing has successfully integrated training platforms
    at every level.
                               clinical successes
        We are also logging significant improvements at home-station
    treatment facilities. The 81st MDG at Keesler AFB, Mississippi
    celebrated another post-Katrina milestone with the opening of a new
    labor, delivery, recovery and postpartum unit. The new labor and
    delivery unit is staffed with six OB/GYN physicians, one nurse midwife,
    nine military and three civilian nurses, as well as seven medical
    technicians. More staff will be arriving over the coming year to
    coincide with projected increases in prenatal caseload.
        At the 23rd MDG, Moody AFB, Georgia, Major Jennifer Trinkle and a
    team of nurses instituted a nurse-run Active Duty Fast-Track Clinic
    using pre-defined care protocols. The fast-track made a measurable
    impact on their business plan and increased overall productivity of the
    facility. Exit surveys revealed patients liked the ``express''
    experience, and nursing teams enjoyed more interaction with patients.
        A Tri-Service nurse consortium, chartered at Landstuhl Regional
    Medical Center, addressed complex infection control issues affecting
    global war on terrorism casualties. Their initiatives included
    modifying specimen collection intervals to reduce bacterial
    colonization of acinetobacter baumannii, instituting contact
    precautions for all intensive care unit admissions, and switching to
    waterless/antibacterial bathing protocols. These efforts have the
    potential to become benchmark infection control practices for
    participating National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System
    hospitals.
                               caring for our own
        The cornerstone of military capability is a fit and ready force;
    however, the undeniable consequence of continued exposure to
    polytraumatic injuries is profound risk to the health of our nursing
    staff. Although vast resources are available to airmen and their
    families prior to deployment, lessons from earlier conflicts have
    taught us some returning warriors--warrior medics among them--have
    difficulty resuming personal and professional activities. Dr. Michael
    Murphy, an Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Indiana University
    School of Medicine and OIF veteran, offered this Veteran's Day tribute:
    ``There is . . . a group of forgotten veterans . . . who carry with
    them the ghosts of war that will haunt them forever . . . nursing staff
    (assigned to) forward surgical teams and combat support hospitals.'' To
    that end, every airman completes a Post Deployment Health Re-Assessment
    (PDHRA) survey at some point during their 90 to 180 day post-deployment
    window. At the local level, nurses are connecting those at risk with
    appropriate primary care or mental health providers.
        We recognize caring for our own includes caring for those who care,
    looking after airmen and their families and educating all concerned on
    signs and symptoms of stress. Over the past year, we have promoted
    awareness and neutralized stigmas associated with seeking help by
    incorporating post traumatic stress and compassion fatigue discussions
    with nurses attending symposiums, conferences and senior leader
    gatherings. We are now pursuing targeted interventions to ensure we
    have the appropriate resources available for our nurses and medical
    technicians when they return to home.
                            professional development
        The goal of Nurse Corps (NC) professional development is to produce
    nursing leaders for the Air Force Medical Service. We accomplish this
    goal by creating role-specific skill-sets and competencies to enhance
    current job performance and prepare junior officers for success in the
    future. Our nursing Development Team (DT) convenes quarterly to ensure
    NC officers are afforded deliberate career progression. The DT
    competitively selects our squadron commander and chief nurse
    candidates, both of which represent pivotal career leadership
    milestones. Additionally, the DT selects, through a board process,
    those leaders who will most benefit from developmental education in
    residence. This year three outstanding NC officers were selected for
    senior developmental education.
        Professional development also serves as a powerful retention tool.
    Seventy-five percent of Air Force nurses responding to our 2006 DT
    Assessment Tool survey stated educational opportunities positively
    influenced them to stay in the military. In addition to professional
    military education and pinnacle leadership positions, the NC supports
    very robust educational opportunities. Three percent of Total Force
    nurses are funded for advanced academic degrees and specialty training
    every year. For 2006, these included 69 nurses selected for the nurse
    practitioner programs, 21 nurses selected for clinical nurse
    specialists' education, and 14 nurses selected for other advanced
    degrees. Eighteen nurses were selected for very competitive fellowships
    to include emergency room/trauma/critical care, Advanced Executive
    Development programs, Advanced Education and Training programs, Joint
    Commission and Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care
    fellowships, and numerous others. In addition to professional military
    education and advanced degree programs, we continued our specialty
    courses for operating room nursing, neonatal intensive care nursing,
    infection control, perinatal/OB nursing and the Health Professions and
    Education and Training Course. In 2006, we trained 66 Total Nursing
    Force flight nurses and 172 Total Nursing Force Aeromedical Evacuation
    technicians at our Flight School at Brooks City Base in San Antonio.
    This program continues to be a vital training platform for our
    increasing requirements for clinical Aeromedical Evacuation crews in
    support of global war on terrorism.
        Purposeful assignment selection and rank-appropriate developmental
    education opportunities will ensure our nurses have the requisite
    skills and experience to succeed in deployed operations and future
    leadership roles. I want to especially thank Dean Bester of USUHS for
    the continued support, which makes much of our advanced education a
    huge success.
                                  recognition
        Air Force nurses and medical technicians were recognized for
    outstanding performance by various professional organizations this
    year. The Air Force Association is an independent, nonprofit, civilian
    education organization promoting public understanding of aerospace
    power and the pivotal role it plays in the security of the Nation. They
    recently selected Air Force Medical Service Expeditionary Medics to
    receive the AFA Outstanding Air Force Team of the Year award for their
    direct support of the warfighter and our expeditionary efforts. Seven
    Total Force medics will accept this award on behalf of the entire Air
    Force Medical Service at the end of March.
        Last fall, Lieutenant Colonel Leslie Claravall, 374th Medical
    Operations Squadron Commander at Yokota AB, Japan was honored as one of
    the 2006 Ten Outstanding Young Americans. Since 1938, this project has
    recognized 10 Americans each year who exemplify the best attributes of
    the Nation's young people.
        In July 2006, the National Nursing Staff Development Organization
    presented national awards to two Air Force nurses at their annual
    conference. Lieutenant Colonel Lola Casby and Major Francis Desjardins
    won the Excellence in Educational Technology and Excellence in the Role
    of Professional Development Educator Awards, respectively. Lieutenant
    Colonel Sandy Bruce, Consultant to the Air Force Surgeon General for
    Nursing Education and Training, was appointed editor-in-chief of the
    next edition of Core Curriculum for Staff Development, and five Air
    Force nurses were named to the editorial board. This manual, endorsed
    by National Nursing Staff Development Organization, is widely accepted
    as the standard of practice for healthcare educators. For the first
    time, an Air Force nurse was named Research Consultant to the
    International Council of Nurses (ICN). The ICN is a federation of more
    than 120 national nurses' associations representing millions of nurses
    world-wide. Colonel John Murray was also selected as a Fulbright
    Visiting Scholar for research, another first for military nursing.
        Our medical technicians were similarly honored for outstanding
    achievement. Master Sergeant Charles Cremeans, an independent duty
    medical technician assigned to the 786th Security Forces Squadron at
    Ramstein AB, Germany, was awarded the 2006 Lewis L. Seaman Enlisted
    Award for Outstanding Operational Support. Air Force independent duty
    medical technicians have won this award 3 of the past 4 years,
    validating their unique role in operational healthcare missions.
    Sponsored by the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States,
    this prestigious award recognizes an enlisted professional of the Army,
    Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard, who has demonstrated compassionate,
    quality patient care and service, clinical support, or healthcare
    management.
        Technical Sergeant Shannon McBee, an Aeromedical Evacuation
    technician assigned to Pope AFB, North Carolina was awarded the 2006
    Airlift Tanker Association's Specialized Mission Award. During the
    award presentation, General Duncan McNabb told the audience, ``In time
    of war, when we are doing 900 sorties a day . . . there's one
    individual who stands out above all others . . .'' While deployed,
    TSgt. McBee flew 28 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes under
    fire, to provide critical nursing care to more than 300 wounded
    people--from special operations soldiers to children who stepped on
    land mines.
        Some of the most rewarding recognition came in the form of
    spontaneous acknowledgement from our professional colleagues. During a
    regional nursing conference, Air Force nurses Major Prudence Anderson,
    Major Wendy Beal, and Captain Charlotta Leader presented Deployed
    Military Nursing from Ground to Air; focusing on the EMEDS concept, en
    route care processes and Aeromedical Evacuation missions. As they
    concluded their presentation, there was a moment of silence followed by
    a standing ovation. ``It was an honor to represent military nursing . .
    . to be so appreciated in our community,'' they said.
                            recruiting and retention
        Nurses remain at the top of Gallup's annual poll assessing honesty
    and professional ethics. However, public confidence has yet to
    translate into larger recruiting pools. In fact, a U.S. Department of
    Health and Human Services report (http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/nursing/)
    projects demand shortfalls will reach 17 percent by 2010 and 27 percent
    by 2015. Clearly, Air Force nursing will need to capitalize on every
    opportunity to recruit and retain nurses.
        In fiscal year 2006, we achieved 80 percent (281) of our total
    recruiting goal (350). This was a significant improvement over fiscal
    year 2005's 69 percent. Graduates of our scholarship programs brought
    overall accessions up to 92 percent of goal. We attribute our success
    to larger financial incentives, which combined the options of accepting
    an accession bonus and Health Professions Loan Repayment for nursing
    school loans. Our fiscal year 2006 accession bonus options were $15,000
    for a 3-year commitment or $20,000 for a 4-year commitment. We have
    increased the bonus for fiscal year 2007 ($25,000/4yrs), and are
    optimistic this will get us even closer to goal. Direct accessions
    accounted for the majority of our fiscal year 2006 recruits, but we
    also attracted new nurses via ROTC scholarships, Line of the Air Force
    (LAF) funded enlisted to BSN and Airman Enlisted Commissioning
    Programs.
        Mirroring our Sister-Services' successful enlisted commissioning
    programs, we are aggressively pursuing a specific Nurse Enlisted
    Commissioning Program. We gained LAF support for 12 student ``starts''
    over the next 2 years, and anticipate exponential growth of this
    program for the next 5-10 years.
        As calendar year 2006 came to a close, the NC inventory was a
    gravely concerning 85 percent. We retired 166 officers and separated
    another 188, for a net loss of 354 experienced nurses. We know our
    attrition rates spike at the 4-5 year point as nurses complete their
    initial service commitment; and again at 7-9 years, when nurses face
    disparate promotion opportunity. In response, we initiated a $15,000
    critical skills retention bonus targeting nurses completing their
    initial commitment in the Air Force, and will be closely monitoring its
    impact on retention for this year group.
        Compensating for our second attrition spike will be much harder,
    but we have made progress this year. LAF acknowledged inequities in
    colonel-grade billets, and validated 100 percent of the NC position
    descriptions submitted to the Air Force Colonel Grade Review Board. As
    a result, we have conservatively estimated a 45 percent gain in NC
    colonel-grade billets over the next year.
        We are especially pleased with the increased number of validated
    master clinician billets at our larger hospitals and medical centers.
    This is significant because it will provide an avenue for some of our
    most clinically experienced senior nurses to remain in patient care
    settings without sacrificing opportunities for promotion and
    advancement. We are now a few steps closer to bringing NC promotion
    opportunity in parity with other Air Force categories constrained by
    the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act. These are tremendous
    strides for the NC, although the effect they will have upon major-grade
    and lieutenant Colonel-grade promotion opportunity is not yet clear.
                           transformation initiatives
        The Air Force Medical Service has deployed transformation
    initiatives this year using the principles of Air Force Smart
    Operations 21 (AFSO21). The primary goal of AFSO21 is to eliminate
    redundant processes that compete against priority missions for time,
    manpower, and money. In 2006, the Air Force Medical Service became the
    first DOD service to align with the Accreditation Association for
    Ambulatory Health Care, Inc. (AAAHC) for surveys of our ambulatory care
    clinics. Our partnership with The Joint Commission continues for
    surveying our inpatient facilities. In the words of our senior
    healthcare inspector, ``Our new partnership with AAAHC will allow us to
    significantly integrate (military) inspections and accreditation
    findings in our reports . . . while reducing duplication of effort . .
    . a great example of AFSO21 principles at work.''
        The 39th MDG at Incirlik AB, Turkey provided another example. They
    applied AFSO21 strategies to their Medical Right Start Program, an Air
    Force medical service wide process of enrolling beneficiaries into the
    local health care system upon arrival to a new duty station. They
    streamlined their process by relocating all points of service to a
    central location at their Military Treatment Facility (MTF) and
    scheduling all Right Start Orientation enrollment activities on a
    single day. They estimate annual savings of $106,000 and 1,630 duty
    hours by implementing these customer-focused process improvements.
        By far, the most challenging initiative has been the conversion of
    military positions to civilian equivalents needed to support a leaner
    military medical force posture. The Air Force nursing services civilian
    inventory includes more than 1,000 nursing personnel in advanced
    practice, licensed and paraprofessional roles. Nationally, the demand
    for nursing personnel far exceeds the supply, creating a competitive
    market that favors qualified candidates. In 9 months of active
    recruiting, we have hired 11 nurse practitioners and nurse specialists,
    59 clinical nurses, and 41 paraprofessional nursing personnel (Licensed
    Practical Nurses (LPNs), Emergency Medical Technicians and Operating
    Room (OR) technicians). Although we hired 86 percent of the clinical
    nurses programmed for fiscal year 2006, we were significantly less
    successful with other civilian hires, especially LPNs and OR
    technicians. Through active recruiting, hiring bonuses where warranted,
    and use of direct hire authority, we are cautiously optimistic about
    reaching our fiscal year 2007 goal of accessing 211 additional civilian
    nursing personnel.
                                joint endeavors
        Our International Health Specialty Nurses organized several
    important initiatives supporting the goals of Theater Security
    Cooperation. Among them, was a bilateral project to enhance the
    infection control capability of nurses serving in the Vietnam (VN)
    military. Facilitated by the Center of Excellence (COE) for Disaster
    Management and Humanitarian Assistance and funded through Presidential
    Emergency Plans for AIDS/HIV Relief (PEPFAR), this project builds upon
    previous U.S.-VN military nursing exchanges. During the first phase of
    this project, VN nurses will travel to Wichita Falls, Texas for
    didactic training at Sheppard AFB and then transition to Tripler Army
    Medical Center (TAMC) for clinical experience. A total of eight VN
    nurses will be trained; with the first two scheduled to begin in March.
    The second and third phases involve U.S. nurses traveling to VN to
    assist newly-trained VN nurses with Infection Control Program
    implementation at their four largest military hospitals. The University
    of Hawaii, College of Nursing collaborated with DOD and COE partners to
    develop the educational framework and gather supporting data. This
    project meets Theater Security Cooperation goals of capacity building,
    building competent coalition partner, interagencies, interoperability,
    access, and influence.
        A joint capital venture between the 1st MDG at Langley AFB,
    Virginia and the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth is underway. This
    venture establishes a Special Care Nursery at Langley AFB that accepts
    transfers of moderately ill neonates from the Naval Medical Center
    Portsmouth, thus enabling them to preserve bed-space for more critical/
    acutely ill neonates. This partnership will allow beneficiaries to
    continue care within the Military Health System, a benefit to both
    medical facilities and their patient population.
        Air Force nurses actively participated in monthly System-wide
    Trauma Continuum of Care video teleconferences in 2006. The
    complexities of issues addressed were astounding, and included
    standardizing pressure-related baldness and skin ulceration
    surveillance and prevention, managing complex pain issues during en
    route care, standardizing burn management and resuscitation
    documentation, reducing mortality and morbidity associated with under/
    over fluid resuscitation, and reducing ventilator-associated
    pneumonias. This world-wide, DOD/Veterans Affairs performance
    improvement forum, facilitated successful outcomes and improved quality
    of life and functionality for recovering global war on terrorism
    casualties.
        Twenty-four medics from the 52nd MDG, Spangdahlem AB, Germany
    deployed to Tamale, Northern Ghana where they joined 22 Ghanaian
    military medical staff for MEDFLAG 06. Operations required extensive
    interoperability. Participants gained experience in deploying to
    austere locations, interacting with host nation military and
    governmental organizations, observing/understanding local customs,
    integrating healthcare teams of multiple specialties and several units/
    Service components, procuring supplies and equipment, and reallocating
    personnel and resources to meet changing mission requirements. Everyday
    at sunrise, teams loaded supplies and convoyed to villages where
    thousands stood waiting for medical, dental and optometry care. Over
    3,200 patients received care in just 4 days, and U.S. medical personnel
    were able to learn about, see and treat a myriad of chronic and
    tropical diseases rarely seen in the United States. A letter of
    appreciation signed by Pamela Bridgewater, U.S. Ambassador to Ghana,
    summed up the impact made by our medics, ``In my many years of Foreign
    Service I can think of no other time that I was so proud to be an
    American than on my visit to the MEDFLAG sites in the Northern Region.
    . . . I (saw) first-hand the professionalism of U.S. (military)
    personnel and the strong ties of cooperation fostered in a short period
    of time. I (directly) witnessed the positive effect that the U.S.
    military presence had on the population of that deprived region. This
    is truly a case where we are winning the hearts and minds just by being
    who we are and doing what we do so well, helping others.''
                                    research
        Our patients have benefited from cutting edge research conducted by
    Air Force nurses, particularly in the realm of operational clinical
    readiness. Colonel Peggy McNeill, an Air Force doctoral student, is
    examining the performance of medical aircrew in a simulated military
    aircraft cabin environment. CCATTs provide intensive specialty care to
    nearly 10 percent of the global war on terrorism casualties transported
    on military cargo aircraft, and yet we have limited understanding of
    how in-flight stressors impact medical aircrew and affect their
    cognitive and physical performance on long Aeromedical Evacuation
    missions. Her findings will enhance patient outcomes by maximizing
    operational performance of medical personnel in the Aeromedical
    Evacuation environment.
        Due to the nature of their injuries and stressors of flight, combat
    casualties are at high risk for having an inadequate supply of oxygen
    in their blood. Traditional methods of monitoring for this complication
    are not possible with combat casualties experiencing severe burns,
    amputations, decreased body temperature, or massive swelling. Research
    being conducted by Lieutenant Colonel Marla DeJong will provide
    clinicians with valuable information about the ability of specialized
    monitoring devices to provide more accurate patient assessment data
    needed to care for acutely and critically ill patients in flight.
        Lieutenant Colonel Karen Weis, a graduate of Air Force-sponsored
    doctoral education, studied the impact of deployment on psychosocial
    experiences of pregnancy. Her findings indicated effective maternal
    identification, or pregnancy acceptance, was dependent upon the
    husband's presence in the first and early second trimesters of
    pregnancy. As a result, an evidence-based program has been developed to
    provide timely family support to pregnant military wives with deployed,
    or deploying, husbands.
        Air Force nurses received generous financial support from the Tri-
    Service Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) to conduct the type of
    research just described. In addition to research studies, the TSNRP
    Resource Center funded the creation of an operational pocket guide for
    nurses. Designed as a concise reference for deployed nurses, it
    contains the most current evidence-based practice recommendations for
    operational health care. Topics range from critical care of blast
    victims to psychological first aid and culturally appropriate pain
    assessment and management.
                base realignment and closure (brac) integration
        Air Force nurses are working alongside Sister-Service colleagues to
    achieve functional nursing integration. Here in the National Capital
    Region, Air Force critical care nurses assigned to Andrews AFB,
    Maryland are now augmenting staff at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
    BRAC integration is affording Air Force nurses additional opportunities
    to maintain operational currency in complex patient care platforms,
    while serving the needs of critically ill and injured military heroes
    and their families.
        In San Antonio, we are moving forward with plans to relocate
    enlisted medical basic and specialty training to a Tri-Service Medical
    Education and Training Campus (METC) at Fort Sam Houston. METC will
    capitalize on synergy created by co-located training programs. We have
    fiercely protected our Community College of the Air Force degree
    granting to Air Force students, and are exploring the feasibility of
    extending authority to our Sister Services.
        The Air Force Surgeon General Consultants for nursing specialties
    are working with their Tri-Service counterparts to solidify scopes of
    practice that reflect nursing care in joint environments. The Nurse
    Consultants are incorporating Service-specific requirements and
    civilian benchmarks to establish a single scope of practice for each
    specialty, thereby easing transition into joint units and providing
    nurses with a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
                                 our way ahead
        For the past year, I have connected with nursing leadership teams
    at every one of our military treatment facilities; learning more about
    their mission priorities, challenges, and concerns. These conversations
    have assured me Air Force nursing stands ready for the exciting and
    challenging events ahead.
        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is
    my honor to be here today representing nearly 18,000 men and women that
    make up our Total Nursing Force. Thank you for the considerable support
    you have given us this year and thank you for inviting me to tell our
    story.

        Senator Inouye. And now may I call upon Admiral Bruzek-
    Kohler. Admiral.
    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL CHRISTINE M. BRUZEK-KOHLER,
                DIRECTOR, NAVY NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF
                THE NAVY
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Good morning, Chairman Inouye,
    Ranking Member Stevens, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. It is an honor and privilege to speak to you
    again about our 4,100 outstanding Active and Reserve Navy
    nurses and the selfless contributions they make in operational,
    humanitarian, and traditional missions at home and abroad. My
    written statement has already been submitted for the record,
    and I'd like to highlight just a few of those key issues.
        Amidst the Nation's nursing shortage and the continuation
    of what is now 5 years of our engagement in Operations Iraqi
    and Enduring Freedom, I am proud to say we are projected to
    meet our direct accession goals for the first time in 4 years.
    This success can be attributed to our increased recruiting
    efforts, attendance at a diverse range of nursing conferences,
    but most importantly, because we stress that every Navy nurse
    is a Navy recruiter.
        As a result, we have recently made a request to increase
    our direct accession opportunities. This increase will help
    fortify the healthcare assets which support the deployment of
    additional soldiers and marines as recently requested by our
    Commander in Chief.
        Throughout our career continuum, our Navy nurses are
    responsive, capable, and continually ready to provide the
    finest care anytime, anywhere. Our clinical sustainment policy
    ensures our nurses are ready to deploy at a moment's notice and
    provide superior clinical care from operational platforms in
    Iraq to humanitarian missions in Southeast Asia. In our
    military treatment facilities in the United States and abroad,
    Navy nurses are at the forefront of providing comprehensive
    mental and physical care to our returning heroes.
        To address their needs, 13 deployment health clinics have
    been established across the Nation. In these clinics, a
    specialized team of nurses, providers, and allied health
    professionals ensure personnel returning from operational
    deployments receive health assessments and follow-up care.
    Naval Medical Center San Diego has created a multidisciplinary
    program that coordinates hospital assets and personnel,
    offering a wide range of medical, surgical, behavioral health,
    and rehabilitative care to those injured in the service of our
    country.
        In these settings and at many of our military treatment
    facilities, mental health nurses and nurse practitioners help
    meet the psychosocial needs of our returning personnel and
    their families. We intend to further capitalize on these
    practitioners in both the inpatient and outpatient arenas, as
    well as in operational assignments.
        Beyond our military treatment facilities, Navy nurses serve
    honorably and courageously with Navy and Marine Corps
    operational units around the globe. In 2006, Navy nurses on
    board the U.S.N.S. Mercy conducted a successful 5-month
    Southeast Asia humanitarian mission. Joining the Navy medicine
    team on this mission were medical assets from the United States
    Air Force and Army, from Canada, India, Malaysia, Australia,
    and nongovernmental organizations.
        At Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, nearly 100 Reserve
    Nurse Corps officers work alongside their Army and Air Force
    colleagues, providing lifesaving care to America's selfless and
    courageous warriors. The mental and physical stress of
    providing day-to-day nursing care to our critically wounded
    necessitates that we acknowledge the demands of our profession
    and the importance of caring for our caregiver, who may so
    often place the needs of others over self.
        Our educational programs and policies support nursing
    operational readiness, the warfighter, and provide
    opportunities for graduate level studies. These programs help
    sustain continued growth in clinical knowledge and expertise
    and improve the quality of care. Our advanced practice nurses
    from these programs are actively conducting research and
    implementing healthcare programs that directly benefit the
    active duty member and all our beneficiaries. On an annual
    basis, we shape our graduate education training program based
    on our healthcare and operational support requirements.
        Our civil service and contract nurses are integral members
    of the Navy medicine team, and their support and efforts are
    essential in ensuring we provide quality nursing to all
    entrusted to our care. We recruit and retain the very best of
    these nurses through a number of programs and initiatives, from
    the superior qualification bonus to the accelerated promotion
    program. In the last 2 years we have made great strides in
    increasing our civilian nursing workforce, and continue to
    reassess all programs to ensure we can attract the best
    qualified nurses.
        In the last year our Active and Reserve Navy nurses have
    answered the call of a grateful Nation and are proud members of
    the One Navy Medicine Team. By partnering with civilian and
    military healthcare organizations, our nurses provide the
    finest care worldwide and make a positive and meaningful
    difference in the lives of our uniform service members, their
    families, our retired heroes and beneficiaries.
        Our future requires that we align with the mission of our
    armed forces while simultaneously meeting advances in
    professional nursing practice. The uniqueness of military
    nursing is our dynamic ability to seamlessly integrate critical
    nursing specialties into compassionate care for America's sons
    and daughters, our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen. We
    will continue the exemplary tradition of Navy nursing
    excellence by focusing on interoperability and working
    alongside our military and civilian colleagues.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share these
    accomplishments and issues with you, and I look forward to
    continued work as the Director of the Navy Nurse Corps. Thank
    you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Admiral.
        [The statement follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Christine M. Bruzek-Kohler
                                  introduction
        Good morning, Chairman Inouye, and distinguished members of the
    committee. I am Rear Admiral Christine Bruzek-Kohler, the 21st Director
    of the Navy Nurse Corps and the Chief of Staff, Bureau of Medicine and
    Surgery. It is an honor and privilege to speak to you again about our
    outstanding 4,100 Active and Reserve Navy nurses and their
    contributions in operational, humanitarian, and traditional missions on
    the home front and abroad. Over the last year, we faced numerous
    challenges from the continuing war in Iraq, and the global war on
    terrorism, to conducting overseas humanitarian missions in Southeast
    Asia. The performance of all Navy nurses, in particular our wartime
    nursing specialties of mental health, nurse anesthesia, critical care,
    family nurse practitioner, emergency medicine, perioperative, and
    medical/surgical, has been exemplary in all theaters of operations and
    healthcare settings. Navy nurses, with the support of our outstanding
    civil service and contract nurses, answered the call of duty with
    outstanding dedication and provided hope and comfort to all those in
    need.
        The primary component of success in the Navy Nurse Corps has been
    our ability to clearly articulate and demonstrate our military
    relevance. To accomplish this, our nurse leaders recently met to review
    our 2006 strategic goals and objectives and determine our way ahead for
    2007 and beyond. The outcome of this meeting resulted in the
    establishment of six priorities for Navy nursing that are specifically
    aligned with the vision and goals of the Chief of Naval Operations and
    the Surgeon General. To chart our course and navigate our achievements
    into the future, these six priorities include: Clinical proficiency to
    sustain our readiness; alignment of educational programs to meet future
    mission requirements; shaping the Nurse Corps to meet missions of the
    future; development of an executive leadership model for future Nurse
    Corps leaders; joint partnership to create a nursing productivity
    model; and implementation of a robust Nurse Corps communication
    program. Addressing each category, I will highlight our achievements
    and issues of concern.
                       readiness and clinical proficiency
        Throughout the career continuum, Navy nurses are responsive,
    capable, and continually ready to provide the finest care, ``Anytime,
    Anywhere.'' Our clinical sustainment policy ensures our nurses are
    ready to deploy at a moment's notice and provide superior clinical care
    from operational deployments in Iraq, to humanitarian missions in
    Southeast Asia. At military treatment facilities, in the operational
    theater, on humanitarian missions, and working in a joint environment,
    Navy nurses are clinically agile and trained to mission requirements.
    Working with our sister services, we continue to define scopes of
    nursing practice and competencies to ease integration and cross-
    utilization within the military healthcare system.
        At our military treatment facilities at home and abroad, Navy
    nurses are at the forefront of providing comprehensive mental and
    physical care to our returning heroes. To fully address their needs, 13
    Deployment Health Clinics have been established across the country.
    Here, a specialized team of nurses, medical providers and allied health
    professionals ensure all personnel returning from operational
    deployments receive timely and thorough medical screenings and follow-
    up care. For those wounded warriors returning from overseas, Naval
    Medical Center (NMC) San Diego offers a multidisciplinary program of
    care via the Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center. This service
    offers a wide range of medical, surgical, behavioral health and
    rehabilitative care to those wounded in the service of our country.
        Nurses in a variety of settings within the Navy are at the
    forefront of providing behavioral health, case management, and
    community health nursing. Our mental health nurses and practitioners
    are working with deployed personnel pre- and post-deployment in a
    variety of settings to ensure their behavioral needs are fully
    addressed. We are in the process of recognizing the advanced skills of
    the mental health nurse practitioners and anticipate utilizing their
    expertise as advance practice nurses in the near future. As healthcare
    systems experts, our Nurse Corps case managers liaise between civilian,
    Department of Veterans Affairs, and our military treatment facilities
    to ensure our wounded warriors have complete and rapid access to all
    their physical and behavioral health needs. Additional rehabilitative
    support comes from the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, whose visiting
    nurses partner with our Navy nurses in order to provide greater
    stateside services through the newly formed Visiting Nurse Combat
    Casualty Assistance Program.
        For our sailors, marines and all our beneficiaries, Navy nursing is
    proud to provide the best family-centered care. Throughout our medical
    treatment facilities, nurse led mother-baby initiatives continue to
    improve quality of life and bring deployed family members closer
    together. Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, North Carolina opened a newly
    renovated mother-baby unit serving both Marine Corps Air Station Cherry
    Point and Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. The 18 new labor and
    delivery suites greatly expand access to care and provide special
    features such as a Level II nursery for newborns who require close
    monitoring and lactation consultation for maternal support. Innovative
    family-centered nursing practice at the Mother-Infant Care Center at
    the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) resulted in this unit being
    named the ``Best Nursing Team'' by Advance for Nurses Magazine. At the
    NNMC and Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton, deployed family members are
    afforded the opportunity to participate in the labor and delivery of
    their newborns via video and telephone conferencing. Whether at home or
    abroad, our family-centered care is the foundation of support to all
    our service members.
        Beyond our medical treatment facilities, Navy nurses continue to
    serve with pride in a variety of operational and humanitarian theaters.
    During the past year, Navy nurses from both active and reserve
    components were deployed throughout the world as members of joint
    military, humanitarian and multi-national missions. Our nurses served
    with pride in Navy and Marine Corps operational units around the globe:
    Kuwait, Iraq, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Qatar, Canada, Germany,
    Honduras, Peru, Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, Thailand, South
    Korea, East and West Timor, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Republic of Georgia
    and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Nursing care services for both operational
    and humanitarian missions were delivered by surgical teams, U.S. Marine
    Corps Surgical Companies, Shock Trauma Platoons, the Forward
    Resuscitative Surgical Systems, and the Enroute Care System Teams for
    casualty evacuation. In addition, care was provided in expeditionary
    medical facilities, on Navy hospital ships, aircraft carriers,
    amphibious ships, and at our military treatment facilities. At
    Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, almost 100 Nurse Corps Reserve
    officers are working side-by-side with their Army and Air Force
    colleagues giving direct care to our returning casualties.
        Providing care to the citizens of the world, our humanitarian
    missions reflect America's generosity and compassion. These efforts
    greatly enhance America's image as an ambassador of goodwill. In 2006,
    Navy nurses on board the hospital ship USNS Mercy, concluded a 5 month
    Southeast Asia humanitarian mission. In conjunction with the Navy
    medicine team, our medical personnel partnered with the U.S. Air Force,
    U.S. Army, the nations of Canada, India, Malaysia, and Australia and
    with non-governmental organizations. Together, the agencies and
    partnering countries delivered emergency/trauma, critical care, post-
    anesthesia care, pediatric and medical surgical services in a mutually
    supportive environment.
        The mental and physical stress of day to day nursing care provided
    to our critically wounded uniformed personnel necessitates that we
    acknowledge the demands of our profession and the importance of balance
    and care for the caregiver. To address these demands, efforts involving
    mental health support out-reach teams, psychological injury first aid
    training, and collaborative healthcare peer support services are made
    available to all of our nurses. In addition, our nurses are encouraged
    to take advantage of all family support services and command sponsored
    morale, welfare and relief opportunities.
                        education programs and policies
        Our education programs and policies support nursing operational
    readiness, the warfighter, and provide opportunities for graduate level
    advance practice to improve quality of care at home and abroad. At our
    medical treatment facilities, our nurses are provided the very best
    clinical training environments to sustain and improve their clinical
    skills. To hone these clinical skills for operational deployment, we
    have numerous initiatives and programs to ensure their clinical
    abilities in the field are of the highest level. To guarantee continued
    growth in clinical knowledge and expertise, our graduate education
    program provides masters and doctoral level training for our Navy
    nurses. Our advance practice nurses from these programs are actively
    conducting research and implementing healthcare programs that directly
    benefit the warfighter and all our beneficiaries.
        Ensuring our nurses' clinical skills are of the highest caliber, we
    continue to utilize, reassess and seek out the best clinical training
    programs. Our robust Nurse Internship Programs at NNMC, in Bethesda,
    Maryland; and NMC Portsmouth, Virginia; and NMC San Diego, California,
    continue to provide professional guidance and mentorship to our new
    Navy and civilian nurses. We have initiated a pilot perinatal training
    program to ensure continued quality care and patient safety for our
    nurses going to overseas facilities. This program will provide our
    junior nurses the skills they need to work in the labor and delivery
    environment. We have implemented a new component for nurses developing
    critical care skills through the use of web-based training. This
    program is based on the American Association of Critical Care Nurses
    Essentials for Critical Care and coupled with bedside training,
    provides the most up-to-date clinical training for our critical care
    nurses. Certification in wound care provides our nurses with the state-
    of-the-art skills to care for our trauma patients returning from
    combat.
        In addition to training within our facilities, our nurses are
    actively collaborating with our sister services to promote continuously
    improved quality clinical care. To maintain clinical proficiency, our
    nurses at U.S. Naval Hospitals in Naples and Rota have a collaborative
    staff sharing agreement with the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. At
    Landstuhl, our nurses are able to enhance and maintain their clinical
    skills in emergency room, neonatal, mother/baby and critical care.
    Supporting joint training opportunities, NMC Portsmouth, in
    collaboration with Langley Air Force Base created a 10-week Neonatal
    Intensive Care Course that provides training to staff in anticipation
    of opening a new level II nursery at Langley. This joint project will
    expand the ability to care for pre-term infants in the Tidewater,
    Virginia area. In addition, the Navy and Air Force formed a partnership
    involving the critical care course at the NNMC. This training
    accompanied by follow on clinical rotations enabled the Air Force
    Nurses to attain critical care skills while simultaneously supporting
    the medical mission.
        Advance practice nurses at our facilities continue to improve
    quality of care through implementation of national healthcare protocols
    as well as sound nursing research findings. Several quality and patient
    safety protocols from the Institute of Healthcare Improvements were
    adopted for use in our military treatment facilities. A sampling of
    current Nurse Corps clinical research underway includes: Affects of
    Total Parenteral Fluid on the Nutritional Status of Premature Neonates,
    Efficacy of a Nurse Run Outpatient Behavioral Therapy Program, Extra-
    Amniotic Balloon Insertion Comparison Study, and Affects of Healthcare
    Industry Representatives in the Operating Room.
        Beyond the military treatment facility, our nurses receive
    specialized clinical training to enhance their critical wartime nursing
    skills to provide immediate care in any operational setting. Navy
    nurses have maximized available training opportunities through the Navy
    Trauma Training Course at the Los Angeles County/University of Southern
    California Medical Center; Joint Combat Casualty Care Course in San
    Antonio, Texas; and Military Contingency Medicine/Bushmaster Course at
    the Uniformed Services University Graduate School of Nursing in
    Bethesda, Maryland. Operational training has been integrated into the
    Navy Nurse Corps Anesthesia Program and every nurse is deployment ready
    on the day of graduation. Other operational medical training programs
    Navy nurses take part in include the: Enroute Care Course, at Fort
    Rucker, Alabama, Field Medical Service Officer Course, at Camp Lejeune,
    North Carolina, and Advance Burn Life Support course provided by the
    Defense Medical Readiness Institute. Collaborating with our civilian
    medical communities, our nurses at NMC San Diego, California, maintain
    an agreement with Scripps Medical Center for trauma training in their
    emergency room.
        Navy nurses continue to support joint training opportunities in a
    variety of environments that provide the foundation for combined
    operational medicine. In Operation Northern Lights, Navy nurses helped
    support the Army's field exercise at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, by jointly
    operating a 30-bed field hospital under simulated wartime conditions.
    In preparation for future operational and humanitarian missions, Navy
    nurses on board the hospital ship USNS Comfort, participated in an
    international medical mass casualty drill in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
    involving Canadian forces and the British Royal Navy. Supporting the
    concept of interoperability, Navy nurses in the Reserve Component have
    worked seamlessly with the Defense Medical Readiness Training
    Institute, sponsoring and teaching three major professional trauma
    programs. The programs conducted on-site at San Antonio, Texas
    included: Advanced Burn Life Support, Joint Combat Casualty Care
    Course, and Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support. Furthermore, these were
    exported to several regional training sites to maximize participation.
    Working with our civilian and military counterparts provides Navy
    nurses important clinical training and mutual operational support
    opportunities.
        The experiences gained in the operational environment have enabled
    Navy nurses to be at the forefront of implementing the latest
    operational medicine training programs. At Navy Medicine Manpower,
    Personnel, Training, and Education Command, our nurses are part of a
    team working on the Expeditionary Medicine Web-Based Training Project.
    This web-base training will support clinical operational training and
    include combat-related medical skill and knowledge. To provide
    realistic casualty training to our forces at sea and land,
    Expeditionary Strike Group Five home-based in San Diego introduced a
    medical simulation mannequin called ``SimMan.'' Critical care nurses
    with the strike group have used this device to train key personnel on
    essential life-saving medical techniques and assessments. Navy nurses
    have been instrumental in the development of the Combat Lifesaver
    Trainers course at the Field Medical Service School. This program
    teaches select corpsmen how to train marines in life-saving skills that
    bridge the gap between basic first aid and the corpsmen.
        In addition, nursing research is actively being carried out to
    support warfighter readiness. A sampling of these studies include:
    Affects of Redeployment on Military Medical Personnel, Smokeless
    Tobacco Use Among Female Marines and Sailors Returning from Deployment,
    Coping Intervention for Children of Deployed Parents, Describing
    Chronic Disease Conditions in the Crews of Small Ships, Assessment of
    the Navy Shipshape Weight Management Program, Developing a Care for the
    Caregiver Mental Health Promotion Model, and Perceived Barriers Toward
    Emergency Contraception in Female Soldiers Deployed in Support of
    Operation Iraqi Freedom.
        Working with the civilian community, Navy nurses have provided
    integral disaster, readiness training and nursing education support. At
    Naval Health Care Clinics New England, our nurses participate and
    provide essential emergency response training with the local community.
    In the National Capital Area, NNMC nurses played an essential role in
    coordinating and collaborating with the community in the area-wide mass
    casualty drill. Given the current shortage of nursing school faculty
    across our country, we continue to provide clinical nursing experiences
    at our military treatment facilities while functioning as clinical
    nurse preceptors, educators and adjunct professors in support of
    schools of nursing throughout the country.
        Our Navy Nurse Corps graduate education programs continue to enable
    Navy medicine to improve the quality of care for our sailors, marines,
    and their families. On an annual basis, we shape our graduate education
    training plan based on our health care and operational support
    requirements. We select our most talented nurse leaders to attend
    accredited universities around the country to attain their masters and
    doctorate degrees, which has also proven to be an invaluable retention
    tool. In addition, a plethora of continuing education courses and
    specialized training opportunities are available to further enhance
    solid clinical skills.
        The Tri-Service Nursing Research Program (TSNRP) has played an
    integral role in contributing to successful patient outcomes, quality
    care, and support for the warfighter. Since its inception in 1992,
    TSNRP has supported over 300 research studies in basic and applied
    science and involved more than 700 military nurses as principal and
    associate investigators. A sample of Navy Nurse Corps studies includes:
    Clinical Knowledge Development of Nurses in an Operational Environment;
    Factors Associated with the Onset of Depression in Navy Recruits;
    Interventions to Maximize Nursing Competencies for Combat Casualty
    Care; and Research to Practice in the Military Health Care System.
    Overall, approximately one quarter of the TSNRP studies have been
    conducted by Navy nurse researchers.
        There have been numerous publications attesting to the expertise of
    our Navy nurses, noted in the American Journal of Nursing, Archives of
    Psychiatric Nursing, American Journal of Public Health, Military
    Medicine, Association of Operating Room Nurses Journal, Dimensions of
    Critical Care Nursing, Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America,
    American Association of Nurse Anesthesia, and American Journal of
    Critical Care. In addition, Navy nurses have been invited to present
    innovative practice and research findings at the Sigma Theta Tau
    Nursing Honor Society's regional conferences, Annual Meeting of the
    Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, American
    Association of Nurse Anesthetists, American Academy of Ambulatory Care
    Nursing Convention, American Academy of Nurse Practitioner's
    Conference, and Naval Reserve Association.
        It is this personal dedication to the highest clinical proficiency
    and continuing education that makes us proud members of the military
    healthcare system. Our advance practice nurses are an integral part of
    the Navy medicine team. Continued professional development focused on
    operational medicine and evidence-based health care are key to our
    support of the warfighter as we provide the finest care to our
    uniformed service members and beneficiaries.
                                 force shaping
        Maintaining the right force structure is essential to meeting Navy
    medicine's overall mission by validating nursing specialty
    requirements, and utilizing the talent and clinical expertise of our
    uniformed and civilian nurses. We are focused on our operational
    missions, and wartime specialties: nurse anesthesia, family nurse
    practitioner, critical care, emergency, mental health, medical-surgical
    and perioperative nursing. Through force shaping, we are creating the
    optimum structure for the present and the future.
        Navy Nurse Corps recruiting has often struggled in competing with
    civilian institutions and other government agencies for America's
    finest nurses. However, for the first time in 4 years we are projected
    to meet our direct accession goal. This can be attributed to the
    tireless efforts of Navy Nurse Corps recruiters, recent increases in
    our Nurse Accession Bonus, and the Health Professions Loan Repayment
    Program for recruiting. In addition, our pipeline programs continue to
    be immensely successful and are the primary recruitment source for
    future Nurse Corps officers. Our pipeline programs include the Nurse
    Candidate Program, Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program, Naval
    Reserve Officer Training Corps Program, and Seaman to Admiral Program.
    These pipeline programs are our lifeline to ensure a steady supply of
    trained and qualified Nurse Corps officers in the future and are
    critical in assisting us to maintain desired manning levels. To this
    end, the Seaman to Admiral Program has been increased in order to
    expand our enlisted personnel's opportunity to become Navy nurses.
    Overall, I am very proud of our recruiting efforts, but our retention
    of Nurse Corps officers is still of great concern.
        Retention poses a greater challenge with only 67 percent of active
    duty Nurse Corps officers deciding to remain on active duty after their
    first obligated decision point. At the end of calendar year 2006, our
    manning end strength decreased to 91 percent in the active component,
    with a deficit of 286 Navy nurses. Within our wartime specialties,
    shortfalls have been identified in the nurse anesthesia and family
    nurse practitioner communities.
        To counter these deficiencies, a number of programs and initiatives
    have been implemented. The Health Professions Loan Repayment Program
    has been extremely successful and the applicants exceeded available
    positions for the last 2 years in a row for both retention and
    recruiting. The Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesia specialty pay was
    increased to assist in retaining this critical wartime specialty. Our
    Nurse Corps recruiters, to enhance recruitment and promote diversity,
    expanded their presence at a variety of national nursing conferences:
    Association of Operating Room Nurses, Association of Critical Care
    Nurses, Emergency Nursing Association, National Black Nurses
    Association, National Association of Hispanic Nurses, and National
    Student Nurses Association. Nurse Corps officers are serving as mentors
    of our students in the Nurse Candidate and Naval Reserve Officer
    Training Corps Programs to provide professional growth while enhancing
    retention. We have also established specific identification codes to
    identify our advanced practice Nurse Corps officers with expertise as
    adult, critical care, and emergency room nurse practitioners. This
    provides military treatment facilities key data to recognize the
    professional abilities of these advanced practice nurses and to utilize
    their expertise in the role of primary care nurse practitioners. These
    identification codes further assist Navy medicine to accurately
    identify and utilize nurse practitioners in expanded operational
    assignments. Last year, we proposed a Critical Skills Retention Bonus
    for officers who entered service in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
    2005. We did not meet direct accession goals for these 2 fiscal years.
    The retention bonus is specifically targeted to improve retention of
    Nurse Corps officers who entered active service during these 2 fiscal
    years. In addition, I have personally written to many of the Deans of
    Nursing throughout the country outlining the benefits of a Navy career.
    Navy Nurse Corps officers are highly encouraged to utilize every
    opportunity to recruit new nurses and take on the career enhancing
    assignment as nurse recruiters. We will continue to closely monitor our
    end strength throughout the year, evaluate newly initiated programs,
    and explore other options to retain our nurses.
        In the Navy Nurse Corps reserve component, recruitment and
    retention continues to be of great concern. We continue to have
    difficulties recruiting and retaining our critical wartime specialties.
    To address this, fiscal year 2007 Nurse Accession Bonuses remain
    focused on critical wartime specialties. The Nurse Accession Bonus for
    the reserves has been beneficial in recruiting the professional nurse
    with less than 1 year of experience. To attract civilian perioperative
    nurses, we have opened our perioperative training programs in
    Jacksonville, Florida, and Camp Pendleton, California, to include
    reserve nurses. As a pipeline program, our Hospital Corpsman to
    Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program continues to be successful. With
    our increased rate of mobilizations to Landstuhl and Kuwait, and
    contributory support to our medical treatment facilities, it is
    imperative that we meet our nursing specialty requirements and explore
    all options to support our recruitment and retention efforts.
        Civil Service and contract nurses are integral members of the Navy
    medicine team and their support and efforts are essential in ensuring
    we provide quality nursing to all entrusted to our care. We recruit and
    retain the very best of these nurses through a number of programs and
    initiatives. The Direct Hire Authority from the National Defense
    Authorization Act of 2003 gives commands the flexibility to offer
    nursing positions directly to interested candidates. The Superior
    Qualifications Bonus gives commands the option to offer a higher basic
    pay rate based on exceptional experience and/or education. A
    recruitment bonus based on a percentage of their base pay and a
    relocation allowance may also be utilized. Other recruitment and
    retention tools available include Special Salary Rates, Retention
    Allowance, Student Loan Repayment Program, Tuition Assistance, payment
    for licenses/credentials, and the Accelerated Promotion Program. For
    those new to the nursing profession, we have expanded the Nurse
    Internship Program at our major naval medical centers, to include
    civilian nurses. In the last 2 years, we have made great strides in
    increasing our civilian nursing workforce and continue to reassess all
    programs to ensure we attract and retain the very best for the Navy
    medicine team.
        Our success in meeting the mission in all care environments
    requires that we continuously reassess our measures of effectiveness,
    adjust personnel assignments, and revise training plans. We continue to
    closely monitor the national nursing market environment to ensure Navy
    nursing recruiting and retention efforts remain competitive.
                             leadership development
        Leadership development begins the day our nurses take the
    commissioning oath as Navy officers and is continuously refined
    throughout an individual's career with increased scope of
    responsibilities, upward mobility, and pivotal leadership roles within
    the field of nursing and healthcare in general. Our Navy nurses are
    proven strategic leaders in the field of education, research, clinical
    performance, and health care executive management. To help prepare them
    for these roles, a variety of leadership courses are offered: Navy
    Corporate Business Course, Service War Colleges, Military Healthcare
    System Capstone Symposium, Interagency Institute for Federal Healthcare
    Executives, Wharton's Nurse Executive Fellows Program, Basic and
    Advanced Medical Department Officers Course, and the Joint Operations
    Medical Managers Course. To ensure we continue a legacy of nursing
    excellence, it is critical that we identify those leadership
    characteristics and associated knowledge, skills and abilities that are
    directly linked to successful executives in Navy medicine. A Nurse
    Corps study (Palarca, 2007), in conjunction with Baylor University, has
    identified the key leadership competencies and associated knowledge,
    skills, and abilities specific to mid-level and senior executive Nurse
    Corps officers. The competencies identified for mid-level Nurse Corps
    officers include: management; leadership; professional and personal
    development; deployment readiness and interoperability; communications;
    and regulatory guidelines. The competencies identified for senior
    executive Nurse Corps officers include: business management; executive
    leadership; professional development; global awareness and
    interoperability; communications; and personnel management. This
    information will provide the basis for ongoing leadership development
    of our mid-grade through senior executive officers as they advance in
    executive medicine.
        To meet today's challenges, nurse leaders must be visionary,
    innovative and actively engaged across joint service and other agencies
    to maximize our medical capabilities. Nurse Corps officers continue to
    reach new heights of clinical and operational leadership fulfilling
    roles as: Regional Director, TRICARE West Region; Chief of Staff,
    Bureau of Medicine and Surgery; Commanding Officer, USNS Comfort; First
    Surgical Company Commander, Iraq; Officer in Charge, Camp Doha, Kuwait;
    Commanding Officer, Coronado Battalion U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps;
    President, National Student Nurses Association; and commanding and
    executive officers of military treatment facilities around the world.
    Navy Nurse Corps officers have been recognized in a variety of media
    wide publications: New York Times Nurse of the Year Runner-Up,
    Washington Post Nurse of the Week, and Best Nursing Team of 2006 by
    Advance for Nurses Magazine. Within the reserve component, our
    dedicated Navy nurses are in key leadership positions in their units,
    when recalled to active duty, as well as in their civilian
    organizations, professional associations and local communities.
    Examples of key leadership positions include Deputy Commander, Navy
    Medicine National Capitol Area; Deputy Director for Navy Personnel,
    Landstuhl Regional Medical Center; commanding officers of Operational
    Health Support Units; CEOs of healthcare companies; administrators of
    hospitals; directors for nursing services; and faculty positions in
    colleges of nursing. Navy nursing remains committed to creating an
    environment which enhances leadership opportunities for tomorrow's
    future senior healthcare executives.
                                  productivity
        Increasing healthcare costs, coupled with balancing higher patient
    acuities with available nursing resources, requires accurate and
    efficient management of our manpower assets. To address this we are
    taking steps to maximize our nursing human resources. In San Diego,
    California, a nurse-managed Pediatric Sedation Center was established
    for those procedures that normally required the main operating room.
    This initiative reduced main operating room utilization and provided a
    more pleasant environment for those families requiring the service of
    the Pediatric Sedation Center. In Quantico, Virginia, the nurse-run
    Wound Clinic instituted several nurse-focused standard operating
    procedures to address ailments that would otherwise require physician
    intervention. In Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, the branch medical
    clinic sends nursing personnel directly to the School of Infantry to
    address healthcare issues on-site versus requiring medical clinic
    visits. In Portsmouth, Virginia, nurses from the local reserve unit
    have performed over 84,000 man hours of operational and clinical
    support over the last 27 months. This constituted a cost savings of
    over $4 million to NMC Portsmouth.
        To maximize the identification of nursing productivity, a Tri-
    Service Patient Acuity Scheduling System Working group has been formed.
    The purpose of the group is to develop business strategies for
    inpatient and outpatient acuity assessment and scheduling; and to
    develop a military healthcare system information technology to
    transform and standardize the methodology for capturing, reporting, and
    communicating patient acuity, staff scheduling, and productivity across
    the services. The Navy Nurse Corps, with our sister uniformed services,
    continues to seek out the most effective productivity models to
    maximize our healthcare resources.
                                 communication
        Communicating through a comprehensive plan ensures all reserve and
    active Nurse Corps officers receive the most accurate, timely, and
    official information. A team of 24 active and reserve Nurse Corps
    officers coordinated and created a comprehensive set of Nurse Corps
    communication modalities: Nurse Corps web-page, weekly newsletter,
    monthly video-teleconferencing, Nurse Corps news update, Nurse Corps
    email database, bi-monthly senior Nurse Corps officers update, and
    semi-annual all Nurse Corps Admiral's Call. The aggressive
    implementation and the coordination of these modalities resulted in a
    greater awareness of the many beneficial programs we have for Nurse
    Corps officers. For example, our successful Health Professions Loan
    Repayment Program had a significant increase in the number of
    applicants this past year because of our ability to ``get the message
    out'' efficiently and expeditiously. By streamlining the communication
    process, synchronizing the methodology of delivery, and tapping into
    the latest technology we have seamlessly connected the Navy Nurse Corps
    around the world.
        Beyond the Navy Nurse Corps, we continue to actively communicate
    with our uniformed and civilian counterparts. At the monthly Federal
    Nursing Service Council meeting, the nursing leadership of the Army,
    Navy, Air Force, Public Health Service, Department of Veterans Affairs
    and the American Red Cross meet to discuss the challenges facing our
    respective organizations. Furthermore, the Nurse Corps Chiefs of the
    other uniformed services and I meet regularly to address our common
    military nursing issues and opportunities to partner jointly on
    resolutions. Joint operations, cooperation, and communication are the
    foundation for future success in providing the highest quality of care
    for all our beneficiaries.
                                closing remarks
        In the last year, our active and reserve Navy nurses have answered
    the call of a grateful Nation and are proud members of the One Navy
    Medicine Team. By partnering with civilian and military health care
    teams, our nurses provide the finest care worldwide and make a positive
    and meaningful difference in the lives of our uniformed service
    members, their families, our retired heroes, and beneficiaries. The
    basis of our future requires that we align with the mission of our
    armed forces while adapting to the advances in professional nursing
    practice. The uniqueness of military nursing is our dynamic ability to
    seamlessly integrate the critical nursing specialties into the
    healthcare needs of soldiers and marines on the field, and our sailors
    at sea. We continue the exemplary tradition of Navy Nursing Excellence
    by focusing on interoperability and working side-by-side with our
    military and civilian colleagues.
        I appreciate the opportunity of sharing the accomplishments and
    issues that face Navy nursing. I look forward to continuing our work
    together during my tenure as Director of the Navy Nurse Corps.

        Senator Inouye. And now may I call upon General Pollock.
    STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL GALE S. POLLOCK, DEPUTY
                SURGEON GENERAL, U.S. ARMY, AND CHIEF, ARMY
                NURSE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
        General Pollock. Aloha, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee. It is again my great honor and
    privilege to speak before you today on behalf of the nearly
    10,000 officers of the Army Nurse Corps. It is your continued,
    unwavering support that has enabled Army nurses to provide the
    highest quality care for our soldiers and their family members.
        Our vision of advancing professional nursing and
    maintaining leadership in research, education, and the
    innovative delivery of healthcare is at the forefront of all we
    do. Army nurses serve in clinical and leadership roles in
    medical treatment facilities in the United States and abroad,
    in combat divisions, forward surgical teams, combat stress
    teams, civil affairs teams, combat support hospitals, and
    coalition headquarters.
        We have transitioned the Army community health nurse to the
    Army public health nurse, a role that is necessary as we face
    future threats within our homeland and theaters of operation.
    These nurses now support combat theaters of operations in civil
    affairs and the rebuilding of healthcare infrastructure.
        Our transition to the psychiatric nurse practitioner role
    makes these nurses critical to the support of our soldiers in
    theater as well as and their families following deployment. In
    addition, these psychiatric nursing specialists either lead or
    support programs related to post-traumatic stress management
    and the reintegration of soldiers and families.
        Our family nurse practitioners are filling critical roles
    during deployments, proving themselves as significant force
    multipliers. Their performance has validated their
    interchangeability as primary care and trauma providers.
        We have also moved forward with the registered nurse first
    assist perioperative subspecialty. Incorporating the registered
    nurse first assist into our structure enhances our ability to
    recruit and retain perioperative nurses, and sustains our
    clinical experience base while offering nurses an expanded role
    within the perioperative clinical nursing specialty.
        Combat operations provided many lessons learned,
    particularly the need for early trauma training for all of the
    AMEDD team. The trauma nursing core course sponsored by the
    Emergency Nurses Association continues to be the standard for
    training for new Army nurses, and serves as a refresher during
    predeployment training for all nurses. We also provide the
    advanced burn life support course in the captains career
    course.
        From the beginning of combat operations in Iraq, Army
    nurses transported severely wounded patients by air within
    theater. Although they performed superbly, most had little or
    no training in aviation medicine or enroute care. Therefore, we
    developed the joint enroute care course to provide concise,
    realistic, and relevant trauma transport team training to all
    AMEDD personnel.
        Always one of our successes, the U.S. Army graduate program
    in anesthesia nursing once again ranked second in the Nation.
    However, I remain concerned about the nursing shortage which is
    affecting not just anesthesia nursing but all of our advanced
    nursing specialties.
        Starting in January 2006, new graduates assigned to Tripler
    Army Medical Center completed a Nurse Internship Program. They
    were assigned to a home room nursing unit, and over the next 6
    months were scheduled for rotations that exposed them to
    medicine, surgery, critical care, emergency rooms and trauma,
    psychiatry, pediatrics, and labor and delivery.
        The Tri-Service Nursing Research Program which you
    established in 1992 is a truly successful program. Army nurse
    researchers, in collaboration with their Navy and Air Force
    colleagues, are actively involved in the Tri-Service Nursing
    Research Program's Center of Excellence in Evidence-Based
    Nursing Practice. I hope that the current lack of funding will
    be corrected.
        While the AMEDD team continues to provide quality health
    care, its members work to advance healthcare delivery systems
    in countries around the world. The Army nurses assigned in
    Afghanistan spearheaded an initiative to teach local Afghan
    doctors and nurses state-of-the-art techniques in providing
    perioperative surgical and nursing care. Nurse practitioners at
    the 121 Combat Support Hospital in Korea support Korean
    advanced practice nursing students by providing observational
    experiences to students as part of their clinical rotations. We
    remain an extremely busy corps, participating in joint military
    nursing endeavor programs in Vietnam, Kuwait, and the Kingdom
    of Saudi Arabia.
        A competitive civilian market and current operational
    demands cause all of the challenges that we face to exacerbate
    the shortage of nurses and nursing educators. Currently I have
    a deficit of 254 officers, primarily in the company grades and
    in critical specialties such as anesthesia, critical care,
    perioperative, and OB/GYN nursing. We are constantly monitoring
    the status of our recruiting and retention efforts.
        A recent review of personnel records by the Department of
    the Army indicated that the Army Nurse Corps has the highest
    attrition rate of any officer branch in the Army. Ongoing
    research indicates that Army nurses leave the service primarily
    because of the length of deployment and the absence of
    specialty pay.
        For Reserve component nurses, my primary concern is the
    imbalance of professionally educated officers in the company
    grades. So many of them are prepared at the associate degree or
    diploma level that over the past few years only 50 percent are
    educationally qualified for promotion or leadership. We are
    grateful that the Chief of the Army Reserve is focusing
    recruitment incentives on those nurses educated at the
    baccalaureate level and funding the Specialized Training and
    Assistance Program for their BSN completion.
        We continue adapting to the new realities of this long war,
    but remain firm on providing the leadership and scholarship
    required to advance the practice of professional nursing. We
    will maintain our focus on sustaining readiness, clinical
    competency, and sound educational preparation, with the same
    commitment to serve those service members who defend our Nation
    that the Army Nurse Corps has demonstrated for the past 106
    years.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. I look forward to your questions.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General Pollock.
        [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Major General Gale S. Pollock
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is
    again an honor and great privilege to speak before you today on behalf
    of the nearly 10,000 officers of the Army Nurse Corps. The Army Nurse
    Corps is today 106 years Army strong. It has been your continued
    unwavering support that has enabled Army nurses, as part of the larger
    Army Medical Department (AMEDD) team, to provide the highest quality
    care for our soldiers and their family members.
                                   deployment
        The Army Nurse Corps remains fully engaged in our Nation's defense
    and in support of its strategic goals. Our vision of advancing
    professional nursing and maintaining leadership in research, education,
    and the innovative delivery of healthcare is at the forefront of all we
    do. Army nurses provide expert healthcare in every setting in support
    of the AMEDD mission and the military health system at home and abroad.
    There are currently over 400 Army Nurse Corps officers from all three
    components deployed in support of operations in 16 countries around the
    world. From April 2006 to March 2007, we deployed over 560 Army nurses
    for a total of 204,009 man-days in a hazardous duty area. We mobilized
    an additional 1,616 Army Reserve Nurses in support of the total AMEDD
    mission, deploying 181 to Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve in clinical
    and leadership roles in medical treatment facilities in the United
    States and abroad, in combat divisions, forward surgical teams, combat
    stress teams, civil affairs teams, combat support hospitals (CSHs), and
    coalition headquarters.
        Today, the 28th CSH from Fort Bragg, North Carolina; the 21st CSH
    from Fort Hood, Texas; and the Army Reserve's 399th CSH from
    Massachusetts are deployed to Iraq. The 14th CSH from Fort Benning,
    Georgia has just redeployed from Afghanistan. The 31st CSH from Fort
    Bliss, Texas arrived in theater early this year to replace the 21st
    CSH. While these units deploy, others are being sourced, equipped,
    manned, and trained to sustain the ongoing mission in support of the
    global war on terror.
                 transformation/advancing professional nursing
        The Army Nurse Corps continues the process of self-examination and
    transformation to maintain the competencies required to face the
    complexities of health care in the 21st century. Last year, I described
    a few of the initiatives that we have pursued and I want to provide you
    an update.
        We have made great strides in transitioning the Army community
    health nurse to the Army public health nurse role--one that is
    necessary as we face future threats within our homeland and theaters of
    operation. The curriculum for the Army public health nurse has been
    modified to include public health officer roles and responsibilities,
    training in epidemiology, and the management of large population groups
    in the event of a pandemic or major disaster. In addition, the
    curriculum details the role of the Army public health nurse in combat
    theaters of operations to include civil affairs and the rebuilding of
    healthcare infrastructure. At the graduate nursing level, Army public
    health nurses will be directed to programs offering either a Master's
    in Public Health, such as the Uniformed School of Health Sciences
    (USUHS) or to civilian institutions offering a Public Health Nursing
    graduate degree.
        While we have only recently transitioned to the psychiatric nurse
    practitioner role, with our first group of nurses attending graduate
    school beginning in 2006, our psychiatric clinical specialists have
    been critical to the support of our soldiers in theater as well as
    soldiers and their families following deployments. Since March of 2006,
    five psychiatric nurse clinical specialists have deployed in place of
    clinical psychologists and all have performed spectacularly. On our
    installations, the clinical specialists have either led or participated
    in programs related to post traumatic stress management and in the
    reintegration of soldiers and families.
        Our family nurse practitioners (FNP) continue to be a valued asset
    of the AMEDD team. They are filling critical roles during deployments,
    proving themselves to be a significant force multiplier. In addition to
    providing outstanding primary care across our facilities, they have
    taken on provider roles within the Brigade Combat Teams at level II.
    Last year, 19 FNP's deployed in place of physician assistants. Their
    performance has validated their interchangeability as primary care and
    trauma providers. More recently, three FNP's were assigned to support
    special operations missions around the world.
        To ensure that our nurse practitioners have the skills to
    transition from academia into practice, we have incorporated a post
    graduate preceptorship program for new graduates. We also began putting
    nurse practitioners through advanced trauma training programs prior to
    deployment ensuring they have the necessary skills to function in their
    advanced practice roles. In addition, we put one of our family nurse
    practitioners, CPT Ida Montgomery through the Army flight surgeon's
    course at Fort Rucker, Alabama.
        We are also continuing to strategically move forward with the
    registered nurse first assist (RNFA) perioperative subspecialty. The
    RNFA expands the scope of practice of the perioperative nurse to
    function as first assistants to the surgeon in the operating room,
    optimizing the utilization of general surgeons. During times of war,
    the RNFA can provide enhanced capabilities to the forward surgical
    team, the CSH, and be a major contributor to the successful outcomes of
    military surgeries during combat operations. Incorporating RNFAs into
    our structure also enhances our ability to recruit and retain
    perioperative nurses. Historically, perioperative nurses sought
    advanced education in roles unrelated to the perioperative arena due to
    a lack of advanced opportunities in that field. With the RNFA, we can
    preserve our clinical experience base while offering nurses an expanded
    role within the Perioperative Clinical Nursing Specialty. Our
    perioperative nursing consultant, Col. Linda Wanzer, has incorporated
    this training into the Perioperative Clinical Nurse Specialists program
    at USUHS. The current inventory of Army nurses trained as first assists
    is 14. There are currently three RNFA students enrolled in USUHS and
    three completing their internship. In the past year, five RNFA's have
    deployed in support of contingency operations as advanced practice
    Perioperative Clinical Nurse Specialists.
        I am proud of the entire AMEDD team caring for the wounded warriors
    along the entire medical evacuation continuum. Another area in which we
    continue to advance professional nursing practice is in the area of
    case management. A world-class nurse case management model assures the
    seamless transitioning of our soldiers from the battlefield to home.
    There are currently 2,204 medical hold soldiers assigned to military
    medical treatment facilities and another 1,431 assigned to community
    based health care organizations. Today there are 272 nurse case
    managers assigned throughout the AMEDD health care system providing
    inpatient and outpatient care of our active duty, medical hold
    soldiers, retirees, and dependents. Reports from the field indicate
    that case managers are effectively and efficiently coordinating
    appropriate and quality health care for this population of ill and
    injured soldiers. Soldiers report high satisfaction regarding their
    case managers and prefer to have Army nurses manage their health care.
    With such demonstrated successes, we are developing and implementing
    strategies for the preparation of our new RN case managers to meet the
    special needs of our soldiers. We are also standardizing case
    management practices and documentation across the AMEDD and helping
    with the implementation of Veterans Administration and Department of
    Defense (DOD) clinical practice guidelines that will enhance the
    collaboration of medical, nursing, and other specialties as well as
    standardize best practices.
        As the Army works to rebalance its forces, we are also working to
    adapt to the circumstances of this long global war on terror. We are
    rapidly applying lessons learned and developing training to ensure we
    provide the best care across the health care continuum. At the AMEDD
    Center and School, the Department of Nursing Science has incorporated
    those lessons into all courses offered to Army nurses, licensed
    practical nurses (LPN), and combat medics. We have had a number of
    other successes in both ongoing and new initiatives that I would like
    to share with you.
        The U.S. Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia Nursing once again
    ranks second in the Nation. We are equally proud of the USUHS
    Registered Nurse Anesthesia Program. However, I remain concerned about
    the crisis that continued shortages of certified registered nurse
    anesthetists (CRNA) presents to the AMEDD. We are moving ahead and
    increasing enrollment in the U.S. Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia
    Nursing (USAGPAN), and working on issues related to their retention.
    The largest class in the program's history of 43 Army students will
    start in June 2007. To accommodate this class and assure sustained
    throughput, four new civilian faculty members were added to the
    didactic phase of the course at the AMEDD Center and School. Each of
    the clinical locations now have a military director and civilian deputy
    director in order to maintain fidelity in training when directors
    deploy.
        Combat operations over the past 5 years have provided many lessons
    learned, and probably none more important than the need for early
    trauma training for all of the AMEDD team. Trauma rotations are now
    mandatory for all students in the Graduate Anesthesia Program. The
    Trauma Nursing Core Course (TNCC) sponsored by the Emergency Nurses
    Association continues to be the standard for training new Army nurses
    during the Officer Basic Leaders Course. In 2006, 292 entry level
    nurses were trained in all aspects of trauma care lead by Ltc. Anthony
    Bohlin. The course teaches the principles of optimal care of the trauma
    patient and how that care is best accomplished within a systematic team
    framework. In addition TNCC has also become a standard part of pre-
    deployment training for all nurses.
        With significant burn injuries being seen in both Iraq,
    Afghanistan, as well as during humanitarian operations last year in
    Pakistan, we have identified the requirement for advanced burn care
    training for our teams. In response, the Department of Nursing Science
    at the AMEDD Center and School integrated the Advanced Burn Life
    Support (ABLS) Course into the Captains Career Course. The course
    designed for physicians, nurses, physicians assistants, nurse
    practitioners, therapists, and paramedics provides guidelines in the
    assessment and management of the burn patient during the first 24 hours
    post injury. The first class will take place in May 2007 for
    approximately 130 Army nurses of all specialties providing this
    advanced skill set to seasoned clinicians. The ABLS course has also
    been identified as a critical course for all clinicians deploying to
    theater.
        Providing nursing care in austere environments has been the
    cornerstone of Army nursing. The art of field nursing has been
    integrated into every major course taught at the AMEDD Center and
    School. During fiscal year 2006, upgraded field medical equipment was
    purchased for the Camp Bullis training site. The result is students
    training on equipment identical to that which they will encounter in
    the theater of operations. This not only enhances their competency but
    also strengthens their confidence in the field technology ultimately
    providing better care to our ill and injured soldiers.
        From the beginning of combat operations in Iraq, nurses have
    transported severely wounded patients by air within theater. They
    performed superbly, but most had little or no training in aviation
    medicine or enroute care. During Operation Iraqi Freedom rotations IV-
    VI there were 450 critical care transport missions from two hospitals
    in Iraq. To assure that the Army provided appropriate training to
    medical attendants, the U.S. Army School of Aviation Medicine Fort
    Rucker, Alabama developed the Joint Enroute Care Course. The purpose of
    the course is to provide concise, realistic, relevant enroute trauma
    transport team training to flight medics, registered nurses, physician
    assistants, and physicians. Since the program opened in June 2006,
    approximately 77 Army nurses have completed the training. We expect
    three more iterations of the course this fiscal year to train an
    additional 105 medical personnel. To enhance exposure to patients'
    requirements during medical evacuation, the Department of Nursing
    Science has integrated aspects of this course into programs at the
    AMEDD Center and School.
        As reported last year, the Department of Nursing Science at the
    AMEDD Center and School broke ground for a new general instruction
    building which is scheduled to open in July 2007. The $11.1 million,
    55,000 square foot building, named in honor of Brigadier General
    Lillian Dunlap, 14th Chief of the Army Nurse Corps, will house all four
    branches of the Department of Nursing Science; the U.S. Army Practical
    Nurse Branch, the Operating Room Branch, the Army Nurse Professional
    Development Branch, and U.S. Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia
    Nursing Branch.
        The training of enlisted medical personnel is a critical mission of
    the AMEDD Center and School and we continue to update and improve the
    educational processes and curriculum. The Surgical Technologist (68D)
    Program is a 19-week course preparing entry level operating room
    technicians. Previously, students are trained for 9 weeks at the AMEDD
    Center and School and were sent to 1 of 23 locations for hands-on
    clinical training. To improve the quality and standardize the training,
    the number of clinical sites has been reduced to 14 to include a newly
    forged partnership with the San Antonio VA Medical Center. This
    reorganization of the training process has markedly improved 68D
    training by increasing the number of dedicated faculty across fewer
    locations.
        The Surgical Technologist Branch continues to work on the Inter-
    Service Training Review to conduct an analysis of Army, Air Force, and
    Navy commonalities in training surgical technologists. The goal in 2007
    is to explore the mechanisms for certification of students with this
    specialty. The 68D Branch also conducted a rapid train-up program for
    USAR 68D's preparing for deployment and is producing a distance
    learning program to assist in pre-deployment training.
        I remain fully committed to making sure we smoothly transition our
    new Army nurses into the organization and clinical practice. It is
    demonstrated very clearly in the professional literature and from
    feedback from our officers that a solid orientation and preceptorship
    are directly linked to, clinical skill development, job satisfaction,
    and ultimately retention. We continue to work towards the establishment
    of an enhanced new graduate internship program across the Army. In the
    meantime, some facilities have changed how new nurse graduates are
    indoctrinated by incorporating feedback from redeploying nurses and
    including an array of clinical experiences within the first year to
    maximize clinical skill acquisition. Starting in January 2007, new
    graduates assigned to Tripler Army Medical Center complete a nurse
    internship program overseen by Ms. Shelia Bunton, Ltc. Patricia
    Wilhelm, and Ltc. Mary Hardy. They are assigned to a ``home room''
    nursing unit and over a 6-month period are scheduled for rotations that
    expose them to medicine, surgery, critical care, emergency/trauma,
    psychiatry, pediatrics, and labor and delivery. The first 12 officers
    will graduate from the inaugural internship in June 2007 with a much
    more rounded clinical skill sets.
        The national nursing shortage and unprecedented nursing staff
    turnover have required us to examine our care delivery model and
    processes to continue to achieve quality clinical outcomes. In a Bureau
    of Labor Statistics report dated February 2004 indicated that the
    production of new registered nurses is not keeping pace with nurse
    retirements and the aging nursing workforce. Total job openings which
    include both job growth and replacement of nurses will produce 1.1
    million nursing job vacancies by the end of the decade. Based on these
    statistics, a group of senior Nurse Corps leaders and civilians from
    across the AMEDD are examining and piloting a relationship based
    nursing care model that focuses on patient and family centered care,
    Registered Nurse led teams, clearly defined nursing roles and
    responsibilities, education, experience, and the scope and standards of
    nursing practice. The initial pilot began in January of 2007 at Tripler
    Army Medical Center and is expected to become a model for the delivery
    of nursing care across the Army regardless of the team, facility, or
    region in which nursing care is being delivered.
        Evidenced-based practice is the process by which nurses use the
    body of knowledge to develop best nursing practices based on clinical
    outcomes. Army nurse researchers, in collaboration with their Navy and
    Air Force colleagues, are heavily vested in the TriService Nursing
    Research Programs' Center of Excellence in Evidenced-Based Nursing
    Practice. Projects to bring research findings to the bedside are
    underway at Walter Reed, Brooke, Madigan, and Tripler Army Medical
    Centers. These projects are part of a larger effort to improve patient
    outcomes and reduce costs by standardizing care. They teach nurses how
    to critique research and incorporate the relevant findings into patient
    care. Nurses involved in these projects increase their knowledge,
    become motivated to further their education, and are becoming involved
    in research projects, much earlier in their careers.
        Tripler Army Medical Center and Martin Army Community Hospital at
    Fort Benning, Georgia were selected as test sites by the DOD Patient
    Safety Center to establish rapid response teams (RRT). The purpose of
    the teams is to provide critical care nursing and respiratory therapy
    teams to assess patients exhibiting early clinical symptoms of decline.
    These teams provide expert resources to novices nurse to assist in
    assessment and intervention for at risk or high acuity patients. The
    pilot programs are clearly demonstrating that the RRT's are highly
    successful in preventing patient complication with early expert
    intervention, providing nursing staff support and training new and less
    experienced nursing staff.
        Each year, the U.S. Pharmacopedia's (USP) Center for the
    Advancement of Patient Safety conducts an in-depth analysis of
    medication errors using data captured from MEDMARX. This year, the U.S.
    Pharmaocpedia has collaborated with the Uniformed Services University
    of the Health Sciences and the Association of Perioperative Registered
    Nurses on the data analysis and report. This marks the first time USP
    has worked with partners on the report, and the collaboration has
    produced multi-dimensional analysis. The analysis and data collected
    will help hospitals nationwide and throughout the Department of Defense
    reduce and prevent medication errors and related costs due to patient
    injury, further hospitalization and treatment.
                             leadership in research
        The TriService Nursing Research Program (TSNRP), established in
    1992, provided military nurse researchers funding to advance research
    based health care improvements for the war fighters and their
    beneficiaries (S.R. 107-732). TSNRP actively supports research that
    expands the state of nursing science for military clinical practice and
    proficiency, nurse corps readiness, retention of military nurses,
    mental health issues, and translation of evidence into practice.
        TSNRP is a truly successful program. Through its state of the art
    grant funding and management processes, TSNRP has funded over 300
    research studies in basic and applied science and involved more than
    700 military nurses as principal and associate investigators,
    consultants, and data managers. TSNRP funded study findings have been
    presented at hundreds of national and international conferences and are
    published in over 70 peer-reviewed journals. Army Nurse Corps studies
    focus on the continuum of military health care needs from pre-and post-
    deployment health to nursing specific practices necessary to best care
    for the warrior in theatre. The Army nurse research portfolio includes
    a study by Col. Richard Ricciardi that evaluated the metabolic cost and
    the consequences of wearing body armor, finding that wearing body armor
    significantly increases workload. His findings have implication for the
    amount and type of work commanders can expect soldiers to perform and
    put additional emphasis on the importance of soldiers maintaining a
    normal body weight and physical fitness as part of overall readiness.
        Col. Stacey Young-McCaughan is assessing the prevalence, severity,
    and characteristics of pain and sleep disturbance to determine how they
    impact physical and psychological outcomes in soldiers with extremity
    trauma sustained during service in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
    OIF.
        Our improvements in battlefield medical and trauma care, has
    resulted in unforeseen advances in treatment for both military and
    civilian populations. These advancements largely come from dedicated
    research teams co-located with deployed combat hospitals. These teams
    have been deployed since at least WWI and continue to be along side our
    providers today. We are at a phase in the war in Iraq that we can
    collect data, conduct comprehensive and detailed analysis, and develop
    focused improvement that will result in practice change while still in
    theater. Ltc. Veronica Thurmond PhD, a nurse researcher, is part of the
    6-person deployed combat casualty research team (DC2RT) located in
    Baghdad Iraq with the 28th CSH. This dedicated research and analysis
    team is operating under Multi-National Coalition Iraq (MNC-I) DOD
    Assurances of Compliance for the Protections of Human Subjects and
    complies with all research regulatory and ethical guidelines. The
    researchers collaborate with subject matter experts in the United
    States on all aspects of their research.
        I would like to highlight some of the ongoing areas of research the
    team is focused on which will ultimately result in practice changes
    that save lives. These areas include: Registry of emergency airways at
    combat hospitals, burn outcomes at the CSH, damage control vascular
    surgery, effects of blast-concussive injuries, acinetobacter skin
    colonization among deployed soldiers, survey of tourniquet use, and
    outcomes of patients receiving blood transfusions in a combat
    environment. There are also numerous studies in various stages of
    development.
        Army nurse researchers and our doctoral students continue to focus
    their efforts on military relevant issues. They are conducting a number
    of studies that foster excellence and improve the nursing care we
    provide. They are researching issues including recruit health; clinical
    knowledge development; the provision of care for the traumatically
    injured; objectively measuring nursing workload; and the impact of
    deployments on service members and their families. For example, LTC(P)
    Lisa Latendresse at USUHS is working to identify the variables
    predictive of phantom limb pain in combat casualties with lower
    extremity amputations.
        The U.S. Graduate Program in Anesthesia Nursing has had a very
    active research/scholarship program year in 2006. Most of the research
    involves investigation of interactions of herbal medications with
    anesthesia and hypothermia. Eleven research projects were presented at
    the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) convention; five
    posters were presented at American Surgeons of the United States
    (AMSUS); five research studies were presented at Phyllis J. Verhonick
    Conference; and three at State conventions. One student group received
    the AANA Program Director's Outstanding Student Research Award. Ltc.
    Thomas Ceremuga received the Army Nurse of the Year Award, and Dr.
    Norma Garrett received the AANA Researcher of the Year Award. The
    faculty and students have over $1,000,000 in external funding from
    TriService Research Nursing Program, AANA, and Air Force Medical
    Evaluation Support. Six student projects have been approved for funding
    in 2007. Thirteen research articles and three chapters written by
    students and faculty were accepted in 2006 and are in press.
        We acknowledge and appreciate the faculty and staff of the USUHS
    Graduate School of Nursing for all they do to prepare advanced practice
    nurses to serve America's Army. They train advanced practice nurses in
    a multidisciplinary military-unique curriculum that is especially
    relevant given the current operational environment. Our students are
    actively engaged in research and the dissemination of nursing knowledge
    through the publication of journal articles, scientific posters, and
    national presentations. In the past year alone there have been over 21
    research articles, publications, abstracts, manuscripts, and national
    presentations by faculty and students at USUHS.
                       collaboration/innovative delivery
        The AMEDD team collaborating with government and non-government
    organizations around the world has helped streamline care where it was
    otherwise fragmented and introduced innovations in the delivery of
    care. I would like to share with you some examples of these innovations
    and collaborative partnerships.
        The 21st CSH nurses have seamlessly supported the transition of
    medical care to over 4,000 detainees from Abu Ghraib to Camp Cropper
    and have continued to improve the medical care of that population.
    Efforts like those of 1st. Lt. Michelle Racicot demonstrate how Army
    nurses continue to improve health care on the ground in Iraq. She
    designed a data base for over 10,000 tuberculosis patients to track
    when laboratory testing and medication refills were required. Her
    efforts improved the quality of care and follow-up while reducing the
    spread of this infectious disease in the detainee population.
    Similarly, Cpt. Nicole Candy and 1st. Lt. Sharon Owen developed an
    outpatient wound care clinic that manages up to 45 patients a day with
    complex wound care needs. The program has drastically reduced wound
    infection rates and freed up inpatient beds.
        While the AMEDD team continues to provide quality health care, its
    members work to advance health care delivery systems in the countries
    around the world. Between April 2006 and January 2007, the 14th CSH
    initiated a formal program in Bagram, Afghanistan to train nearly 50
    Afghan military and civilian nurses. In Salerno, Afghanistan, Ltc.
    Bruce Schoneboom, Maj. Elizabeth Vinson, and Maj. Tanya Sanders worked
    with the Khowst Provincial Teaching Program. These Army nurses
    spearheaded an initiative to teach local Afghan doctors and nurses
    state of the art techniques in providing perioperative surgical and
    nursing care. They were instrumental in teaching over 15 Afghan
    providers and were involved in the care of over 600 local nationals.
    They trained providers in conscious sedation, burn and wound care,
    airway management, postoperative management, and sterile technique. At
    the end their rotation, the 14th CSH opened the Khowst Afghan-American
    Comprehensive Surgical Clinic designed to serve the local Afghan
    community.
        Army nurses around the world continue to work collaboratively
    through practice and educational partnerships. In Korea, the 121st CSH
    shares a collegial and enriching partnership by providing continuing
    nursing education. Nurse practitioners at the 121st CSH support Korean
    Advanced Practice Nursing (APN) student from Yonsei University by
    providing observational experiences to students as part of their
    clinical practicum. This opportunity allows Korean nurses to see APNs
    functioning within that role. In return, the partnership with Yonsei
    University provides Army nurses with continuing education activities
    and supports professional practice partnerships.
        Last year I mentioned the Vietnam Military Subject Matter Expert
    Exchange that was started in December 2005. We continue working with
    that country to help establish structures and processes to enhance
    military nursing in Vietnam. To date this has included trips by Army
    nurses and subject matter experts to Hanoi as part of a health care
    systems assessment, as well as a visit by a Vietnamese Delegation to
    Tripler Army Medical Center, the University of Hawaii, the AMEDD Center
    and School, and Brooke Army Medical Center. I am firmly committed to
    partnerships that advance health care delivery and professional nursing
    practice in emerging nations.
        Army nurses continue making contributions toward building
    sustainable medical infrastructure throughout the world. Earlier this
    year, Ltc. Charlotte Scott was dispatched to Kuwait as part of an
    informatics team to advise the Kuwaiti military and civilian health
    care systems on medical information technology capabilities. Also this
    year the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia requested a group of medical and
    nursing advisors from the AMEDD to enhance capabilities of military
    medical treatment facilities within the Kingdom. The team included a
    nurse executive, Col. Diana Ruzicka, a perioperative nurse, Ltc.
    Lawrence Crozier, and a medical surgical nurse, Ltc. Gerdell Phyall, to
    make a comprehensive assessment of the system and make recommendations
    for sustainable improvements.
        Despite a sustained upswing in enrollments in baccalaureate nursing
    programs, the need for nurses continues to outpace the number of new
    graduates. Baccalaureate programs continue to turn away tens of
    thousands of qualified applicants each year, many due to faculty
    shortages. We remain committed to partnering with the civilian sector
    to address this and other issues contributing to the worldwide shortage
    of professional nurses. We are currently researching ways to encourage
    our retired officers to consider faculty positions as viable second
    career choices.
                            recruiting and retention
        The future of the Army Nurse Corps depends on our ability to
    attract and retain the right mix of talented professionals to care for
    our soldiers and their families. In addition to the shortage of nurses
    and nurse educators, competitive market conditions and current
    operational demands continue to be a challenge as we work to ensure we
    have the proper manning to accomplish our mission. With a current
    deficit of 254 officers, primarily in the company grades and in
    critical specialties, such as anesthesia, critical care, perioperative,
    and OB/GYN nursing, we are continuously monitoring the status of our
    recruiting and retention efforts.
        We access officers for the Active Component through a variety of
    programs, including the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), the
    Army Medical Department Enlisted (AMEDD) Commissioning Program, the
    Army Nurse Candidate Program, and direct accession recruiting, with
    ROTC optimally being our primary accession source. We reported to you
    last year that since 1999, we have accessed an average of 16 percent
    fewer officers than required. That proved to be true last fiscal year
    as well, despite rate increases to the Nurse Accession Bonus, increased
    funding for the AMEDD Enlisted Commissioning Program, and a substantial
    commitment of personnel resources to the recruiting effort. However,
    there are positive trends on the horizon. For the first time in several
    years, the majority of our new lieutenants came from ROTC and so far
    this year, we are seeing a 62 percent increase in accessions as
    compared to this same time last year. These are trends we hope will
    continue. We thank the U.S. Army Cadet Command and the U.S. Army
    Recruiting Command for their focused efforts at providing nurses for
    the Army Nurse Corps.
        Retention also remains under close scrutiny and we are constantly
    working to refine our retention strategy. A recent review of personnel
    records by the Department of the Army indicated that the Army Nurse
    Corps had the highest attrition rate of any officer branch in the Army.
    Ongoing research indicates that Army nurses leave the service primarily
    because of less than optimal relationships with supervisors, length of
    deployment, and the absence of specialty pay. Those who stay do so
    because of our outstanding educational opportunities and retirement
    benefits, as well as the satisfaction that comes with working with
    soldiers and their families.
        I remain very concerned about our certified registered nurse
    anesthetists (CRNAs). Our inventory is currently at 66 percent--down
    from 70.8 percent at the end of the last fiscal year. While the U.S.
    Army's Graduate Program in Anesthesia Nursing, our primary training
    program, is rated as the second best in the Nation, we have not been
    filling all of our available training seats for several years now.
    Additionally, many of these outstanding officers are opting for
    retirement at the 20 year point. The restructuring of the incentive
    special pay program for CRNAs in 2005, as well as the 180-day
    deployment rotation policy have helped stem the tide in the mid-career
    ranks and this coming June, we will start one of the largest classes in
    the history of the program. However, there is still much work to be
    done to ensure there are sufficient CRNAs to meet mission requirements
    in the future. We continue to work closely with the Surgeon General's
    staff to closely evaluate and adjust rates and policies where needed to
    retain our CRNAs.
        For Reserve Component nurses, the issue is primarily the imbalance
    of professionally educated officers in the company grades--so many of
    them are prepared at the associate degree or diploma level that over
    the past few years, only 50 percent are educationally qualified for
    promotion to major. This creates a concern for the future force
    structure of the senior ranks of the Reserve Component in the years to
    come. For this reason, we are grateful that the Chief, Army Reserve is
    focusing recruitment incentives on those nurses educated at the
    baccalaureate level and funding the Specialized Training and Assistance
    Program for BSN completion (BSN-STRAP) for both new accessions and
    existing Army Reserve nurses without a BSN. These strategies will
    assist in providing well-educated professional nurses for the Army
    Reserve in the years ahead.
        As we continue to face a significant registered nurse shortage, it
    is essential that I address the civilian nursing workforce. We also
    face significant challenges in recruiting and retaining civilian
    nurses, particularly in critical care, perioperative, and OB/GYN
    specialties. This results in an increased reliance on expensive and
    resource exhausting contract support. We must stabilize our civilian
    workforce and reduce the reliance on contract nursing that impinges our
    ability to provide consistent quality care and develop our junior Army
    nurses. To address this issue, last year the AMEDD approved recruitment
    and retention initiatives at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and
    Charles R. Darnell Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas. These two
    pilot projects provided financial support for advertising, salary
    increases, and recruitment financial incentives. At Fort Hood, Texas
    the initiative was very successful in recruiting, training, and
    retaining obstetrical nurses that were very much in demand.
        The AMEDD also recently approved the limited application of a
    student loan repayment program for current and new civilian nurse
    recruits with an outstanding response. Over 70 civilian nurses opted
    into the loan repayment program with an associated 3 year service
    obligation. The program has been so successful that the AMEDD will
    continue the education loan repayment program, and seek a program to
    support civilian nurses seeking advanced degrees. We must continue such
    initiatives in the future if we are to maintain a quality nursing work
    force.
        We are also challenged in recruiting and retaining civilian nurses
    as a result of personnel regulations that date as far back as 1977.
    These regulations constrain our ability to hire in a competitive
    nursing employment market. We must have the same flexibilities as the
    Department of Veterans Affairs to recruit nurses, especially new
    graduates. Recently, I have assembled a strategic work group of
    civilian nurses and senior Army nurse leaders to look at these issues
    and help us solve some of the long term problems impacting recruitment
    and retention of our civilian work force.
        One promise of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) is to
    attract and retain talented and motivated employees. I remain
    optimistic that NSPS will address the issues that make civil service a
    disincentive for new and practicing nurses. We have worked with the
    Navy and Air Force to standardize duty titles throughout the system.
    This will ease local marketing and facilitate the development of tiers
    for advanced practice nurses, similar to those for physicians and
    dentists. However, the delay in implementation of NSPS because of legal
    challenges by unions renews our concerns.
        More than ever, the Army Nurse Corps is focused on providing
    service members and their families the absolute highest quality care
    they need and deserve. We continue adapting to the new realities of
    this long war, but remain firm on providing the leadership and
    scholarship required to advance the practice of professional nursing.
    We will maintain our focus on sustaining readiness, clinical
    competency, and sound educational preparation with the same commitment
    to serve those service members who defend our Nation that we have
    demonstrated for the past 106 years. I appreciate this opportunity to
    highlight our accomplishments and discuss the issues we face. Thank you
    for your support of the Army Nurse Corps.

        Senator Inouye. May I call on Senator Stevens?
        Senator Stevens. I have to apologize. I have to leave, but
    I will make one request. I would like to have the three of you
    submit to us suggestions for changes in the law to give
    additional incentives to people to join and stay with the
    nursing corps of our armed services. I think they have been
    under extreme strain, and we ought to understand that, and we
    ought to offer great incentives to people to join and stay.
        Thank you.
        General Pollock. Thank you, sir. We will work that for you
    and get that to you quickly.
        Senator Inouye. I concur with the Senator, because we are
    competing with the general public, and if we don't do and
    provide incentives, we're not going to meet the demands.
        You are at 92 percent now?
        General Rank. Yes.
        Senator Inouye. And the Navy?
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Ninety percent, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Ninety percent? And the Army?
        General Pollock. Sir, it really depends on the specialties
    that we address. Across the corporate nurse corps, I would
    estimate 90 to 92. In some of our specialties we are at 59
    percent.
        [The information follows:]

        Suggestions for changes in the law to give additional
    incentives to people to join and stay in the Nurse Corps of our
    Armed Services:
        Support Office of Personnel Management Act Relief for Nurse
    Corps and Biomedical Sciences Corps. Disparate promotion
    opportunity and timing is currently the greatest challenge in
    retaining Nurse Corps officers. In a recent survey, lack of
    promotion opportunity was the most common influence mentioned
    by the 381 responders in their decision to separate from the
    military. Promotion opportunity for Nurse Corps officers is and
    has consistently been 10-15 percent lower than other Air Force
    officers. Promotion timing for Nurse Corps officers lags
    consistently two to three years behind all other Air Force
    officers.
        Continue to support: Nurse Accession Bonus; Critical Skills
    Retention Bonuses and Incentive Special Pays; Uniformed
    Services University of the Health Sciences & Graduate School of
    Nursing; Board Certification Pay; Scholarship Programs; Health
    Professions Loan Repayment Program; and Tri-Service Nursing
    Research Program.
        Clarify legislative language (Title 10, United States Code
    Section 2107) to allow candidates over the age of 31 years to
    be eligible for financial assistance. Recently nine candidates
    over the age of 31 years were disapproved for the Airman
    Enlisted Commissioning Program based on interpretation of Title
    10, United States Code, Section 2107.

        Senator Inouye. Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                        NURSES AND THE CONTINUUM OF CARE

        I'm so glad to see you once again, and I thank you for
    working with my staff to crack this issue of retention and
    recruitment, because it's the linchpin of delivering care. But
    in the warmest and most grateful way, I would just like I think
    just talk about the role that nurses have been playing from, as
    you say in your testimony, from battlefield to home, and the
    very intense ops tempo, the nature of the injuries, et cetera.
        I'll come back, because I know we're all well aware that
    without recruitment and retention this isn't going to work, but
    as you know, we're focusing so much now on outpatient care.
    General Pollock, I'd like to start with the testimony on page 8
    in which you raise some very important issues, and then have
    our other leadership respond.
        You talk about the AMEDD team caring for the wounded
    warriors, and the medical evacuation continuum, et cetera. You
    also talk about this continuum of care and nurses as case
    managers. Could you share with us, what is the role of nursing
    both in outpatient care, or is there any in rehabilitation, for
    the three services?
        And then I'm going to get to my point two. One of the
    issues that came up in the Walter Reed series and we're hearing
    everywhere is the so-called case manager. Now, you all are
    nurses. I'm a professionally trained social worker. The
    question is, do we have enough? Who are these so-called case
    managers?
        Because here when I see nurse case managers, I breathe a
    sigh of relief, because you know the medicine but you look at
    the whole person, including these 19-year-old spouses or maybe
    the 50-year-old mother. So could you, one, just talk with us
    about the role in the continuum of care, in addition to the
    acute care continuum that has been both brilliant and stunning
    and all--we can't say enough good things.
        General Pollock, can we start with you? And then what would
    it take for you to be able to continue to do this?
        General Pollock. Yes. There's a couple of pieces that I
    would like to answer for you----
        Senator Mikulski. I know there's not----
        General Pollock [continuing]. So I'll focus on your
    question of case management.
        Senator Mikulski. You see where I'm trying to get to?
        General Pollock. Yes, yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Which is what is the role of the nurses,
    but we really need to have good case managers if we're going to
    oversee the continuum of care back home.
        General Pollock. Ma'am, I think this is a second- and
    third-order effect of the transition from inpatient care that
    Senator Inouye spoke of, that we provided during Vietnam, that
    no longer exists. Now, 90 percent of the healthcare that we
    provide is done in the ambulatory setting.
        And in the past, when it was done as an inpatient, the
    nurse was the coordinator, the communicator, the teacher, the
    educator--the coercer, as Senator Inouye has talked, the story
    about how he learned to light a cigarette again, and start to
    understand that he could care for himself. We do all of those
    things, but when we made the national transition to ambulatory
    care, no one thought of the importance of having nurses
    actively engaged to ensure that continuity of care.
        And, as a result, in the Army we were significantly
    downsized. ``Well, if you're not going to do inpatient care,
    then we don't need you.'' That has been a major challenge for
    us, because although we know we need to do care management,
    case management in the outpatient arena, our first priority was
    to use the nurses to ensure that people survived that very
    traumatic event so that they would eventually need outpatient
    care.
        Unfortunately, particularly at Walter Reed, I don't have
    enough case managers. Now, the case managers that they have
    been using, there were three social workers and the rest were
    retired enlisted soldiers who they believed understood how to
    care for a soldier, which they did, but they didn't understand
    healthcare and the need to bring all those pieces together to
    assure that the patients would have the highest quality
    outcome.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, with the indulgence of the Chair,
    when they use the term ``social worker,'' you know, that can
    range from just a term to those of us who have MSWs. And I'm
    not saying an MSW should do this, but I come with a body of
    knowledge, a particularly trained skill set, and a code of
    ethics. That's the triad which we stood on, regardless of how
    we practice, including here.
        But my question was, are these bachelor of arts people? Are
    these trained social workers, because they would at least know
    how to work----
        General Pollock. The social workers, ma'am, I was up at
    Walter Reed last week meeting with the case managers, meeting
    with the staff, to help them to endure the negativity of the
    press, because it's been very, very difficult for the staff.
    They're working very, very hard, and to see on the front page
    of the paper every day and to hear on the news every night that
    the Nation is now thinking that what they do has no value, that
    they're not doing a good job, this has been devastating for the
    personnel of the Army Medical Department. So I wanted to spend
    time with them and reassure them----
        Senator Mikulski. And we want to reassure them, too, that
    the fault is not at the mid-level hands-on, it's where was the
    leadership?
        General Pollock. So that's why I know, ma'am, that three of
    those, that group that had been in the case management bucket,
    three were social workers who were MSM-prepared and were
    certified, and the rest of them were retirees that they thought
    would be adequate to manage the issues, not realizing how
    complex it was.

                                CASE MANAGEMENT

        Senator Mikulski. Do you believe that as we look ahead to
    the new world order, both for Army, the marines, the
    caregivers, there will be Air Force involved, that we should
    reclaim the heritage of nurses as case managers----
        General Pollock. Absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Particularly the move from
    acute care to maybe outpatient, et cetera, and then also
    ensuing, and that this is a need?
        General Pollock. Oh, absolutely, it's a need, and it's one
    that nurses are particularly skilled for. What I would really
    like to see is for the Nation to understand that once someone
    has a diagnosis of any chronic condition, they then receive a
    nurse case manager to ensure that all of the pieces that need
    to come together so they can live at their highest quality of
    functioning is addressed.
        Senator Mikulski. Admiral?
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
        In the Navy we have 106, approximately 106 active duty and
    civil servant nurses who are presently engaged in case
    management. Case management is a catch-all, in my opinion----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler [continuing]. Of following the care
    of a category or categories of patients. In my opinion, when we
    moved care into the outpatient arena, there was a period of
    time when nurses were trying to determine exactly what their
    role was in the ambulatory care setting. Many thought they were
    clinic managers, many thought they were receptionists, some
    thought they were appointment clerks, but in reality they were
    case managers.
        Senator Mikulski. In reality they were nurses.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. And they were nurses.
        Senator Mikulski. Nurse is an identity.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. I mean, it is an identity.
        Admiral Bruzek-Kohler. And their role in an ambulatory
    setting as a case manager is different than the role of case
    manager that you refer to, in today's world, in a wartime
    scenario. So while case management is fielded by nurses, by
    active duty and civil servant nurses, it's more of a
    multidisciplinary team.
        As I mentioned in my oral testimony, San Diego has created
    a multidisciplinary team because it's not just about nursing
    care. Clearly it's about the rehabilitative care, the mental
    healthcare, and the continuum of assets that we have to pull
    together to make certain that the care of the patient is
    holistic and appropriate. Nurses are leading these teams in
    many cases. And if they are not the team leader, they are still
    filling a significant role as a member on the team.
        Do we have enough? I don't think you ever have enough
    nursing care, and I don't think we ever have enough nurses.
    Clearly, as we have shown, we are not achieving our end
    strength goals. But case management is, in my opinion, one of
    the most important services a professional nurse offers our
    wounded servicemembers as they return home from war.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think I'm going to share with the
    subcommittee leadership, we want again the ideas for
    recruitment and retention, because whatever job the nurse does,
    you need the nurse. The length of deployment issue, if we
    could--I know Senator Stevens has talked about financial
    incentives, but the length of deployment and who makes those
    decisions and what would be your recommendations.
        And the other, what I thought was so interesting was that
    for those that are already nurses, you noted were either the
    so-called hospital trained and then the associate of arts, but
    your point was, if they could get--and correct me if I'm wrong,
    General Pollock and others--that if they could have the ability
    while they are within military nursing to then move to the next
    level of education, that this in and of itself would be both
    recruitment but you would also be not recruiting a per capita
    slot.
        You're recruiting someone who is trained, absorbs the
    culture, which is different than working for a doc-in-a-box. I
    mean, it's what we said about why people want to be in military
    medicine. So is this where you see an opportunity for both your
    next level leadership as well as keeping good people, that they
    could go from an associate of arts degree to a bachelor's
    degree, or a bachelor's degree to get specialized training? Did
    I understand the testimony right, or am I off base?
        General Pollock. Yes, some of it, and some of it is----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, I am off base, and yes, I'm right?
    That's okay.
        General Pollock. For our Reserve component, we are working
    very hard to provide more opportunities for them to make their
    transition, because they are the only officers among the three
    militaries who are allowed to access without a baccalaureate
    degree. So it's very important, because that education is
    required for officers in our military, it's very important that
    they complete that education. So the funding for them to
    complete that education as part of their military experience
    would be fabulous, because then the big reason that people use
    for not completing their education is, they can't afford to
    stop working and caring for their families.
        The piece that you raised, though, ma'am, about case
    management for us, and we talked for a moment about the
    transition that we made to ambulatory care in the Nation, with
    this being a long war, with the threats that these terrorists
    pose to our homeland, this is not going to be just an issue for
    military nursing or military healthcare. We are going to need a
    plan for the assisted living, for the rehabilitation of our
    citizens, should they start to become injured.
        Senator Mikulski. But right now we could start with our
    military. They are an identifiable population for which we have
    a moral and a legal obligation, and if we got that right, then
    the civilian, I think this is where we could lead civilian
    planning in medicine.
        General Pollock. Thank you, and I would like to submit for
    the record the responses to your concerns about the length of
    deployment and the nurses' concerns about that deployment.
        Senator Mikulski. Right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know we
    could continue this very excellent and instructive
    conversation. But I think what we want to know is, how do we
    keep what we've got and recruit the new that are as talented
    and dedicated as your leadership. And the other is really the
    role now of nursing in the continuum, to be sure that the
    continuum works for both the patient but for the system.
        And I think you are the leadership team. I mean, nursing,
    by the very nature that it can coordinate the medical and the
    psychosocial needs and understand that, I think is there. So as
    a social worker, I'm happy to be part of your multidisciplinary
    team. Thank you.
        General Pollock. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Inouye. Several of the members would like to submit
    questions, and I hope that you will respond accordingly.
    General Rank, Admiral Kohler, and General Pollock, in behalf of
    the subcommittee, I thank you very much for your participation
    in our hearings. I can assure you that your words will be taken
    very seriously.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
              Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur
                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
                         nurse corps: shortage impacts
        Question. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has projected
    that by 2014, our nation will need an additional 1.2 million new and
    replacement nurses. In 2004, 72 percent of hospitals were experiencing
    a nursing shortage. The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have
    increased the need for qualified nurses in military medical facilities.
    Unfortunately, the military faces the same difficulty in recruitment
    and retention of nurses. In addition, the average age of retirement of
    nurse faculty is 62.5 years and it is expected that 200 to 300
    doctorally prepared faculty will be eligible for retirement each year
    from 2005 through 2012 just as more than 1 million replacement nurses
    will be needed.
        Can you please elaborate on the impact that the nursing shortage
    has had on the Armed services? Do you feel that you are sufficiently
    staffed and have the adequate resources to engage in aggressive
    recruiting efforts?
        Answer. We recognize that our recruiters have often struggled in
    competing with civilian institutions and other government agencies for
    the same group of nurses. Yet for the first time in four years, the
    Navy Nurse Corps is projected to meet its direct accession goal. This
    can be attributed to the tireless efforts of Navy Nurse Corps
    recruiters, recent increases in our Nurse Accession Bonus and the
    Health Professions Loan Repayment Program.
        Additionally, our pipeline programs continue to be quite successful
    and serve as the primary recruitment source for future Nurse Corps
    officers. The Nurse Candidate Program, Medical Enlisted Commissioning
    Program, Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps Program and Seaman to
    Admiral Program ensure a steady supply of trained and qualified Navy
    Nurses who are critical to maintaining desired manning levels.
        Attentive monitoring of the national nursing market, coupled with
    periodic evaluation and modification of the aforementioned programs
    help maintain our competitiveness and viability amidst civilian
    recruiting initiatives for America's nursing workforce.
                        nurse corps: shortage challenges
        Question. What do you think are the major challenges compounding
    the nursing shortage in the Armed Services?
        Answer. The continuation of our ongoing engagement in Iraq has not
    become a deterrent to recruiting prospective nurses to join our ranks.
    Instead we have found that the decision to leave active service is more
    related to concerns regarding the length of deployments in which our
    nurses support our war fighters and humanitarian missions. A six month
    geographic separation from family and friends is typically deemed
    acceptable. Concerns arise when the potential for lengthening
    deployments is discussed to extend beyond six months.
        Other factors which contribute to the nursing shortage in the Armed
    Services include recruitment challenges posed by: regional areas that
    have few schools of nursing; and highly competitive civilian markets
    for the same available nursing pool.
                            nurse corps: recruiting
        Question. Can you please speak to the issue of faculty shortage and
    its implications on the ability for the Armed Services to recruit
    additional nurses?
        Answer. Navy Nurses welcome the opportunity to assist our
    colleagues in academia. We have served as clinical nurse preceptors,
    educators and adjunct professors in support of schools of nursing
    throughout the country. This interface with America's colleges and
    universities provides a unique perspective of Navy Nursing and avails
    possible recruitment opportunities for our corps.
        The Troops-to-Nurse Teachers program offers some salient proposals
    to amend the shortage of nursing faculty. We must be assured that this
    amendment will not become an incentive for Nurse Corps officers to
    leave the active component of military service. We would also recommend
    that the Troops-to-Nurse Teachers program be modeled after the DANTES
    Troop-to-Teachers program under the purview of the U.S. Department of
    Education.
                             traumatic brain injury
        Question. It is estimated that as many as 2 of every 10 combat
    veterans from Iraq/Afghanistan are returning with concussions of
    varying degrees of severity. With 1.4 million vets already having
    served, that would mean up to 280,000 people (and that number grows
    with every new soldier, sailor, marine, and airman deployed) requiring
    some sort of screening/treatment.
        Do we currently have the capacity to screen, diagnose and treat all
    of these service members in the Defense and Veterans health care
    systems today and in the future?
        Answer. Identifying, evaluating and treating service members and
    veterans suffering from brain injuries is of highest priority for Navy
    Medicine. The current criteria for sustaining brain injury was derived
    from sports medicine models and works well for athletes on the playing
    field; however, over-pressurization such as that caused by an IED
    correlates irregularly with signs and symptoms of classic ball-field
    sustained closed head injuries such as concussion. Over-pressurization
    may produce occult and sometimes subtle damage and service members
    often wrongfully believe that if they are able to ``walk away from it''
    they are well.
        The extraordinarily high rate of occurrence the press is reporting
    (``upwards of 20 percent of combat veterans'') cannot be definitively
    ascertained without conducting sophisticated neuropsychological
    testing. The most prudent approach employs a conservative, low
    threshold of suspicion for administrating neuropsychological screening
    tools. This is precisely the approach in use by the National Naval
    Medical Center (NNMC), Bethesda Brain Injury Center.
    Screening/Identification
        Navy medical personnel maintain heightened awareness to possible
    TBI-related symptoms in service members, using increased indices of
    suspicion when performing medical assessments. There is not one
    specific tool used to evaluate service members for TBI. Each of the
    Services and the Veterans Administration (VA) have developed tools.
        On the battlefield, Navy medical personnel use the Military Acute
    Concussion Evaluation (MACE), a screening tool identifying symptoms in
    service members involved in blast events. Mental health personnel
    assigned to USMC I Marine Expeditionary Force utilized the Combat
    Trauma Registry (CTR) to document and identify TBI-related symptoms in
    Marines seeking in-theater mental health care. At NNMC, all inpatients
    with the diagnosis of trauma from any deployment are evaluated for
    blast injuries using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of
    Neuropsychological Status (RBANS).
        DOD and Navy Medicine use the Post Deployment Health Assessment
    (PDHA) immediately following deployment, Post Deployment Health Re-
    Assessment (PDHRA) at 90 to 180 days post-deployment and the Periodic
    Health Assessment (PHA); a health evaluation tool completed once a year
    on all active and reserve Navy and Marine Corps service members
    screening questions for TBI will be added to these assessments.
    Treatment
        We do not know if we have sufficient capacity to fully evaluate,
    diagnose and treat an unknown but increasing number of service members
    returning who may have varying degrees of concussion. It is anticipated
    that the need for services to OIF/OEF patients will continue to
    increase significantly due to troop surges. As a result, the increased
    screening for TBI in the field and at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
    and the necessary follow up care for TBI patients will require new
    resources.
        In addition to the screening tools mentioned in the previous
    section, the Navy continues its collaboration with the VA to share
    resources in joint ventures to improve the immediate and long term care
    of our wounded warriors. A training program for providers in screening
    and identifying concussion injuries is currently being developed.
    Education of family members in identifying behavioral changes of
    returning spouses from OIF/OEF and the seeking of medical attention has
    been in place at the Navy Family Service Centers for the last two
    years. Additionally, command family briefs and command ombudsmen assist
    in the education of family members.
        Over the past two years NNMC has developed special expertise in
    blast injuries and has created the Traumatic Stress and Brain Injury
    Program to identify, assess, and treat patients with traumatic brain
    injuries.
        As the Global War on Terror continues we anticipate a prevalence of
    TBI that relates to the number of personnel directly exposed to blast.
    At NNMC, neuropsychological services are heavily involved in the
    evaluation and treatment of OIF/OEF patients with TBI. They routinely
    screen all returning OIF/OEF casualties arriving for any medical
    reason. Due to this need, psychological and neuropsychological testing
    and cognitive rehabilitation services have been severely limited/
    eliminated to other beneficiaries. They have identified additional
    personnel requirements to continue to evaluate and treat the majority
    of casualties returning with TBI, including psychiatrists,
    psychologists, recreational therapists, case managers with expertise in
    brain injury, social worker/substance abuse counselors and marriage and
    family therapist at a cost of over $3,000,000 annually.
        We continue to learn a great deal as we care for OIF/OEF
    casualties. This new expertise will serve as a foundation for future
    requirements. With appropriate resources, NNMC's programs being
    developed at other Naval Medical Treatment Facilities and the VA's
    hospitals will expand capacity to serve the emerging number of patients
    and offer a broader range of services.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                          traumatic brain injury (tbi)
        Question. I am very worried about the number of our men and women
    who are suffering traumatic head and brain injuries on the battlefield.
    I am also very worried about those servicemembers who may not suffer
    actual physical brain or functional impairment but who nonetheless are
    suffering because of the stress and psychological effects of the war.
        Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post traumatic stress disorder
    (PTSD) are often times very difficult to identify and diagnose. These
    injuries may manifest themselves months after troops have returned home
    from battle or have recovered from other injuries. They can also be
    amongst the most difficult injuries to treat, frequently requiring
    months or years of rehabilitation and therapy.
        Some doctors are calling TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq
    campaign. Body armor is helping many soldiers survive bomb and rocket
    attacks, but they are suffering brain injury and brain damage as a
    result of the blasts. What is being done to screen, identify, and treat
    servicemembers who may be suffering from TBI?
        Answer. Navy medical personnel maintain heightened awareness to
    possible TBI-related symptoms in servicemembers using increased indices
    of suspicion when performing medical assessments. Unit medical
    personnel use the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE) developed
    by the Defense Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC). MACE is a
    battlefield screening tool used to identify symptoms in servicemembers
    involved in blast events. Additionally, mental health personnel
    assigned to USMC I MEF use the Combat Trauma Registry (CTR) to document
    presenting symptoms. This registry includes neuropsychological
    screening questions to identify TBI-related symptoms in Marines seeking
    in-theater mental health care.
        Post-deployment screening occurs immediately following deployment
    using the Post Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA), and again at 90 to
    180 days using the Post Deployment Health Re-Assessment (PDHRA). The
    PDHRA includes a question regarding exposure to blast incident or motor
    vehicle accident. DOD (Health Affairs) plans additional TBI-related
    screening questions to the PDHA, the PDHRA, and the Periodic Health
    Assessment (PHA).
        All casualties evacuated to the National Naval Medical Center
    (NNMC), Bethesda receive neuropsychological screening with appropriate
    treatment and follow-up for later-onset symptoms. Abnormal TBI screens
    receive 3-month follow-up, and referral to appropriate level of
    treatment as needed. A dedicated NNMC database tracks all casualty
    treatment/follow-up. The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) process and VA
    OIF/OEF Coordinators also track patients to ensure continuity of care.
       post traumatic stress disorder (ptsd) identification and treatment
        Question. This war is going to create a high number of patients who
    need mental health care because of the stress of battle and the
    traumatizing, often life-threatening events they are witnessing. What
    is being done to help identify those servicemembers who may suffer from
    PTSD or otherwise need assistance dealing with their combat-related
    experiences? Once identified, what help is being provided to these
    servicemembers?
        Answer. Prevention is at the forefront of the continuum that
    includes early identification and intervention of PTSD. Closely aligned
    with warfighters while in garrison, providers teach Marines and their
    leaders on signs of combat stress and how to prevent it. Navy Medicine
    has also established a Deployment Health Directorate and identified a
    Combat/Operational Stress Control Consultant to coordinate prevention
    and treatment efforts.
        Sailors and Marines receive Post Deployment Health Assessment
    (PDHA) immediately following deployment and Post Deployment Health Re-
    Assessment 90-180 days later. Additionally, Navy Medicine has
    established 13 Deployment Health Centers (DHCs)--non-stigmatizing
    portals for identification and care. Through February 2007, DHCs
    conducted more than 4,000 encounters (in excess of 3,700 primary care
    and 420 mental health visits).
        When intervention is necessary the PIES (Proximity, Immediacy,
    Expectancy, Simplicity) principle is used as treatment by embedded
    mental health personnel in deployed units (USMC OSCAR teams and Carrier
    Group Clinical Psychologists). The Navy uses best practice guidelines
    for mental health treatment such as the VA/DOD jointly developed
    clinical practice guidelines. Moreover, the Navy has partnered with
    other services to establish a Center for Deployment Psychology,
    providing education and training on treatment of PTSD and other combat
    stress disorders. Extensive in-theater research efforts are also
    underway to identify mental health needs, guide development of
    appropriate prevention and treatment programs, and ensure adequate in-
    theater mental health support.
      transition of cases of servicemembers suffering from ptsd/tbi to va
                          facilities and civilian life
        Question. What is being done to help servicemembers suffering from
    PTSD and TBI as they transfer from Service-run programs to Veteran
    Affairs facilities and civilian life?
        Answer. Patient information for the hospitalized service member is
    coordinated with the assistance of the case manager or discharge
    planner when they transfer from a service-run program to VA or to
    civilian life. Providers may change as the patient transitions through
    the continuum of care; it is expected that transfer of the case history
    will be seamless.
        The National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) has a system to review
    each individual trauma patient during a meeting called Trauma Rounds.
    This is a bi-weekly multi-disciplinary team care meeting in which
    inpatient care is revisited, patient progress is reviewed, and the plan
    for discharge is implemented. Case management is an integral component
    of the inpatient Trauma Rounds.
        Each patient at NNMC is assessed prior to discharge for indicators
    of TBI or PTSD. When patients are discharged, case managers are
    sensitive to TBI and PTSD issues and monitor patients through the
    continuum of care, referring to appropriate resources when needed.
        Navy Medicine and the VA carefully coordinate the transfer of cases
    from one to the other. Key components of this coordination effort
    include regular case-specific management VTCs between facilities,
    ongoing medical tracking/case management, deployment of Veteran Health
    Administration (VHA) Liaison staff at major Military Treatment
    Facilities (MTFs) (NNMC Bethesda, NH Camp Pendleton, NMC San Diego),
    detailing of active duty providers to select polytrauma VHA facilities,
    and administrative coordination between a Navy MTF and the treating VA
    facility.
        In addition, there are multiple administrative programs to assist
    the patient and family as the individual transitions from Department of
    the Navy system Service to the Veterans Administration or civilian
    life. These include: Marines for Life-Injured Support Program, Military
    Severely Injured Joint Operations Center, SIMS Pilot Program, Military
    One Source, Fleet Liaisons, Marine Corps Extension Program, Military
    Severely Injured Support, Navy Safe Harbor, Fleet and Family Services,
    Chaplain Corps, Navy and Marine Corps Relief Society, Wounded Warrior
    programs, and Navy Safe Harbor.
                                     ______

          Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General James G. Roudebush
                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
                               medical readiness
        Question. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has projected
    that by 2014, our nation will need an additional 1.2 million new and
    replacement nurses. In 2004, 72 percent of hospitals were experiencing
    a nursing shortage. The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have
    increased the need for qualified nurses in military medical facilities.
    Unfortunately, the military faces the same difficulty in recruitment
    and retention of nurses. In addition, the average age of retirement of
    nurse faculty is 62.5 years and it is expected that 200 to 300
    doctorally prepared faculty will be eligible for retirement each year
    from 2005 through 2012 just as more than 1 million replacement nurses
    will be needed.
        Can you please elaborate on the impact that the nursing shortage
    has had on the Armed Services? Do you feel you are sufficiently staffed
    and have the adequate resources to engage in aggressive recruitment
    efforts?
        Answer. Currently the national nursing shortage is not impacting
    the Air Force Nurse Corps' ability to meet deployment requirements to
    include supplementing Army taskings. The shortage is impacting the home
    station business plans due to military registered nurse recruiting and
    retention shortfalls. Significant increases in contract dollars are
    being used to backfill vacant military positions or to shift workload
    to the TRICARE Managed Care Support Contract network. Additionally,
    early evidence indicates limited success in efforts to fill military-
    to-civilian conversions (privatization) of registered nurse positions;
    however, the number of conversions in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are
    limited. The larger numbers in fiscal years 2008 to 2013 will be
    extremely challenging to fill. We will evaluate hiring and retention
    success in every execution year.
        Based on recent successes in recruiting for fiscal year 2006 (92
    percent of goal), we feel confident that our monetary incentive package
    has proven successful in achieving adequate manpower. However, field-
    level nurse recruiters have been cut for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 so
    it is unclear what impact this will have on recruiting effectiveness.
    Additionally, we are aggressively working to diversify accessions
    sources by expanding the enlisted Bachelors of Science in Nursing
    program from 7-10 per year up to 50 per year.
        Question. What do you think are the major challenges compounding
    the nursing shortage in the Armed Services?
        Answer. Three major challenges standout as compounding the nursing
    shortage with the Air Force Medical Services: (1) Recruiting (active
    and civilian workforce), (2) retention, and (3) deployment operational
    tempo for a few specialties. These challenges are all compounding the
    nursing shortage in the Air Force Nurse Corps.
        As the market for nurses becomes more competitive it is imperative
    for the Air Force to keep up with financial incentives to recruit a
    qualified workforce. In fiscal year 2006, we achieved 92 percent of our
    accessions goal. This was a significant improvement over fiscal year
    2005's 69 percent. We attribute our success to larger financial
    incentives, which combined the options of accepting a nurse accession
    bonus and Health Professions Loan Repayment for nursing school loans.
    We also attracted new nurses with Reserve Office Training Corps
    scholarships. Our fiscal year 2006 accession bonus options were $15,000
    for a 3-year commitment or $20,000 for a 4-year commitment. In
    collaboration with our sister services we have increased the bonus for
    fiscal year 2007 ($25,000/4 years).
        Air Force salaries are relatively competitive starting in the Major
    rank category; however, for novice nurses the military salary falls
    short. Our nurse accession bonus for fiscal year 2006 proved to be
    successful in filling the salary gap.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Military       RN National
                                                Annual Pay     Average 2004
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 Lt....................................      $29,631.60      $57,784.00
    2 Lt....................................       38,876.40       57,784.00
    Capt....................................       52,704.00       57,784.00
    Maj.....................................       70,588.80       57,784.00
    Lt Col..................................       83,617.20   \1\ 77,140.00
    Col.....................................      100,742.40   \1\ 77,140.00
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Mean annual salary for Medical and Health Services Managers (i.e.
      Director, Nursing Services, Chief Nurse, etc.) Bureau of Labor
      Statistics, May 2005.

        Additionally, we are aggressively working to diversify accessions
    sources by expanding the enlisted Bachelors of Science in Nursing
    program. After we resolve internal Air Force issues, we look forward to
    increasing the students from 7-10 per year up to 50 per year.
        Retention is currently the greatest challenge compounding the Air
    Force nursing shortage. Disparate promotion opportunity and timing are
    also great challenges of retention. In a recent survey, lower promotion
    opportunity was the most common influence mentioned by the 381
    responders in their decision to separate from the military. Promotion
    opportunity for Nurse Corps officers has consistently been 10-15
    percent lower than other Air Force officers. Promotion timing for Nurse
    Corps officers lags consistently two to three years behind all other
    Air Force Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA)-constrained
    corps. This disparity has a 15-20 year history. Recently, we are
    experiencing improvements in opportunity and will continue to work with
    the Line of the Air Force to bring Nursing Corps promotion opportunity
    and timing in line with other officers.
        As Calendar Year 2006 came to a close, the Nursing Corps inventory
    was a gravely concerning 85 percent. We retired 166 officers and
    another 188 separated, for a net loss of 354 experienced nurses. Loss
    rates are increasing at the 4-5 year point and 9-12 year point. In
    response, we initiated a $15,000 critical skills retention bonus
    targeting nurses completing their initial commitment in the Air Force
    (4-5 year point), and will be closely monitoring its impact on
    retention for this year group. For the second attrition peak (9-12
    years) disparate promotion and timing opportunity has the greatest
    impact. We are working aggressively to resolve this problem through the
    submission of a Unified Legislation and Budgeting request for DOPMA
    relief in an effort to improve Nursing Corps promotion opportunity and
    timing.
        In addition to recruiting and retaining our active force we are
    facing the challenging initiative of converting military positions to
    civilian equivalents and hiring into those equivalents. Nationally, the
    demand for nursing personnel far exceeds the supply, creating a
    competitive market that favors qualified candidates. Through active
    recruiting, hiring bonuses where warranted, and use of direct hire
    authority, we hired 86 percent of the clinical nurses programmed for
    fiscal year 2006.
        Lastly, deployments for our critically manned specialties compound
    the nursing shortage. Of note, since September 2001, the Total Force
    Nurses have comprised 53 percent of all Air Force medical Total Force
    deployments. Out of necessity we have had to prolong deployments for
    ``high demand low density'' specialties, (critical care). Deployments
    for this group are now 179 days, or 59 days longer than other deployed
    nurses. We have increased our training platforms to increase our
    numbers of nurses skilled in these specialties. Additionally, we
    continue to incentivize our specialty nurses with incentive specialty
    pay programs.
        Question. Can you please speak to the issue of faculty shortage and
    its implications on the ability for the armed services to recruit
    additional nurses?
        Answer. According to the latest projections from the U.S. Bureau of
    Labor Statistics published in the November 2005, Monthly Labor Review,
    more than 1.2 million new and replacement nurses will be needed by
    2014. Government analysts project that more than 703,000 new registered
    nursing positions will be created through 2014, which will account for
    two-fifths of all new jobs in the health care sector.
        The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) has cited
    the shortage of nursing school faculty as a major contributing factor
    in the nursing shortage. It's estimated that for 2006 approximately
    42,000 qualified applicants were turned away from baccalaureate and
    graduate nursing programs due to insufficient number of faculty,
    limited clinical sites/clinical preceptors/classroom space and budget
    constraints.
        According to an article published in the March/April 2002 issue of
    Nursing Outlook, the average age of nurse faculty at retirement is 62.5
    years. With the average age of doctorally-prepared faculty currently
    53.5 years, a wave of retirements is expected within the next ten
    years. In fact, the authors project that between 200 and 300
    doctorally-prepared faculty will be eligible for retirement each year
    from 2003 through 2012, and between 220-280 master's-prepared nurse
    faculty will be eligible for retirement between 2012 and 2018.
        According to the 2006 salary survey by The Nurse Practitioner, the
    average salary of a master's prepared nurse practitioner is $72,480. By
    contrast, AACN recently reported that master's prepared associate
    professors earned an annual average salary of $58,249.
        In 2005, 49 percent of hospital Chief Executive Officers reported
    having more difficulty recruiting registered nurses than in 2004.
        The information above was obtained from the American Association of
    Colleges of Nursing Fact Sheet.
        The end results of the nursing faculty shortage on recruitment of
    nurses for the armed forces are directly related to supply and demand.
    The number of nursing faculty retiring will decrease the number of
    students graduating from schools. The law of supply and demand would
    indicate that as the supply shrinks, there will be greater civilian
    competition for new nurses.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                               medical readiness
        Question. I am very worried about the number of our men and women
    who are suffering traumatic head and brain injuries on the battlefield.
    I am also very worried about those service members who may not suffer
    actual physical brain or functional impairment but who nonetheless are
    suffering because of the stress and psychological effects of the war.
        Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post traumatic stress disorder
    (PTSD) are often times very difficult to identify and diagnose. These
    injuries may manifest themselves months after troops have returned home
    from battle or have recovered from other injuries. They can also be
    amongst the most difficult to treat, frequently requiring months or
    years of rehabilitation and therapy.
        Some doctors are calling TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq
    campaign. Body armor is helping many soldiers survive bomb and rocket
    attacks, but they are suffering brain injury and brain damage as a
    result of the blasts. What is being done to screen, identify, and treat
    service members who may be suffering from TBI?
        Answer. We recognize that, while severe Traumatic Brain Injury
    (TBI) is readily identified, mild TBI (mTBI) can be difficult to
    identify. At our level II and III theater facilities we have
    implemented the Joint Theater Trauma System (JTTS) Clinical Practice
    Guideline (CPG) for in-theater management of mild traumatic brain
    injury (concussion). Any Service member involved in an explosion/blast,
    fall, or blow to the head and/or motor vehicle incident is considered
    to have potentially suffered a concussion and will undergo a TBI
    screening questionnaire. If a patient has a positive screen they
    undergo further evaluation using the Military Acute Concussion
    Evaluation which was developed in conjunction with Defense and Veterans
    Brain Injury Center Program.
        Treatment of TBI begins at the point of injury with level I Self-
    Aid/Buddy Care and continues in theater to our level III theater
    hospitals according to the JTTS CPG for TBI. Those unable to return to
    duty are returned to a Continental United States level V Military
    Treatment Facility by aeromedical evacuation. Patients requiring
    specialized rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury, spinal cord
    injury, blind rehabilitation and post traumatic stress disorder are
    typically sent to one of the four Veterans Administration Polytrauma
    Centers for continued care using the aeromedical evacuation system.
    Individual case managers work with these patients and their families in
    arranging this specialized care.
        All returning deployed Service members are screened for mTBI using
    the DOD Post Deployment Health Assessment. Additionally, at three to
    six months after returning home the Service member undergoes a second
    evaluation, the Post Deployment Health Reassessment. Additional TBI
    screening questions are being added to these screening tools to better
    assess unrecognized TBI injuries.
        Question. This war is going to create a high number of patients who
    need mental health care because of the stress of battle and the
    traumatizing, often life-threatening events they are witnessing. What
    is being done to help identify those service members who may suffer
    from PTSD or otherwise need assistance dealing with their combat-
    related experiences? Once identified, what help is being provided to
    these service members?
        Answer. We screen all members returning from deployments
    administering the DOD Post Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA). Any
    problems identified are fully assessed and any treatment required is
    done. All members undergo a second evaluation, the Post Deployment
    Health Reassessment (PDHRA), three to six months after returning home
    from deployment. To date, roughly seven percent of deployed Air Force
    personnel are diagnosed with new mental health concerns (depression,
    marital problems, anxiety, difficulties sleeping, etc.); PTSD has been
    diagnosed in 0.3 percent of our deployed personnel.
        The Air Force deploys mental health providers to offer in-theatre
    assistance to Service members to head off combat-related problems. At
    home, we have trained one hundred AF mental health providers in
    specialized PTSD training to allow them to effectively treat combat-
    related PTSD. GWOT monies have been used to hire 32 additional mental
    health professionals to bolster Military Treatment Facility mental
    health care services available at our high operational tempo bases.
        Question. What is being done to help service members suffering from
    PTSD and TBI as they transfer from Service-run Programs to Veteran
    Affairs facilities and civilian life?
        Answer. The Air Force places all combat wounded and ill casualty
    patients into the Palace HART (Helping Airmen Recover Together)
    Program. Each patient is assigned a Family Liaison Officer (FLO) to
    assist during their recovery. Family liaison officers assist
    transitioning service members to coordinate follow-up appointments,
    facilitate record transfers, and aid service members and their families
    to obtain any services they may require. The program continues to
    assist service members and families until the member returns to duty or
    the fifth year anniversary of separation from service.
        Patients requiring specialized rehabilitation for traumatic brain
    injury, spinal cord injury, blind rehabilitation and post traumatic
    stress disorder are usually sent to one of the four Veterans
    Administration (VA) Polytrauma Centers for continued care. In some
    cases, Active Duty members receive rehabilitation in the VA and are
    transitioned back to the Military Treatment Facility (MTF) system if
    they have recovered sufficiently.
        Air Force mental health providers and other physicians understand
    the importance of establishing continuity of care as they transition
    from Service-Run Programs to Veteran Affairs facilities and civilian
    life. The Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC) program is a
    model of interaction between the DOD and the VA system for those Airmen
    who sustain Traumatic Brain Injuries. Regular teleconferences are held
    between DVBIC physicians at VA Polytrauma Centers, case managers, and
    the referring MTFs to coordinate preparation for transition.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted to Major General Melissa A. Rank
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                                air force nurses
        Question. General Rank, the combat casualty care in the Global war
    on Terror demonstrates a remarkable synergy between the Army and the
    Air Force. The ability of the Army medical care to save more lives on
    the battlefield, coupled with the ability of the Air Force to transport
    patients to higher levels of care in the United States is a true
    success story.
        How has the higher acuity level of patients requiring inter-theater
    transportation changed the structure and the training requirements of
    the Air Force Nurse Corps?
        Answer. The Global War on Terror (GWOT) demand for operational,
    clinically-current specialty nurses have steadily grown. In response,
    we have increased production of critical care and trauma nurses and
    returned nurses with specialty nursing experience to the deployment
    pool.
        Encouraged by the success of our joint training pipeline in San
    Antonio, Texas, we awarded 30 critical care and emergency fellowships
    this year and expanded our joint training platforms to include the
    National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland and St. Louis
    University Hospital in Missouri. We have not stopped there. We are
    revising our support agreement with the University of Cincinnati
    Medical Center in Ohio to accommodate critical care nursing fellows.
        We continue to rely on our Centers for Sustainment of Trauma and
    Readiness Skills (C-STARS). These advanced training platforms are
    embedded into major civilian trauma centers throughout the continental
    United States. In 2006, this invaluable clinical immersion enabled 614
    doctors, nurses, and medical technicians to refresh operational
    currency while preparing them to deploy as Critical Care Air Transport
    Team members or clinicians in expeditionary medical support facilities.
        Strengthening operational clinical currency remains a priority. Now
    11 months old, our clinical sustainment policy continues to gain
    momentum. The concept is simple: providing opportunities for nurses
    temporarily assigned in out-patient or non-clinical settings to refresh
    their technical skills by working a minimum of 168 hours per year at
    the bedside. For many of our outpatient facilities, this means
    affiliating with local medical centers for innovative patient care
    partnerships.
        In 2006, we gained access to eight complex medical-surgical,
    emergency trauma and critical care training platforms in which to
    sustain clinical skills for our officer and enlisted nursing personnel.
    An extraordinary benefit emerging at nearly all training sites has been
    exposure to--and appreciation for--the unique missions of various
    agencies. We are encouraged by reports of how affiliations with our
    federal health partners have fostered collegiality between nurses.
    Among these affiliations, two are with civilian organizations (Miami
    Valley Hospital in Dayton, Ohio and Iowa HealthCare in Des Moines,
    Iowa). Federal tort laws make securing affiliations with civilian
    organizations particularly challenging, so I applaud the hard work
    expended at the local level. Nursing personnel from the 3rd Medical
    Group DOD/VA Joint Venture Hospital and the Alaska Native Medical
    Center have collaborated on continuing education and professional
    development programs for many years. Their partnership expanded
    recently to include rotations in pediatric, medical-surgical and
    critical care units--experiences long-sought to bolster currency at
    home station and in deployed settings.
        In addition to sustainment, we have robust entry-level training
    platforms. The 882nd Training Group at Sheppard AFB, Texas graduated
    1,638 Total Force Aerospace Medical Service Apprentice (AMSA) students
    in fiscal year 2006. AMSA students have the unique experience of
    training on technologically advanced simulations systems. Life-like
    mannequins simulate clinical patient scenarios, allowing students to
    learn and gain hands-on experience in a controlled environment. As they
    progress through training, students are challenged with increasingly
    complex scenarios.
        Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany (LRMC) became our 10th
    Nurse Transition Program (NTP) training site and the first NTP hosted
    in a joint facility. With the addition of the LRMC NTP, we have
    increased overall enrollment to 160 nurses in this AFMS entry-level
    officer program.
        Additionally, we deliberately laid in higher grade positions into
    selected Unit Type Codes (UTCs) or deployment requirements driving a
    demand for increased rank for those deployment taskings. In the
    military, rank equates to experience level. This action puts more
    experienced nurses in our deployed locations where they teach, mentor
    and guide our more junior nurse corps officers.
        In addition to laying in increased grade, we reevaluated our
    substitution designation for UTC requirements. For example, between
    fiscal years 2003 to 2006, of the 78 requirements for mental health
    nursing, 15 of these were filled by clinical nurses or clinical
    psychologists. In retrospect, we realize a requirement for mental
    health nurses is best met with mental health nurses and now we are not
    allowing this substitution.
        Lastly, in fiscal year 2007 we deployed the first Air Force Joint
    Theater Trauma System Program Manager. This individual has accomplished
    much to include authoring clinical practice guidelines, conducting
    advanced research, and refining the trauma registry.
                                air force nurses
        Question. General Rank, is there a potential way to utilize our
    retired military nurses to benefit recruiting nurses into the military?
        Answer. All nurses are recruiters. We have emphasized this in the
    Air Force Nurse Corps for some time. We would hope that retired
    military nurses use every opportunity to encourage nurses to serve in
    the military.
        Question. General Rank, would you consider filling critical
    shortages in deployments from other services?
        Answer. Air Force Nursing Services is an operational capability. We
    consider all appropriate deployment scenarios. At this time, we are
    able to meet the demand for nurse and technician deployment taskings
    within the Total Nursing Force (Air National Guard, Reserve and Active
    Duty components). We will continue to support Army ``in lieu of''
    taskings with personnel assigned to corresponding Air Expeditionary
    Force (AEF) windows. However, we make every effort to honor the AEF
    construct rather than pull from upcoming ``buckets'' to support ``in
    lieu of'' missions.
        Question. General Rank, in fiscal year 2008, the Air Force is
    planning to convert 123 Nurse Corps positions to civilian positions.
    Please comment on the status of these conversions, the process used for
    determining them and the anticipated impact on the nurse corps for
    converting nurse billets.
        Answer. Military essential positions were identified first, along
    with the critical operational readiness requirements analysis. The
    Nurse Corps recommended conversions in the outpatient and maternal
    child arenas as loss of either platform does not negatively affect the
    active duty nurses' opportunity for practicing war readiness skills.
        For the 2008 to 2013 conversions, a make vs. buy with market
    availability analysis was performed on billets available for
    conversion. This analysis compared the ``fully burdened cost'' of an
    Active Duty authorization in a given specialty with the ``fully
    burdened cost'' of a General Schedule civilian or contractor. Where a
    General Schedule civilian or contractor was less expensive than Active
    Duty, consideration was given to the market availability of that
    person/skill set. The outcome from this analysis identified the number
    of authorizations by Air Force specialty code to convert to civilian or
    contractor. The analysis included four levels of risk: Not constrained,
    minimally constrained, moderately constrained and highly constrained.
    Recommended conversions came from only the ``not constrained'' and
    ``minimally constrained'' risk categories.
        The current Air Force Nursing Services civilian inventory includes
    more than 1,000 nursing personnel in advanced practice, licensed and
    paraprofessional roles. Nationally, the demand for nursing personnel
    far exceeds the supply, creating a competitive market that favors
    qualified candidates. In nine months of active recruiting, we have
    hired 11 nurse practitioners and nurse specialists, 59 clinical nurses,
    and 41 paraprofessional nursing personnel (Licensed Practical Nurses
    (LPNs), Emergency Medical Technicians and Operating Room (OR)
    technicians). Although we hired 86 percent of the clinical nurses
    programmed for fiscal year 2006, we were significantly less successful
    with other civilian hires, especially LPNs and OR technicians. Through
    active recruiting, hiring bonuses where warranted, and use of direct
    hire authority, we are cautiously optimistic about reaching our fiscal
    year 2007 goal of accessing 211 additional civilian nursing personnel.
        Question. General Rank, the Quadrennial Defense Review recommends
    aligning medical support with emerging joint force employment concepts.
    What is your vision for joint medical training?
        Answer. We support the warfighter in fully-integrated Joint
    environments. Ideally, we train as we fight because Joint
    Interoperability promotes mission success. Joint Medical Training
    Platforms are not new. We currently have them at the Uniformed Sciences
    University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) and the Graduate School of
    Nursing (GSN). We depend on USUHS and GSN to prepare many of the Family
    Nurse Practitioners (FNPs) and Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists
    (CRNAs) needed to fill our mission requirements. Currently, 57 percent
    of our 49 FNPs and 52 percent of our 143 CRNAs are USUHS graduates. The
    GSN enrolled 46 Air Force nurses this fall in Perioperative Specialty,
    FNP, and CRNA programs. Overall, Air Force nurses represented 41
    percent of the GSN student population.
        Additionally, in San Antonio, Texas we are moving forward with
    plans to relocate enlisted medical basic and specialty training to a
    Tri-Service Medical Education and Training Campus (METC) at Fort Sam
    Houston, Texas. METC will capitalize on synergy created by co-located
    training programs. We have fiercely protected our Community College of
    the Air Force degree granting to Air Force students, and are exploring
    the feasibility of extending that authority to our Sister Services.
        Currently, enlisted joint training includes neurology, allergy,
    immunization, biomedical equipment technician (BMET), and dental
    courses. Training is available for both Air Force and Army at the U.S.
    Army Critical Care Education Fellowship and the U.S. Air Force Flight
    School. We are pursuing training affiliations with both federal and
    civilian medical centers to sustain operational currency as mentioned
    earlier. We anticipate the BMET and radiology courses as the first
    courses to move to METC in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

         Questions Submitted to Rear Admiral Christine M. Bruzek-Kohler
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                humanitarian missions effect on navy nurse corps
        Question. Admiral Bruzek-Kohler, the Navy continues to support
    humanitarian missions throughout the world, and most recently deployed
    the U.S.S. Mercy to Asia. How does participation in humanitarian
    mission affect the Navy Nurse Corps in terms of its ability to meet
    both the inpatient demands and deployment requirements? How does the
    Navy Nurse Corps measure the effectiveness of this mission?
        Answer. Regional TRICARE contracts continue the provision of
    healthcare to all beneficiaries when active forces are deployed to meet
    essential missions. A plan that includes targeted reserve component
    support and proactive case management has also allowed our nurses the
    opportunity to support both humanitarian missions and deployment
    requirements with minimal disruption to our inpatient care services.
        The provision of care to citizens of the world can positively
    affect their perceptions of America via our humanitarian missions is
    important to our Corps. Our nurses are emotionally engaged and
    professionally rewarded by these missions. Discussions with our nurses
    indicate that this experience or the prospect of an experience in a
    humanitarian mission would influence their decision to stay in the
    military.
        Qualitative methods to capture and measure our effectiveness in
    these humanitarian missions encompassed the development of a rating
    scale that evaluated the following: interoperability, host nation
    support and access and medical operations (which included right
    personnel and skill mix).
        A variety of opinion polls done in the regions visited by our
    hospital ships indicate that health diplomacy is a very powerful tool
    against the war on terrorism and the Navy Nurse Corps has become a
    vital commodity in accomplishing this mission.
                        advanced joint nursing education
        Question. Admiral Bruzek-Kohler, this Committee urged the
    establishment of a Graduate School of Nursing (GSN) at the Uniformed
    Services University (USU) for a number of years and we were gratified
    by its establishment in 1993. Recent investments have allowed the
    University to break ground on a new building. Admiral, can you tell us
    how advanced joint nursing education contributes to the recruitment and
    retention of military nurses? What do you see as the future of the
    Graduate School of Nursing?
        Answer. Joint training opportunities, such as those afforded by the
    Graduate School of Nursing (GSN) at the Uniformed Services (USU)
    University, provide our nurses with the unique opportunity to see first
    hand how closely our mission aligns with those of our sister services.
    An educational milieu in which the similarities as well as the
    differences of other services are incorporated into learning objectives
    fosters collaborative rapport, longstanding professional respect and
    enhances retention.
        The Navy Nurse Corps utilizes the Graduate School of Nursing for
    our duty under instruction selectees in the following programs: Peri-
    Operative Clinical Nurse Specialist, Family Nurse Practitioner,
    Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist and Doctorate in Nursing. The
    Uniformed Services University provides excellent advanced degrees with
    a military focus that are not typically provided in civilian programs.
    These programs have all been quite helpful in bolstering our retention.
        In the future, the Navy Nurse Corps' Peri-operative Clinical Nurse
    Specialists will be participating in the GSN's new First Assist
    Program. While our nurses are not utilized in this exact role, the
    training received will be of great value, providing our nurses with
    advanced clinical skills and leadership and management tools which are
    integral to the role of a Clinical Nurse Specialist.
        We are also exploring the feasibility of moving the Navy Nurse
    Corps Anesthesia Program (in its entirety) to the GSN and would welcome
    the GSN's offering of a Masters Degree in Nursing via distance
    education/online learning.
               impact of deployments on retention of navy nurses
        Question. Admiral Bruzek-Kohler, how have deployments impacted the
    retention of Navy nurses?
        Answer. The continuation of our ongoing engagement in Iraq has not
    become a deterrent to retaining nurses in our Corps. Instead we have
    found a greater concern in relation to the length of the deployments in
    which our nurses support our war fighters and humanitarian missions. A
    six month geographic separation from family and friends is typically
    deemed preferable. But when discussions ensue regarding lengthening
    deployments from six months to one year, greater concerns arise. Thus
    we are cognizant of keeping our deployments at close to six months when
    operationally feasible.
          military-to-civilian conversions effect on navy nurse corps
        Question. Admiral Bruzek-Kohler, I am concerned about the Navy's
    continued conversion of military to civilians given the issues we face
    about patient care and continued recruiting and retention challenges.
    How do these conversions affect the Navy Nurse Corps and what
    specialties and/or locations have been problematic?
        Answer. Indeed, the degree of flexibility in meeting both forward
    deployment requirements as well as humanitarian assistance missions
    will be tested by the military to civilian conversions as both of these
    missions have not been incorporated into our operational requirement
    algorithms.
        Currently all Navy Military Treatment Facilities are staffed at 90
    percent or above with Military Nurses. These manning levels include
    nurses who are currently deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, causing
    staffing adjustments at some facilities during deployments. Our
    treatment facilities are experiencing challenges in recruiting civilian
    registered nurses in some nursing specialty areas (particularly in:
    emergency care, labor and delivery and pediatrics).
        Recruitment and retention initiatives for both military and
    civilian nurses have been implemented to assuage the nursing shortages
    experienced at our Military Treatment Facilities. These incentives
    include accession bonuses, Health Professional Loan Repayments, and
    submission of a Critical Skills Retention Bonus for junior nurses.
                         navy nurses in outpatient care
        Question. Admiral Bruzek-Kohler, could you describe the involvement
    of Navy nurses in the outpatient care of sailors and Marines who are
    returning from deployment?
        Answer. In our Deployment Health Clinics, a specialized team of
    nurses, providers and allied health professionals ensure personnel
    returning from operational deployments receive health assessments and
    follow-up care.
        Naval Medical Center San Diego offers a multidisciplinary program
    of care via the Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center. This service
    offers a wide range of medical, surgical, behavioral health and
    rehabilitative care to those wounded in the service of our country.
        In Quantico, Virginia, the nurse-run Wound Clinic instituted
    several nurse-focused standard operating procedures to address ailments
    that would otherwise require physician intervention. In Camp Lejeune,
    North Carolina, the branch medical clinic sends nursing personnel
    directly to the School of Infantry to address healthcare issues on-site
    versus requiring medical clinic visits. In Portsmouth, Virginia, nurses
    from the local reserve unit have performed over 84,000 man hours of
    operational and clinical support over the last 27 months.
        Throughout our military treatment facilities, Navy Nurses proudly
    serve alongside their civilian (Government Service and contract)
    colleagues as nurse case managers to our active duty service members.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. And with that, this subcommittee will stand
    in recess until March 14, at which time we will receive
    testimony from the Department of the Army.
        [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
     Wednesday, March 14.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Mikulski, Murray,
    Stevens, Cochran, Domenici, Bond, and Shelby.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. PETE GEREN, ACTING SECRETARY

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Today we welcome the Honorable Pete Geren,
    Acting Secretary of the Army along with the Army Chief of
    Staff, General Peter Schoomaker. Gentlemen, thank you for being
    here today to review the Army's budget for fiscal year 2008.
        General Schoomaker, I presume that this is your last
    appearance before this subcommittee and you once again head off
    to retirement. On behalf of the subcommittee, I thank you for
    your service to our Nation over the past four decades and in
    particular for answering the call 4 years ago when your Nation
    needed you once more. We wish you well in your second
    retirement.
        The Army's fiscal year 2008 base budget request is $130
    billion, an increase of $20 billion over the last year's
    budget. And to put this into perspective, when you consider the
    terror attacks of September 11, 2001, at that time, the Army's
    budget was approximately $92 billion in today's dollars.
        As we review this budget request, we are mindful that the
    Army remains a force at war, executing operations at a pace
    which places high stress on the soldiers and equipment while
    simultaneously continuing on its path to modernization. This
    creates an inherent tension between meeting demands for
    resources in support of current forces and funding future
    requirements. Finding the right balance is extremely difficult
    and it is our hope that today's hearing will amplify how the
    Army is addressing today's needs while positioning itself for
    the future.
        For instance, the Army is investing heavily in a future
    combat system (FCS), a very complex, integrated transformation
    initiative to equip the future force. However, once fielded,
    this capability will only equip a fraction of the Army's combat
    brigades and so this raises the questions as to how the Army
    will transform its remaining combat brigades on which you rely
    so heavily. Many of these units are still utilizing systems
    that were first fielded over 20 years ago, such as the Abrams
    tank and the Bradley fighting vehicle and compounding this
    challenge is the Army's plan to grow its force by almost 80,000
    troops over the next 5 years. These troops will have to be
    recruited, trained, and equipped and this will add to the
    Army's challenge but also presents opportunities. So we look
    forward to hearing how the Army plans to absorb and utilize
    these additional forces.
        One concern that comes to mind is the Army's ability to
    recruit and retain additional soldiers required to maintain and
    expand this all-volunteer force and as bonuses have facilitated
    this effort over the past few years but there are questions as
    to whether the Army will be able to continue to attract the
    quality men and women it needs without the emergency
    supplemental funds which cover these significant bonus pays.
        The Army is facing further challenges, such as the global
    repositioning of its forces, maintaining readiness, and
    equipping the Guard and Reserves. Addressing each of these
    fighting the global war on terror and simultaneously
    transforming the Army requires us all to be mindful of how you
    are allocating your resources. And gentlemen, we look forward
    to working with you to ensure that our Army is appropriately
    resourced to meet each of these tasks and I'm certain the
    subcommittee agrees with me because I sincerely appreciate your
    service to our Nation and the dedication and sacrifice that is
    made daily by the men and women in our Army. We could not be
    more grateful for what they do.
        Your full statements will be made part of the record and if
    I may now turn to the co-chairman of this subcommittee, Senator
    Stevens, for his opening remarks.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Secretary Geren, General Schoomaker, it's
    nice to see you. I think this is your first time before us, Mr.
    Secretary and we're happy to have you here. I'll just ask you
    to put my statement in the record in full, if you will. It's a
    very short statement anyway.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Geren, we welcome you in your first appearance before
    this committee. You have a challenging assignment and we look forward
    to working with you in meeting the needs of the Department of the Army.
        General Schoomaker, we welcome you back to the committee. I
    understand this will be your last hearing with us as you plan to retire
    next month. We must congratulate you and commend you for your service
    to this committee and our Nation. We wish you well in your future
    endeavors.
        Again, welcome to the committee. We look forward to your testimony.

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens,
    members of the subcommittee. It's truly an honor to be before
    you as Acting Secretary of the Army. I want to thank you all
    for the extraordinary support you give to the United States
    Army and I know I speak for every----
        Senator Stevens. Pull that microphone toward you, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Mr. Geren. Yes, sir. Pardon me? Better now? Thank you for
    the support that this subcommittee and the Congress has given
    to the Army over the years, over the decades. I know I speak
    for every uniform and civilian member of the United States Army
    when I say thank you to what you do and the support you give
    us.

                        WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

        Mr. Chairman, if I could just take a moment because of the
    concern the Congress has and members of the subcommittee have
    expressed about the situation at Walter Reed. I would like to
    touch briefly on some of the steps we've taken there before I
    talk about the budget, if I may.
        We have been working very hard as an Army to meet the needs
    of our wounded warriors. What happened at Walter Reed recently,
    we did not live up to our obligation to them and we've been
    taking steps to correct the problems that we've identified
    there and I'd like to just touch briefly on some of the things
    that have happened so you're aware of the steps we've taken and
    what our way ahead is.
        In thinking about Walter Reed, you really need to think of
    two different issues. One is the issue that came to light in
    the press report, having to do with the facilities and how
    those outpatients, medical hold, and medical holdovers were
    treated at Walter Reed and then look at the bigger issue, the
    rest of the medical care system in the United States Army and
    some of the steps we're taking to address these issues across
    the force and do a better job of preparing for the needs of
    particularly the outpatients and the wounded warriors in the
    future.
        As far as the facility that was at issue, Building 18,
    there are no more soldiers in that building. We've moved every
    single soldier out of that building. We've moved them into
    appropriate quarters, to the Abrams Barracks on the Walter Reed
    campus. These barracks, I have personally inspected them.
    They've got computers, they've got Internet connection, they've
    got telephones, televisions. They are quarters that are
    appropriate and the kind of quarters that these soldiers
    deserve to be in.
        We have--the future of Building 18 is still up in the air.
    We're going to put a new roof on it. We're not sure what the
    future of Building 18 is. We're going to look at it and decide
    whether or not it's something we need to renovate in order to
    meet surge capacity in the future but that's still undone, a
    decision unmade.
        As far as immediate improvements we've made at Walter Reed
    though, to address this long term--I think the most important
    thing we've done is leadership changes. Major General Eric
    Schoomaker was assigned as Commander at Walter Reed the Friday
    before last and within hours, he was on the job with his
    command sergeant major. He had his command sergeant major walk
    through every single room we were putting those soldiers in.
        We have created a new position there, a deputy commanding
    general, which we have not had before. It's a one star. It's
    combat veteran Brigadier General Tucker and he will be the
    bureaucracy buster. He will be there working on behalf of the
    soldiers.
        We have created a Wounded Warrior Brigade under the
    leadership of a colonel who is also a combat veteran and he has
    a command sergeant major whose responsibility it is to take
    care of the needs of those soldiers. He is on the ground. He is
    working with them. He has already built trust and he is their
    advocate and I'm confident that he is going to do what it takes
    to make sure that those soldiers get what they need.
        We have done other things that are going to improve the
    quality of service for those soldiers and across the system.
    We're creating, and it's going to go online in a week, a
    hotline, an 800 number. It's initially going to be answered 12
    hours a day then move to 24 once we get the folks prepared to
    do, but a hotline that will come into the Army Operations
    Center so if there are issues, they'll get right up to Army
    leadership soon and not be allowed to percolate at low level
    without being addressed. We have created a one-stop Soldier and
    Family Assistance Center at Walter Reed. We've launched a Tiger
    Team under General Dick Cody. The Vice Chief of Staff is going
    to every major medical center in the country over the next 30
    days and he is going to report back to the Chief and to me.
    We're also sending a similar team to all the community-based
    healthcare organizations that serve our Reserve community and
    the Vice Chief is meeting regularly by video teleconference
    with every hospital commander in the system. We have the Army
    Wounded Warrior program, which you all are familiar with and
    we're working to improve that.
        Sir, we also released an inspector general report this
    week, which has been in the works for 1 year and it has
    identified some additional initiatives that we can take and are
    underway. In fact, many of them we corrected as we went along,
    to make sure that we address this issue.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2008 ARMY APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        Now let me turn to my posture statement and talk about the
    budget that is before you. Sir, for the Army and I know for
    this subcommittee, our number one priority is the soldiers and
    their families. Seldom has our Nation asked as much of our
    soldiers and their families as we're asking right now, not just
    those we have in combat but it's a tremendously busy time for
    the Army all the way from combat into the transformation we
    have underway in bases all across the country. We want to thank
    this Congress and thank this subcommittee for your support of
    the soldiers. This budget represents a commitment to soldiers
    and their families, to improving barracks, to improve housing,
    childcare services, healthcare as well as the maintenance of
    the facilities.
        Our top focus has to be our soldiers at war. We've got
    130,000 soldiers in combat, soon to grow to 150,000 and our
    commitment is to ensure that they are best trained, best led,
    best equipped force in the world. They are today and this
    budget is going to help us ensure that they remain that way.
    We've got to take care of the soldiers and their families. It's
    a moral obligation we have to their families and we've got to
    provide them a quality life that matches their quality of
    service. I believe that this budget lives up to that
    commitment.
        It has a 3-percent pay raise for our soldiers. It funds the
    maintenance and operations of our facilities at 90 percent, 90/
    90 BOS/SRM, which is a major step forward as far as our budget
    request and we have also made additional investments through
    the Milcon and through the base realignment and closure (BRAC)
    that are going to improve the quality of life of our soldiers.

                          RESERVE COMPONENT EQUIPMENT

        Sir, this we have said for a long time, we are one Army,
    active, Guard, and Reserve. This budget puts our money where
    our mouth is. We are one Army. We train as one, we fight as
    one, and we have seen the Guard and Reserve move from a
    strategic Reserve to a part of the operational force. You'll
    see in this budget and over the next 5 years that we're going
    to invest up to $38 billion in Guard equipment. We're going to
    modernize the Guard's tank and Bradley fleet. About 2011, we're
    going to finish before we finish the active component. We make
    an investment in Army modernization for the Guard and Reserve.
    About 40 percent of all the new helicopters we're buying over
    the next 5 years are going to the Guard and Reserve.
        We are making sure that the Guard is in a position to meet
    the obligations that we are putting upon them. They have
    carried a heavy burden in the war. A third of our soldiers that
    are deployed have come from the Guard and Reserve and we're
    going to continue to look to them as part of the front line
    force.

                               SOLDIER PROTECTION

        We'll make investment in other soldier protection measures
    here, body armor, up-armored humvees and the new V-hulled MRAP.
    Sir, we've got a mission in front of us and this budget helps
    us fulfill it. It's bigger than the war on terror. We are
    deterring aggression around the world. We have 150,000 soldiers
    deployed in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan, 76
    countries around the world and we've got to build strategic
    depth and full-spectrum readiness.

                                  ARMY GROWTH

        This budget will help us manage the stress on the force,
    will provide us the resources to begin the process of growing
    the Army and building the Army of the future through
    transformation and modernization. BRAC funding is critically
    important to us. We need it in April and we need the
    supplemental in April so that we don't have to start disrupting
    things and start doing reprogramming.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to
    appear before you today and represent the United States Army. I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Honorable Francis J. Harvey and General Peter
                                 J. Schoomaker
                                                     February 14, 2007.
        America remains at war. This is one of the most dangerous times in
    our history. We retain the confidence of the Nation as we engage in a
    long struggle against global terrorism and the conditions that give it
    life and sustain it. Since 9/11, well over 700,000 active and reserve
    soldiers have deployed overseas in support of the war on terror.
        Today, almost 600,000 soldiers are on active duty, serving in
    nearly 80 countries worldwide. While fighting, we are continuing to
    prepare our soldiers, leaders, families, civilians, and forces for the
    challenges they will face. Our commitment to current and future
    readiness in the face of uncertainty is driving how we are
    transforming; modernizing; and realigning our entire global
    infrastructure of bases, depots, arsenals, and equipment sets.
        To fulfill the central role that will be demanded of landpower in
    the 21st century, we are becoming a strategically agile, expeditionary
    force reliant on modular brigades. These modular brigades are designed
    to deal with the full spectrum of challenges our Nation will face.
    Their effectiveness in current theaters of operation today validates
    that we are moving in the right strategic direction.
        The recent decision to expand the size of the Armed Forces--
    specifically our ground forces--reflects clear recognition on the part
    of the President, the Congress, and the Secretary of Defense of the
    dangers we face, the importance of our mission, and the increasing
    level of stress that our soldiers and families are weathering as a
    result of unprecedented levels of strategic demand over the past 5
    years.
        To continue to accomplish our mission in service to the Nation, we
    require support to:
      --Ensure full, timely, and sustained funding to be ready for current
            and future challenges;
      --expand the size of the Army to build strategic depth and to enhance
            readiness across all components of the force;
      --implement new policies to assure recurrent, predictable access to
            Army National Guard and Army Reserve units in order to meet
            sustained global demand for Army forces;
      --enhance wartime authorities to improve commanders' ability to deal
            with emerging, in-theater operational demands and to build the
            capabilities of strategic partners; and
      --support to sustain our all-volunteer soldiers, their families, and
            our Army civilians and to maintain the trust of the American
            people, whom we serve in this time of war and uncertainty.
        We have received considerable support to execute current
    operations, to reset our forces, and to build a modular Army. We will
    need additional support to close the gap between requirements and
    resources, particularly as we maintain an extraordinarily high
    operational pace and grow the Army. This support must not be provided
    at the expense of our future readiness. To break our historic cycle of
    national unpreparedness, America must invest prudently and predictably
    in defense, which it can afford to do.
        To meet the needs of the Combatant Commanders and the Nation, the
    Army will require the full level of the resources requested in the base
    budget and in supplemental appropriations.
                                           Peter J. Schoomaker,
                           General, United States Army, Chief of Staff.
                                             Francis J. Harvey,
                                                 Secretary of the Army.

                               executive summary
        Soldiers are serving today in one of the most dangerous periods in
    our history. They are making enormous contributions and sacrifices at
    the forefront of the global war on terror. Their ``boots on the
    ground'' have enabled historic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and
    will be required for democratic institutions to take hold. Operating as
    part of the Joint Team, our soldiers are preventing attacks on the
    Nation, responding to natural disasters at home and abroad, helping to
    secure our borders, and underwriting our Nation's commitment to defend
    its interests.
        In light of the growing threats to the Nation posed by States and
    non-State movements and organizations, the environment in which our
    soldiers will operate will remain extraordinarily dangerous for the
    foreseeable future. Our mission within this environment will remain
    largely unchanged. The Army, as a vital ground component of the Joint
    Team, will be required to conduct prompt, sustained combat and
    stability operations. We will continue to provide the forces and
    capabilities to the Combatant Commanders needed to sustain the full
    range of U.S. global commitments in the face of growing challenges.
        As U.S. ground forces have demonstrated so vividly since 9/11, the
    ability to operate in the ``human dimension''--to directly confront, to
    defeat, or to otherwise influence our adversaries--can only be provided
    by putting ``boots on the ground.'' Ground forces will play a central
    role in countering the spread of radical ideologies, influencing
    people, and bringing order and stability to troubled areas worldwide.
    This capability will become increasingly important for the Nation and
    its friends, allies, and coalition partners.
        To prepare our soldiers for the challenges they will face today and
    tomorrow, and to sustain anticipated levels of demand for Army forces
    which far exceed deployments to current theaters of operation, we seek
    to accelerate critical aspects of our transformation.

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

                           Guiding Our Transformation
        Whole Cohesive Units
        Adaptive Leaders and Soldiers
        National Commitment
        Holes in the Force

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

        Recent decisions to expand the size of the Armed Forces--
    specifically our ground forces--reflect clear recognition on the part
    of the President, the Congress, and the Secretary of Defense of the
    dangers we face, the importance of our mission, and the increasing
    level of stress our soldiers and families are weathering as a result of
    unprecedented levels of strategic demand over the past 5 years.
        This recognition must be matched by commensurate levels of national
    commitment that result in timely, adequate, and predictable resourcing
    and support. These resources are required to sustain the capacity to
    wage war and to transform--to build our force in a balanced,
    coordinated fashion, while providing adequately for the needs of our
    all-volunteer soldiers and their families, across our active and
    reserve components.
        The purpose for our expansion is to build readiness for current and
    future challenges. We know from our national experience that this is a
    time consuming process--that depends not only on manning and equipping,
    but also on training and caring for our people. Likewise, our capacity
    to grow military forces depends on our capacity to grow and maintain
    the infrastructure needed to train and sustain these forces.
        As we move to expand the size of our force, we will adhere to the
    four key ideas which have guided our transformation in recent years:
      --Whole Cohesive Units.--First, we remain committed to producing
            units that are ready for the challenges they will face and to
            overcoming years of underfunding prior to 9/11. We have
            received unprecedented support to ``buy back'' much needed
            capability. We cannot, however, fool ourselves by maintaining
            large numbers of forces on paper that, in reality, lack the
            people, equipment, training, and support needed to accomplish
            the missions that they will be assigned.
      --Adaptive Leaders and Soldiers.--Second, we recognize that
            intellectual change precedes physical change. For this reason,
            we are developing qualities in our leaders, our people, our
            forces--and the institutions which generate and sustain them--
            that will enable them to operate effectively amidst uncertainty
            and unpredictability. We describe the leaders we are creating
            as ``pentathletes,'' whose versatility and agility--qualities
            that reflect the essence of our Army--will enable them to learn
            and to adapt to new situations in a constantly evolving
            environment. To ensure that our soldiers are well led, we are
            now actively implementing the findings of a comprehensive
            review focused on how we train, educate, assign, and develop
            our officers, noncommissioned officers, and civilian leaders.
      --National Commitment.--Third, reinforced by American military
            experience, we believe that our soldiers' effectiveness depends
            upon a national commitment to recruit, to train, and to support
            them properly. This commitment demands consistent investment in
            their equipment and supporting infrastructure. We are acutely
            aware of fiscal constraints; however, we remain firm and
            unwavering in our determination to fulfill our duty to do what
            is right for our soldiers, their families, and the Nation. We
            are equally determined to improve support for our soldiers and
            their families. Our objective is to provide a quality of life
            that matches the quality of service they perform for America.
      --Holes in the Force.--Fourth, we remain mindful of our position at
            the start of the long struggle in which we are now engaged.
            After years of insufficient investment in the Army, many of our
            units were under-equipped and not ready for deployment,
            especially in our reserve units. To meet Combatant Commanders'
            immediate wartime needs, we pooled equipment from across the
            force to equip those soldiers deploying into harm's way--a
            practice that we are continuing today to meet current
            operational demands. This practice increases risk in our
            ability to perform other critical missions, as observed in our
            Army National Guard during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and in
            our assessment of our ability to respond to other strategic
            contingencies.
          With help from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the
            Congress--through base and supplemental appropriations--we have
            addressed many of our equipment shortfalls. Supplemental
            appropriations, however, have not enabled the Army to ``get
            well,'' as they are intended to pay for the costs of war,
            principally through the purchase of consumable supplies and the
            replacement of battle losses. Even with full resourcing, we
            would still have much to accomplish to mitigate risk as
            currently assessed (by the Department of Defense and the
            Chairman of the Joint Chiefs).

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

                           Reducing Risk To The Force
        Obtain Full, Timely, and Predictable Funding
        Grow the All-Volunteer Force
        Reset the Force
        Improve Wartime Authorities and Resources
        Transform the Force
        Modernize by Accelerating the Fielding of Advanced Technologies
        Station the Force to Meet Emerging Strategic Demands
        Transform Business Practices

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

        Our need to build readiness to sustain the current mission, to
    remain relevant and ready to meet future challenges, and to maintain
    risk at acceptable wartime levels, translates into a set of core
    objectives which the Army must achieve:
      --Obtain Full, Timely, and Predictable Funding to Sustain the Army's
            Global Commitment.--Full, timely, and predictable funding of
            the Army's Fiscal Year 2008 President's Budget request and
            supplemental appropriations is required to build readiness
            needed to execute the National Defense Strategy and to pay for
            the costs of war. Full funding will enable the Army to provide
            adequately for soldiers, families, and Army civilians; to
            accelerate key aspects of our transformation; and to maintain
            the momentum of vital training programs, modernization, and
            critical stationing initiatives.
      --Grow the All-Volunteer Force to Sustain the Long War.--Support and
            full funding is needed to continue to achieve our goals for
            attracting and retaining high quality people in each of our
            active and reserve components. This funding will facilitate the
            expansion of our operational, deployable force pool--which is
            vital to sustaining the effectiveness and health of the all-
            volunteer force, now being tested for the first time in a long
            war.
      --Improve Wartime Authorities and Resources for Soldiers and
            Commanders in Combat.--Changes are needed to eliminate
            unintended constraints on programs such as the Commander's
            Emergency Response Program, the Logistics Civil Augmentation
            Program, and in administering security cooperation and
            assistance programs, as well as furnishing humanitarian
            assistance. In addition, continued congressional leadership
            will be required to support programs and initiatives to protect
            soldiers (to counter improvised explosive devices, to provide
            up-armored vehicles, to field individual body armor, etc.) and
            to better equip Iraqi and Afghan police, security, and military
            forces.
      --Reset the Force to Ensure Readiness for Current and Future
            Challenges.--Full funding is needed to restore units--a process
            with both materiel and human dimensions--to required levels of
            readiness to execute projected operational deployments, while
            remaining prepared for likely future contingencies and homeland
            defense missions. To be ready, we must not only ensure that
            battle damaged items are repaired, recapitalized, or replaced;
            we must also enable our soldiers and families to recover from
            the stress of combat and prolonged separation. Resetting the
            force will require sustained, predictable funding for several
            years beyond major deployments.
      --Transform the Force to Sustain the Full Range of our Global
            Commitments.--Full funding for Army transformation is needed to
            create an operational, deployable pool of 76 modular brigade
            combat teams and approximately 225 support brigades. Our
            transformation is improving our ability to execute and support
            protracted campaigns by increasing the depth and breadth of our
            overall capacity. We are converting to more capable modular
            formations, balancing the size and capabilities of our active
            and reserve components, and stabilizing our force.
          Our transformation will be reinforced by an Army-wide readiness
            model to support expeditionary, rotational deployment. This
            system is designed to: improve the readiness of our non-
            deployed forces across all components; reduce stress on
            soldiers, families, and equipment; improve predictability for
            employers of reserve component soldiers; end the need to extend
            deployments in theater to provide active component soldiers at
            least 1 year at home before redeploying them; and manage the
            force to achieve our goal of 1 year deployed with 2 years at
            home station for these soldiers.
          This system requires recurrent, assured, and predictable access
            to our reserve component units who--because of strategic
            decisions and operational necessity--have become a vital part
            of our deployable force pool.
      --Modernize by Accelerating the Fielding of Advanced Technologies to
            our Soldiers Today.--Full funding of the Army's modernization
            program is needed to accelerate aspects of future combat
            systems (FCS) development, aviation programs, and over 300
            other key modernization initiatives. FCS is our first major
            modernization program in several decades and is our most
            critical investment program. In 2008, to enhance combat
            effectiveness today, FCS will begin to ``spin out'' key
            technologies to our current forces--a process projected to
            continue in roughly 2-year intervals. FCS is enabling
            soldiers--from our active and reserve components, all U.S.
            ground forces, and our allies that support ground campaigns--to
            deal with the full spectrum of challenges they will face.
      --Station the Force to Meet Emerging Strategic Demands While
            Providing Infrastructure and Services to Enable Mission
            Accomplishment.--Full funding and timely passage of key
            appropriations is needed to achieve the framework of a new
            global basing posture by 2011 and to enable our installations
            to deliver a quality of life for our soldiers, families, and
            Army civilians that matches the quality of the service they
            provide to the Nation. Our plan will improve our ability to
            fulfill national strategic requirements and to do so far more
            efficiently than today. Moreover, the funding provided to the
            Army will enable us to allocate significantly greater levels of
            resources to improve the quality and effectiveness of the
            facilities we depend on to: train, maintain equipment; house
            and care for our soldiers, and provide safe, modern working
            conditions for our Army civilians.
          Our capability to meet current force requirements and to grow our
            forces, depends on adhering to an extremely complex, intricate
            schedule to realign our entire global infrastructure of bases,
            depots, arsenals, and other facilities. Our ability to remain
            on schedule depends on timely execution of a diverse range of
            military construction projects and supporting activities (e.g.,
            environmental assessment studies and remediation projects).
            Timely passage of military construction appropriations is
            needed to prevent the effects of delays from cascading into
            other areas of Army activity that put at risk our ability to
            accomplish our mission--to provide trained, ready forces to
            meet the Combatant Commanders' needs.
          The resources provided in 2007 and 2008, through base and
            supplemental appropriations, are needed to enable the Army to
            adhere to the schedule established by law, and to sustain our
            all-volunteer soldiers and their families, now bearing the
            stress of more than 5 years of war.
      --Transform Business Practices to Better Enable Army
            Transformation.--Continued support is needed to execute Army
            business transformation and achieve targeted efficiencies
            through: management reform; acquisition reform; comprehensive
            redesign of the organizations and business processes that
            generate, deploy, and reset forces; consolidation of bases and
            activities; military to civilian conversion programs; and
            performance measurement enhancements.
        This remains a pivotal time for the Army. We will continue
    worldwide operations to support the war on terror and to sustain the
    full range of our global commitments. At the same time, we will
    maintain our focus on transforming the force, our global
    infrastructure, and our supporting business processes.
        Four overarching, interrelated strategies form the core of our
    plan--which we call The Army Plan. This plan is enabling us to
    accomplish our mission today and to realize our vision over time: to
    remain the preeminent landpower on Earth--the ultimate instrument of
    national resolve--that is both relevant to, and ready for, the
    challenges of the dangerous, complex 21st century security environment.
        Our strategies are summarized in figure 1. Our compelling needs--
    expressed in terms of the resources and support we require to execute
    these strategies--are summarized in figure 2.
        These strategies are driving change at an unprecedented pace. We
    are making enormous progress in ``shifting the weight'' of our
    intellectual and organizational focus from traditional challenges to be
    better prepared for irregular, disruptive, and catastrophic challenges.
        We are developing a broad set of capabilities to deal with, and
    quickly adapt to, the full spectrum of challenges we will face. Our
    forces are becoming more powerful, more flexible, and more deployable.
    We are improving our ability to operate with our joint and coalition
    partners. We are also working, while at war, to relieve stress on our
    soldiers, families, and Army civilians to sustain the viability of our
    all-volunteer force--which is perhaps our greatest strategic challenge.
        The resources and support provided to the Army in 2007, 2008, and
    beyond will enable us to maintain the momentum of key programs and to
    accelerate critical aspects of our transformation. Moreover, this
    funding will determine our ability to continue to accomplish our
    mission, to complete the shifting of our weight, and to prepare our
    soldiers to deal with the challenges they will face today and tomorrow.

         21st century security environment: an era of uncertainty and
                                unpredictability
        In the 5 years since 9/11, the international security environment
    has become increasingly dangerous. Military commitments--requiring
    ground and Special Operations Forces--have increased on a global scale.
    Sustained levels of force deployment have stressed our soldiers, their
    equipment, and the institutions that generate them. The likelihood of
    sustained strategic demand for Army forces underscores the need to
    improve our readiness for both current and future challenges.
        We need sustained support and timely, predictable funding to keep
    requirements and resources in balance--in the face of growing threats
    to the Nation. We will continue to conduct operations to prevail in the
    war on terror and to execute a range of initiatives designed to improve
    our strategic posture to deal with the challenges we will face.
        We are increasing our capabilities to deal with the challenges we
    face today. In light of the clearly foreseeable challenges now
    emerging, we must accelerate our preparation for those we will face
    tomorrow. We remain steadfast in our determination to:
      --Transform and modernize to build a far more capable, relevant Army;
      --realign our global infrastructure of bases, depots, arsenals, and
            equipment sets; and
      --sustain our all-volunteer soldiers, their families, and our Army
            civilians.
        Recent decisions to expand the size of U.S. ground forces reflect
    clear recognition on the part of the President, the Congress, and the
    Secretary of Defense of the dangers America faces, the importance of
    our mission, the central role that ground forces will perform to defend
    the Nation, and the stress that our all-volunteer force is weathering.
        This decision puts us on a path to greatly enhance the depth and
    breadth of Army capabilities, yet will require several years,
    considerable resources, and a sustained national commitment to bring to
    fruition. Over time, this decision will alleviate strategic risk. To
    implement the changes required to prepare for the future, while
    continuing our current pace of operations, we require timely,
    sufficient resources, and rapid implementation of policies designed to
    assure recurrent, predictable access to all of our components.

    Complexity and Uncertainty
        The National Defense Strategy identifies an array of traditional,
    irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive challenges that pose distinct
    threats to our Nation (figure 3). These threats are growing
    increasingly more complex due to:
      --The decline in the military primacy of States, resulting from the
            rise of non-State extremist movements and organizations;
      --the corresponding deterioration in our adversaries' adherence to
            international law and norms, intended to govern the character
            and conduct of warfare;
      --the rise of globalization, which is creating both opportunity and
            vulnerability due to the growing interdependence of
            international financial, commercial, information, and
            transportation systems;
      --the diffusion of technology, which is increasing the availability
            and killing power of weaponry, while creating new challenges
            for space and communications systems;
      --the dramatic growth of the internet and cellular communications,
            which is creating low-cost, effective means to rapidly move
            information, transmit instructions, shift resources, and shape
            perceptions in unprecedented ways; and
      --growing disparities among ``haves'' and ``have nots'' in the
            international order, compounded by feelings of hopelessness and
            despair, which are creating fertile ground to sow the seeds of
            hatred and radicalism.
        We will be confronted with increasing threats posed by a growing
    number of transnational organizations and movements, who will wage
    irregular warfare. We will continue to face threats, posed by nation-
    states that will involve large scale conventional military forces in
    more regular forms of warfare.
        Fueled by ideologies that oppose our Nation's bedrock values,
    extremist groups like al-Qaeda and other enemies, supported by the
    states and groups who sponsor them, are committed to reducing America's
    global presence--and to destroying American society. They will seek to
    oppose the United States asymmetrically--by employing terror,
    information warfare, and the most deadly, casualty-producing weapons
    available. Al-Qaeda's goal is clear: to gain control in the Islamic
    world by establishing a unified caliphate, stretching from North Africa
    to Indonesia, and to expand its influence well beyond these regions.
        Enemies like al-Qaeda are ruthless, unconstrained, and expert in
    distorting and exploiting the power of religion to further their ends.
    Ongoing counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, and elsewhere reflect the tough challenges involved in
    confronting savage, extremist adversaries in highly complex
    environments. We are fighting smart, adaptive opponents who are
    leveraging the opportunities presented by globalization to conduct
    brutal, indiscriminate, and unprecedented attacks.
        These adversaries will be neither deterred by nuclear or
    conventional forces nor defeated in battles with decisive outcomes.
    Previous concepts for intelligence and warning do not adequately
    address the threats we now face. To prevail in this struggle, the
    Nation must remain vigilant, improve interagency cooperation, and
    employ all instruments of national power--diplomatic, informational,
    military, and economic--in a rapid, concerted, and fully integrated
    manner.
        Military conflict will be waged increasingly in the human
    dimension--which underscores the need to be able to directly confront,
    to defeat, or to otherwise influence adversaries on the ground. This
    need can only be met with ``boots on the ground,'' as U.S. ground
    forces have demonstrated so vividly since 9/11. Ground forces, able to
    conduct sustained operations, will be required to counter the spread of
    radical ideologies, to influence people, and to bring order and
    stability to troubled areas.
        The security environment in which our soldiers will operate is
    becoming increasingly uncertain and unpredictable. Their environment
    will be influenced by:
      --International progress in the war on terror;
      --the commitment and stability of key international institutions and
            the governments of allies and partners in the war on terror;
      --the actions of states and non-state extremist movements and
            organizations who oppose democratic reform in the Middle East
            and elsewhere, particularly in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the
            emerging Palestinian State;
      --the ability of existing governments to perform traditional state
            functions--and to deny safe haven for terrorist organizations--
            amidst increasing economic pressures and demands for energy,
            water, and other natural resources;
      --progress in controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons and
            other weapons of mass destruction;
      --the nature and outcome of military competition (on land, sea, air,
            and space) at both regional and global levels;
      --the potential for adversaries to disrupt critical land based and
            space based communications systems; and
      --decisions in key areas which include: defense priorities amidst
            growing national fiscal pressures and the pace and level of
            resourcing for both base realignment and closure and global
            defense posture realignment initiatives.
    Competing Fiscal Priorities
        The Army will remain engaged around the globe, while operating in a
    constrained fiscal environment. This will continue to limit the
    resources available for both current and future challenges.

    National Budget Trends
        The Office of the Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, projects 2007
    Defense spending will be 3.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
    continuing a downward trend (figure 4). Defense resources have not kept
    pace with growth in GDP. GDP increased over 300 percent between 1968
    and 2005, from $3.7 to $11 trillion. Defense spending, however,
    increased only 62 percent, from $358 to $523 billion.
    Defense Budget Trends
        The allocation of Defense resources has changed little over time
    (figure 5), despite changes in the focus and emphasis of the National
    Defense Strategy. Today, while providing the largest number of forces
    for the war on terror, the Army receives the smallest share of
    programmed Defense resources. The Army is the most manpower intensive
    Service. Unlike the other Departments, who are able to reduce manpower
    to offset rising personnel costs, the Army must add soldiers to meet
    its commitments. Rising fuel, health care, and other costs--on top of
    steadily increasing costs to man the force--will continue to erode the
    Army's purchasing power.

    Army Budget Trends
        The bulk of the Army's funds are committed to sustaining people,
    maintaining vital infrastructure, and preparing equipment for combat
    deployment. People accounts--including salaries for soldiers and Army
    civilians as well as the labor costs incurred in contracts and in
    procurement--amount to more than 80 percent of the Army's budget. As a
    result, our ability to fund investment accounts today is extremely
    limited (figure 6)--and has diminished steadily over time. In 1984, for
    example, procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation
    amounted to 31 percent of the Army's budget, which by 2005 had
    diminished to only 17.5 percent. Caused in large part by rising
    manpower costs--to attract, to retain, and to provide for a competitive
    quality of life for an increasingly married force--this trend is
    indicative of the Army's continuing tension between current and future
    demands.

    Army Investment Trends
        Since 1990, the Army's share of investment dollars has been
    considerably smaller than that of the other Departments (figure 7). The
    Army has received less than one-fifth, while the other Departments have
    each received approximately one-third. Consequently, the Army has been
    unable to invest in the capabilities needed to sustain a rising
    operational tempo and to prepare for emerging threats. Supplemental
    funds have enabled the Army to replace essential weapons and equipment
    lost or worn out during battle. They have sustained our capability to
    meet the operational demands of the war on terror. Supplemental funds
    have not, however, enabled the research and procurement required to be
    prepared for the future.

    Implications for the Army
        The implications of the 21st century security environment for the
    Army are clear:
      --An Era of Uncertainty and Unpredictability.--The Nation will remain
            engaged in a long struggle of continuous, evolving conflict. As
            in Iraq and Afghanistan today, this conflict will manifest
            itself in both traditional and irregular settings involving
            conflict in the human dimension--necessitating the presence of
            forces on the ground. We will face adaptive adversaries (now
            carefully observing United States and allied forces) who will
            present unprecedented threats to our military establishment. We
            must prepare for disruptive challenges including cyberspace
            attack and attempts to disable national and international
            communications systems.
      --Need for Relevant Forces.--Landpower will perform an enduring,
            central role to underwrite U.S. commitment and resolve. More
            than ever before, we will rely on our ability to project power
            and to deploy rapidly across strategic distances--with relevant
            forces that are able to conduct combat operations immediately
            upon arrival in theater. Relevant forces will enhance our
            national strategic agility--and enable our leaders to create
            favorable strategic situations by foreclosing, and potentially
            preempting, enemy options. As described in the Army's capstone
            concept for the future force, the Army in joint operations,
            these forces must be able to operate effectively as part of
            joint, interagency, multinational, and coalition teams and to
            do so with little or no warning.
      --Trained and Equipped to be Ready in the Face of Uncertainty.--We
            must maintain the capacity to deploy trained, ready forces in
            response to emerging strategic contingencies as required by the
            National Defense Strategy, the National Military Strategy, and
            Combatant Commanders' plans. For this reason, our soldiers,
            from all components, must be ready to conduct the full spectrum
            of operations needed to defeat the threats they will face--and
            to strengthen the capacity of friends, allies, and partners. We
            can no longer accept the risks associated with partially
            manning, equipping, or training our units. We will not be able
            to depend on significant warning to provide the time needed to
            mobilize, to train, and to prepare for deployment. Instead, our
            units designated for deployment will require their full
            complement of soldiers and equipment. They must also be trained
            to conduct the full spectrum of likely operations: from
            engagement with friends, allies, and partners . . . to
            irregular warfare . . . to major combat operations.

      --Capacity to Sustain the All-Volunteer Force.--Sustaining the
            overall viability of the all-volunteer concept may well be our
            greatest strategic challenge. Our installations play a vital
            role in this effort--by providing homes and communities for our
            soldiers and families as well as safe, modern workplaces for
            the many civilians who support our Army. To continue to attract
            and to retain the highest quality of soldiers and civilians, we
            must provide a quality of life for our soldiers, families, and
            Army civilians that matches the quality of service that they
            provide to the Nation.
      --Infrastructure and Capacity to Project Power.--To prepare, to
            generate, and to sustain forces, we will demand more from our
            global infrastructure of bases, depots, arsenals, equipment
            sets, and the network which connects them. Our installations
            provide the foundation of our ability to execute the National
            Defense Strategy. They enable us to project power and to train
            our soldiers, leaders, and units. As such, we must invest in
            them accordingly to develop the strategic capabilities we need,
            and to overcome decades of underfunding. In addition, our Armed
            Forces must maintain a proper mix of airlift, sealift, and
            properly maintained equipment sets, positioned on land and
            afloat.
        To remain relevant to the threats now clearly emerging, we must
    continue to ``shift our weight'' from our traditional focus to become
    more versatile across the full range of irregular, disruptive, and
    catastrophic challenges we will face. We must accelerate the ongoing
    adaptation of our leader development, training, and modernization
    programs, which is already well under way. Likewise, we must also
    continue our efforts to improve our strategic responsiveness and
    agility--as well as the overall effectiveness of our operating and
    generating forces. In addition, we must continue our initiatives to
    create improvements in critical areas which include:
        --Joint interdependence;
        --operational agility;
        --intelligence for our commanders and soldiers that is timely,
                actionable, and draws upon all sources available;
        --lethality;
        --soldier and unit protection;
        --networks to improve common situational awareness and
                understanding needed for battle command;
        --information assurance and information security; and
        --cultural awareness and foreign language proficiency, and the
                ability to operate with the militaries and governments of
                other nations.
        Building the capabilities required to execute the full spectrum of
    likely operations amidst increasing threats to the Nation will require
    prudent investment today. This level of investment must be sustained at
    predictable levels over time to reduce risk for our soldiers, the Army,
    the Joint Team, and the Nation.
        Investing in defense in this manner would reflect a significant
    departure from historic patterns of spending--that have resulted in
    corresponding cycles of unpreparedness--which have increased America's
    vulnerability at the outset of the major conflicts of the 20th century
    and those occurring in the early stages of the 21st century.

     the army vision: relevant and ready landpower in service to the nation
        The challenges posed by the 21st century security environment drive
    our vision of the force we must become to continue to accomplish our
    mission, to preserve peace and freedom for the Nation. Maintaining our
    focus on soldiers--who are well led and organized into flexible,
    adaptive formations in our operating force, and properly supported by
    our generating force--we will ensure that our Army continues to be
    relevant, in terms of its design, and ready, in terms of its
    capabilities, for whatever the Nation demands. America has entrusted us
    to preserve peace, maintain freedom, and defend democracy--a role we
    have performed for over 230 years. Today, because of our soldiers and
    our record of accomplishment, the American people regard the Army as
    one of the Nation's most respected institutions. We will maintain this
    trust.
                   mission: providing forces and capabilities
        The Army exists to serve the American people, to defend the Nation,
    to protect vital national interests, and to fulfill national military
    responsibilities. Our mission is enduring: to provide necessary forces
    and capabilities to the Combatant Commanders in support of the National
    Security and Defense Strategies. The Army recruits, organizes, trains,
    and equips soldiers who, as vital members of their units and the Joint
    Team, conduct prompt, sustained combat and stability operations on
    land. The Army is also charged with providing logistics and support to
    enable the other Services to accomplish their missions, and supporting
    civil authorities in time of emergency, when directed.

    Accomplishing the Mission Today: Sustaining Global Commitments
        Almost 600,000 soldiers are on active duty today (currently 507,000
    active component, 46,000 Army National Guard and 28,000 Army Reserve).
    Over 40 percent (243,000) of them are deployed or forward stationed,
    serving in 76 countries worldwide. More than 4,600 Army civilians are
    serving side-by-side with them in the field, performing a variety of
    missions vital to America's national defense. At home, over 8,000
    soldiers are on duty in support of the war on terror. The Army's
    operational pace remains high, continuing the trend established during
    the post-Cold War era. Whenever and wherever needed, soldiers are
    continuing to answer the call to duty, enabling America's ability to
    put ``boots on the ground''--as demonstrated so vividly by the recent
    national decisions to reinforce our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        The Army continues to provide Combatant Commanders with a wide
    range of forces and capabilities to prevail in the war on terror, to
    sustain our global commitments, and to build effective multinational
    coalitions. First and foremost are the forces required for Operation
    Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, which include forward-
    stationed units and those based in the United States. The Army's
    requirements, however, are far greater than those needed to support the
    war on terror.
        They include support for:
      --Multinational exercises which reflect our longstanding leadership
            of, and commitment to, an expanding North Atlantic Treaty
            Organization and many other alliances;
      --the defense of South Korea, Japan, and many other friends, allies,
            and partners;
      --ongoing peacekeeping operations in the Sinai Peninsula, the
            Balkans, and elsewhere;
      --the security of our borders, as evidenced most vividly by the major
            deployment of reserve component soldiers to our Southwest
            Border this past year;
      --operations and equipment to counter the flow of illegal drugs; and
      --civil authorities in response to disasters and threats at home and
            abroad.
        As a result of the dramatic changes in the security environment
    since 9/11 and the enduring requirements of the global war on terror,
    we are also engaged in South America, the Philippines, Africa, the
    Caucasus, Central Asia, and many other places. These operations, which
    depend on our soldiers to put ``boots on the ground,'' include a wide
    range of combat and non-combat missions: from counter-insurgency, to
    humanitarian and civic assistance, to large scale reconstruction
    operations.
        Our soldiers are also working to accomplish a vital U.S. national
    objective--to build partnerships with foreign militaries and preserve
    the coalition formed to counter terror--by training and advising the
    military forces of many nations. In addition, through various forms of
    military to military exchanges, and other forms of assistance and
    cooperation, our soldiers are helping to enhance the military
    capabilities of our international partners. Through international
    education programs, such as the Army War College, the Command and
    General Staff College, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
    Cooperation, and a variety of other cooperative studies initiatives,
    our soldiers are helping to shape the strategic environment in
    favorable ways by building enduring security relationships and
    improving interoperability. In addition, the presence of U.S. forces
    assures friends and allies of our national commitment, while
    encouraging them to contribute their national resources to
    international efforts.
        In the 5 years since 9/11, the Army National Guard has mobilized
    more than 610,000 soldiers to perform both State and Federal missions.
    On any given day, the Army National Guard provides vital capabilities
    in virtually every mission area. Today, more than 46,000 soldiers from
    the National Guard are on active duty.
        Besides their commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in troubled
    regions around the world, National Guard soldiers are protecting the
    homeland, performing key missions in support of U.S. Northern Command.
    They are helping the Department of Homeland Security to protect
    critical infrastructure and to patrol our southern borders (with nearly
    5,000 soldiers deployed). They are also continuing their service in
    areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina and performing vital State-directed
    missions under the command of the Governors. Our current levels of
    operational commitment have created intense demand for National Guard
    soldiers. Despite sustained levels of high operational tempo, Army
    National Guard soldiers are performing superbly, accomplishing every
    one of their missions and serving with distinction worldwide.
        Since 9/11, the Army Reserve has mobilized more than 164,000
    soldiers, who are also performing superbly. Today more than 28,000 Army
    Reserve soldiers are serving on active duty, with more than 16,000--
    almost half of them--deployed to serve in 18 countries worldwide. The
    Army Reserve provides vital capabilities across a diverse range of
    mission areas which include 88 unique skill sets. Our Army Reserve
    provides over 90 percent of the Army's civil affairs capability, and
    more than 50 percent of the Army's medical capability.
        The unique skills resident in our Army Reserve are in great demand
    by Joint and Army commanders. The commitment to mission accomplishment
    and the values demonstrated by our Reserve soldiers, coupled with their
    inherent capabilities, enable our Army Reserve to make an absolutely
    vital, essential contribution to the Joint Force. They are meeting
    every requirement for their special skills, accomplishing every one of
    their missions, and underwriting our capability as a Nation to put
    ``boots on the ground.''
    Major Decisions in 2006-2007
        During 2006 and 2007, the Army continued its efforts to ``shift the
    weight'' of its intellectual and organizational activities to be better
    prepared for both current and future challenges. Five key areas
    highlight the Army's efforts to accelerate change.
      --Accelerated the Pace of Modular Conversion of Operating Force.--To
            improve our capacity to meet global demand for Army forces and
            capabilities, the Army received support and initiated plans to
            convert two active component brigade combat teams to modular
            designs far sooner than planned. Two brigade combat teams will
            now become available for worldwide deployment, in their new
            modular designs, a year or more earlier than planned.
          We are also developing plans to accelerate the availability of
            other brigade combat teams. Accelerating modular conversion
            will help to reduce stress on the force by increasing the time
            that soldiers will be able to remain at their home stations
            prior to redeploying.
      --Received Approval to Grow Army Capabilities and for New Policies to
            Assure Access to All Components of Our Force.--In recognition
            of current levels of stress on the force, and the need to
            sustain high levels of force deployment for the foreseeable
            future, the Army has been directed to increase in size. During
            2007, the Army will begin to execute a plan to field six
            additional brigade combat teams by 2012 in the active component
            and a diverse range of supporting organizations in our active
            component, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. We will
            expand our rotational pool to 76 brigade combat teams and
            approximately 225 support brigades. This decision will enable
            the Army to meet an anticipated demand for brigade combat teams
            and vital supporting units from our active and reserve
            components.
          While this plan will greatly improve the Army's ability to meet
            strategic demand, it will not reduce current levels of stress
            on the force, since it will take several years to accomplish.
            The recent changes to policy governing reserve component
            mobilization will help to fulfill sustained high levels of
            strategic demand for Army forces, and to better manage stress
            across the force. Growing the Army and improving access to all
            components of the forces are vital strategic initiatives, which
            will accelerate the momentum the Army has established to
            improve its capacity to execute the National Defense Strategy,
            today and tomorrow. All of the initiatives now underway--to
            reset the force, to improve readiness of non-deployed forces,
            to expand the size and condition of our operational force, to
            modernize the force, to realign and improve the condition of
            the bases and installations which comprise our global
            infrastructure, and many others--still require full financial
            support.
      --Reinforced the Concept of Full Spectrum Operations.--The National
            Defense Strategy, updated as part of the 2006 Quadrennial
            Defense Review, requires the Armed Forces to be able to conduct
            joint, multinational operations anywhere across the spectrum of
            conflict. This spectrum ranges from the low end--emphasizing
            stability and civil support operations--to the high end--
            emphasizing major combat operations (which focus on more
            familiar offensive or defensive operations).
          The change in the National Defense Strategy reflects the reality
            of the strategic environment: that due to the complexity of
            stability operations, the Armed Forces must develop readiness
            for these operations, in addition to developing readiness for
            combat operations, their more traditional focus. This change,
            is wholly consistent with the doctrine which has guided our
            transformation--and how we prepare soldiers and leaders--since
            9/11. It has also created unique, additional requirements for
            manning, training, educating, and equipping our operating
            forces and the forces and institutions that generate them. Put
            simply, we must plan for stability operations to be an
            integral, enduring component of any and all joint campaigns;
            therefore, we must organize, prepare, and provide resources for
            this aspect of our mission accordingly.
      --Restructured Our Approach to Fielding Future Combat Systems.--The
            Army is transitioning continuously from the current to the
            future force through the combined effects of transformation and
            modernization. The main focus of our transformation is modular
            conversion. Converting to a force that is built around brigade
            level modules is enabling the Army to become more capable, more
            flexible, more deployable, and ultimately, more relevant to
            current and future challenges. This transformation has already
            improved our ability to meet Combatant Commanders' needs and to
            conduct joint, expeditionary warfare.
          Our transformation is complemented by our modernization
            initiatives, which center on future combat systems (FCS),
            aviation modernization, and more than 300 other advanced
            technologies and systems. Future combat systems will reflect
            the Army's first comprehensive modernization in decades. We
            have cancelled well over 100 programs in recent years to free
            resources for our modernization. FCS is generating, or
            ``spinning out,'' technologies to protect soldiers, enhance
            battlefield understanding, and provide other tactical
            advantages for our soldiers fighting in irregular environments
            today. FCS will produce fully equipped brigades that will begin
            to enter the force in 2015.
          FCS will provide significant tactical and operational advantages
            for our soldiers and commanders in pre-insurgency environments
            and to counter insurgencies if they occur. It will also improve
            our ability to support civil authorities and to meet all
            anticipated operational requirements. In recognition of the
            importance of this initiative to the Army's current and future
            readiness, we activated and manned a special Army Evaluation
            Task Force and a supporting headquarters during 2006 to test,
            refine, and validate FCS technologies.
          As a result of the combined effects of budget cuts over the past
            3 years, and fiscal guidance that will reduce resources
            programmed for future years, we will reduce the scope and delay
            the schedule of FCS fielding. We will continue to develop the
            core operational capability envisioned for FCS, yet will do so
            with 14 instead of 18 interconnected systems. We will defer
            plans to develop two classes of unmanned aerial vehicles, one
            class of unmanned ground vehicles, and a whole class of
            intelligent munitions (except for the Korean Peninsula).
          These projected reductions will put at risk our ability to reach
            the full tactical and operational potential envisioned for FCS.
            It will also delay our target date to field the first of 15
            projected FCS equipped brigade combat teams by 5 months, to
            2015, and slow the rate of procurement to one per year. These
            adjustments will cause us to take 5 years longer, until 2030,
            to be able to field and employ all 15 brigade combat teams.
            These program adjustments will decrease capabilities available
            to the Joint Force and therefore, increase levels of future
            challenges risk, as described in the National Defense Strategy.
      --Expanded the Scope of Army Business Transformation.--As we change
            the way in which we operate militarily, we are also changing
            the way in which we do business. As a parallel effort to the
            transformation of Army warfighting forces, we are transforming
            the business processes and functions to better support our
            forces--improving both effectiveness and efficiency. The scope
            of the effort is immense, touching every facet of Army
            activity.
          The goal of our effort is to free human and financial resources
            for more compelling operational needs. Realizing this goal
            depends upon improving processes, developing tools to enhance
            enterprise-wide situational awareness and decision-making, and
            reducing organizational redundancy and overhead.
          We are now well underway in deploying the Lean Six Sigma
            methodology as a vehicle to seek continuous process
            improvement, eliminate waste, and improve quality across the
            force. This methodology is the foundation of the comprehensive
            review of all of our major commands and organizations, now in
            progress. The award of the coveted Shingo prize to four
            activities within our Army Materiel Command for improvements in
            business processes and manufacturing is but one example of our
            progress in this regard.
                 the army plan to enable mission accomplishment
        We are executing The Army Plan, which centers on our four
    overarching, interrelated strategies, to enable mission accomplishment
    and to achieve the Army vision over time. This plan accelerates the
    redesign of the forces, support structures, and headquarters that are
    accomplishing our mission today. This plan also guides our initiatives
    to provide Combatant Commanders with the capabilities needed to protect
    the Nation today and tomorrow.
        The Army is continuing to:
      --Provide relevant and ready landpower for the 21st century security
            environment;
      --train and equip soldiers to serve as warriors and grow adaptive
            leaders;
      --sustain an all-volunteer force composed of highly competent
            soldiers that are provided an equally high quality of life; and
      --provide infrastructure and support to enable the force to fulfill
            its strategic roles and missions.
        We are transforming to create a future force with a broad set of
    capabilities to enable our Army to address strategic problems the
    Nation will face (see figure 11). The benefits of our approach are
    clearly evident in the attitudes and levels of commitment we see in our
    soldiers, as well as the attributes of our combat formations, the
    forces that sustain them, and the facilities and processes that
    generate them from their home stations.
        The combined effects of transformation, modernization, innovation,
    and improvement--reinforced by positive change in the attitudes and
    behaviors that create the culture of our service--are helping us to
    become the force the Nation will need to safeguard its peace and
    freedom in the 21st century. The Army plan is continuously improving
    our ability to operate as part of the Joint Team, while ensuring our
    ability to dominate in any environment against current, emerging, and
    unforeseen threats. We believe that every dollar spent to build
    capability for our current force is an investment in our future force.
        Our initiatives are guiding our efforts to:
      --Increase soldier and unit effectiveness and protection;
      --grow innovative, adaptive soldiers and leaders through training and
            education programs that rapidly incorporate lessons learned
            from combat and prepare them to serve as warriors;
      --adapt the doctrine which guides how we fight, how we sustain our
            forces, how we train our soldiers, and how we work to
            strengthen the capacity of friends, allies, and partners;
      --create far more capable, strategically deployable brigades designed
            to receive new technologies and equipment as soon as they
            become available; and
      --apply better business practices to free resources to use for our
            most pressing operational requirements.
        Our ongoing intellectual and cultural transformation is
    dramatically improving how our leaders, soldiers, civilian workforce,
    and families are adapting to the reality of protracted conflict. This
    transformation is reinforcing the commitment to continuous improvement
    that has taken hold across the Army.

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

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

        Source: Strategic Problems drawn from 2006 Quadrennial Defense
    Review, Office of the Secretary of Defense, February 2006.
                                   Figure 11

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

         balancing risk: the tension between current and future demands
        To be able to execute the National Defense Strategy (which includes
    the military requirements of the National Military Strategy), the Army
    must maintain readiness to deal with current challenges, while
    developing the capabilities to be ready for future challenges. Now 5
    years after 9/11, the Army continues to fight the long war with high
    levels of force deployment.
        This sustained demand for Army forces continues to exceed the
    demand envisioned in the National Defense Strategy established during
    the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. This level of demand is placing
    enormous strain on the Army's all-volunteer force. Time between
    deployments for our active component has been steadily decreasing over
    the last 5 years, and is now approaching less than 1 year, on average.
        The Army is incapable of generating and sustaining the forces
    required to wage the global war on terror, to respond to emerging
    challenges, and to sustain the full range of U.S. global commitments
    without all of its components--active, National Guard, and Army
    Reserve--fully available to deploy together. At current levels of
    demand, without recurrent, assured, and predictable access to our
    reserve components, we will be unable to manage current and projected
    requirements for Army forces.
        The recent decisions by the President and the Secretary of
    Defense--to assure access to all components of the force--will fully
    enable our reserve components to perform their new role as an integral
    part of our operationally deployable force. In addition, these new
    policies will facilitate the deployment of our best led, and best
    equipped reserve units--as whole cohesive units. We are working rapidly
    to implement these changes and will require continued congressional
    support to do so.
        The decision to expand the size of the Nation's ground forces
    reflects clear recognition on the part of the President, the Congress,
    and the Secretary of Defense of the dangers we face, the importance of
    our mission, and the stress our soldiers, families, and Army civilians
    are enduring. This decision will enhance the depth and breadth of Army
    capabilities, yet will require several years and considerable resources
    to bring to fruition. Over time, this decision will alleviate strategic
    risk, as we assess it today.

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

                     Army Actions to Mitigate Risk in 2006
    Operational Risk
        Completed transformation of 31 of 42 AC brigade combat teams (BCTs)
    to modular designs and initiated the conversion of an additional four
    AC BCTs and 16 ARNG BCTs (based on fiscal year 2005 baseline).
        Funded reset program to repair over 4,100 tracked and wheeled
    vehicles and over 540 helicopters.
        Continued Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) implementation to
    generate a continuous level of forces--BCTs augmented by all enabling
    organizations--and to deploy additional, fully enabled BCTs, if
    required.
    Future Challenges Risk
        Transitioned effort to develop future combat systems--which are on
    cost, on schedule, and meeting performance parameters--to system
    development and demonstration phase, moving us closer to fielding
    future combat systems.
        Manned and activated Army Evaluation Task Force to facilitate
    ``spinning out'' advanced technologies and systems to the current
    force.
        Developed new Army Prepositioned Stock strategy to meet global
    requirements for agile, flexible forces.
        Established Army Asymmetric Warfare Office to work with the Joint
    Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to better understand
    and defeat asymmetric threats.
    Force Management Risk
        Implemented improvements to ARFORGEN to better manage our forces,
    and improve predictability for soldiers and families.
        Increased number of rebalancing actions to approximately 57,000--
    reducing overstructure in certain areas, and increasing the
    availability of skills in greatest demand, such as Military Police,
    civil affairs, infantry, and others.
        Increased number of military-to-civilian conversions to
    approximately 7,170--moving soldier positions from our generating force
    to better structure and man our operating force.
        Established reserve component transient, trainee, holder and
    student (TTHS) account to improve readiness, deployability, training,
    and education opportunities.
    Institutional Risk
        Maintained focus on business transformation which is helping us to
    improve efficiency and effectiveness, to decrease cycletime, to lower
    the cost of doing business and to increase quality, productivity, and
    morale.
        Implemented Lean Six Sigma methodology within all Army commands,
    direct reporting units, Army service components of joint commands, and
    across headquarters, Department of the Army.
        Developed facilities support strategy to meet the target dates
    established by base realignment and closure law, global defense posture
    realignment, and building the Army Modular Forces which requires the
    execution of approximately $38 billion in military construction and
    related projects between 2007 and 2013.
        Initiated consolidation of information technology services world-
    wide and implemented a range of initiatives to assure the availability
    of information to ensure network security.
        Completed technology demonstration for General Fund Enterprise
    Business System to enable better financial management and
    decisionmaking.

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

        In recent years, we have received considerable support to improve
    our capabilities; yet we still have much to accomplish to establish the
    levels of readiness--across all components of the force--needed to
    maintain risk at acceptable levels in wartime.
        Since 9/11, we have used our resources carefully, making numerous
    decisions to allocate resources to immediate wartime needs, and to
    better prepare and protect our soldiers. We have drawn upon the entire
    Army to meet requirements for forces and equipment. We have cancelled
    countless investment programs and deferred both maintenance and
    required investment in our infrastructure. To free human and financial
    resources for our most compelling operational needs, we have undertaken
    major Army-wide business transformation initiatives. We have also
    received the support needed to accelerate our schedule for modular
    conversion that will enable two brigade combat teams to deploy much
    earlier than planned.
        The combined effects of continuing high levels of strategic demand
    for Army forces, at home and abroad, compounded by longstanding
    deficits in equipment, modernization, and infrastructure investment
    place current and future readiness at risk. In addition, our capacity
    to meet current force requirements, and to grow our forces, depends on
    adhering to an extremely complex, intricate schedule to realign our
    entire global infrastructure of bases, depots, arsenals, and other
    facilities. Our ability to remain on schedule is jeopardized by our
    inability to execute a diverse range of military construction projects
    and supporting activities (e.g., environmental assessment studies and
    remediation projects). Timely passage of military construction
    appropriations is required to stay on schedule and to prevent the
    effects of construction delays from cascading into many other areas of
    Army activity that will unintentionally put at risk our ability to
    accomplish our mission--to provide trained, ready forces to meet the
    Combatant Commanders' needs.
        The Army will require additional base and supplemental
    appropriations to achieve the levels of readiness needed to fulfill the
    requirements of the National Defense Strategy. Without sufficient
    resources, the Army cannot continue its current pace of operations and
    implement the changes required to prepare for the future--in the face
    of growing threats to the Nation posed by State and non-State extremist
    movements and organizations.
        To build readiness to sustain the current mission, to remain
    relevant and ready to meet future challenges, and to maintain risk at
    acceptable wartime levels the Army needs to:
      --Obtain Full, Timely, and Predictable Funding to Sustain the Army's
            Global Commitments.--Full, timely, and predictable funding of
            the Army's Fiscal Year 2008 President's Budget request and
            supplemental appropriations is required to build readiness
            needed to execute the National Defense Strategy and to pay for
            the costs of war. Full funding is needed for the Army to
            fulfill its global responsibilities in the face of traditional,
            irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive challenges; to provide
            adequately for soldiers, families, and Army civilians; to
            accelerate key aspects of our transformation; and to maintain
            the momentum of vital training programs, modernization, and
            stationing initiatives..
      --Grow the All-Volunteer Force to Sustain the Long War.--Support and
            full funding is needed to continue to achieve our goals for
            attracting and retaining high quality people in each of our
            active and reserve components. This funding is enabling the
            expansion of our operational, deployable force pool, which is
            vital to sustaining the effectiveness and health of the all-
            volunteer force, now being tested for the first time in a long
            war.
      --Improve Wartime Authorities and Resources for Soldiers and
            Commanders in Combat.--Changes are needed to eliminate
            unintended constraints on programs such as the Commanders'
            Emergency Response Program, the Logistics Civil Augmentation
            Program, and in administering security cooperation and
            assistance programs, as well as furnishing humanitarian
            assistance. Sufficient funding for programs to enhance security
            cooperation and provide assistance to friends and allies is
            required to build partner capacity and institutions that prove
            to be cooperative and enduring. In addition, continued
            congressional leadership will be required to support programs
            and initiatives to protect soldiers (to counter improvised
            explosive devices, to provide up-armored vehicles, to field
            individual body armor, etc.) and to better equip Iraqi and
            Afghan police, security, and military forces.
      --Reset the Force to Ensure Readiness for Current and Future
            Challenges.--Full funding is needed to restore units--a process
            with both materiel and human dimensions--to required levels of
            readiness to execute projected operational deployments, while
            remaining prepared for likely future contingencies and homeland
            defense missions. To be ready, we must not only ensure that
            battle damaged items are repaired, recapitalized, or replaced;
            we must also enable our soldiers and families to recover from
            the stress of combat and prolonged separation. The requirement
            to reset our units will not be satisfied with a one-time
            infusion of funds; it will require a sustained, predictable
            commitment of funds for several years beyond major deployments.
      --Transform the Force to Sustain the Full Range of our Global
            Commitments.--Full funding for Army transformation is needed to
            create an operational, deployable pool of 76 modular brigade
            combat teams and approximately 225 support brigades. By
            increasing the depth and breadth of our overall capacity,
            through conversion to more capable modular formations, our
            transformation is improving our ability to execute and support
            protracted campaigns. Our ability to meet the levels of force
            availability envisioned in the National Defense Strategy
            depends upon an Army-wide readiness model to support
            expeditionary deployment on a rotational basis. It is designed
            to improve the readiness of our non-deployed forces across all
            components; reduce stress on soldiers, families, and equipment;
            improve predictability for employers; end the need to extend
            deployments in theater to provide active component soldiers at
            least 1 year at home before redeploying them; and manage the
            force to achieve our goal of 1 year deployed with 2 years at
            home station for these soldiers. This model depends upon
            assured, predictable access to our reserve component units
            who--because of strategic decisions and operational necessity--
            have become a vital part of our deployable force pool.
      --Modernize by Accelerating the Fielding of Advanced Technologies to
            our Soldiers Today.--Full funding of the Army's modernization
            program is needed to accelerate aspects of future combat
            systems (FCS) development, aviation programs, and over 300
            other key modernization initiatives. FCS is our first major
            modernization program in several decades and is our most
            critical investment program. In 2008, to enhance combat
            effectiveness today, FCS will begin to ``spin out'' key
            technologies to our current forces--a process projected to
            continue in roughly 2-year intervals. FCS is enabling
            soldiers--from our active and reserve components, all U.S.
            ground forces, and our allies that support ground campaigns--to
            understand battlefield conditions in unprecedented ways. These
            improvements are better preparing them to deal with the full
            spectrum of traditional irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive
            challenges they will face for the foreseeable future. Despite
            the benefits FCS will provide, as a result of the combined
            effects of budget cuts over the past 3 years, and fiscal
            guidance that will reduce resources programmed for future
            years, we will adjust the scope and schedule for fielding FCS.
            We will continue to develop the core operational capability
            envisioned for FCS, yet will do so with 14 instead of 18
            interconnected systems. These adjustments will result in
            delaying development, acquisition, and delivery of this much
            needed capability to our soldiers and the Nation.
      --Station the Force to Meet Emerging Strategic Demands While
            Providing Infrastructure and Services to Enable Mission
            Accomplishment.--Full funding is needed to achieve the
            framework of a new global basing posture by 2011 and to enable
            our installations to deliver a quality of life for our
            soldiers, families, and civilians that matches the quality of
            the service they provide to the Nation. Our plan will improve
            our ability to fulfill national strategic requirements in an
            uncertain environment. Due to extensive streamlining and
            consolidation of facilities and activities, it will also
            improve our overall efficiency. Moreover, the funding provided
            to the Army will enable us to allocate significantly greater
            levels of resources to improve the quality and effectiveness of
            the facilities we depend on to: train, maintain equipment;
            house and care for our soldiers, and provide safe, modern
            working conditions for our Army civilians. The resources and
            support provided to the Army will have a pivotal outcome on our
            ability to execute our stationing plan, to meet the schedule
            established by law, and to sustain our all-volunteer soldiers
            and their families, now bearing the prolonged stress of more
            than 5 years of war.
      --Transform Business Practices to Better Enable Army
            Transformation.--Continued support is needed to execute Army
            business transformation to achieve targeted efficiencies
            through management reform; acquisition reform; comprehensive
            redesign of the organizations and business processes that
            generate, deploy, and reset forces; consolidation of bases and
            activities; military to civilian conversion programs;
            performance measurement enhancements, and more.
                  preserving peace and freedom for the nation
        We remain resolute in our determination to preserve peace and
    freedom for America. Guided by the Army Vision, we are accomplishing
    our mission today while building the future force--of soldiers,
    leaders, Army civilians, operating and generating forces, and the
    infrastructure that serves as our foundation--to ensure our ability to
    do so tomorrow.
        We remain focused on tough questions that will remain at the center
    of the defense debate:
      --What are the strategic requirements of the 21st century? What
            decisions must we make now to fulfill our title 10 obligation
            to ensure that the Army, as a vital component of America's
            Armed Forces, is best prepared to defend U.S. interests in the
            face of traditional, irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive
            challenges?
      --Are joint ground forces (Army, Marines, and Special Operations
            Forces) properly sized and structured to provide the
            capabilities needed to perform the missions the nations will
            require?
      --What additional actions are required to ensure that our forces are
            organized, manned, trained, and equipped to be relevant to, and
            ready for, the challenges they will face?
      --How can we best prepare our leaders to become multi-skilled
            pentathletes able to operate with confidence amidst complexity
            and uncertainty?
      --What will be the impact of protracted conflict on the all-volunteer
            force? What combination of quality of life, compensation,
            incentives, service options, family programs, and other tools
            will be required to recruit, retain, and sustain the concept of
            the all-volunteer force for the future?
      --How do we ensure that our physical infrastructure (of
            installations, depots, arsenals, and the network which connects
            them) best supports our mission?
      --How do we balance our resources to: provide quality of life to
            sustain our volunteers; maintain deployment facilities (air,
            ground, sea, rail, cargo, and other facilities) to support
            Combatant Commanders' timelines; and establish a training and
            education base to prepare our soldiers, leaders, and Army
            civilians for the challenge they will face?
      --How can we best leverage the human and financial resources we have
            been provided to ensure that we remain the world's preeminent
            landpower?
      --How can we accelerate the momentum we have established in recent
            years, in all of these areas, to properly position our force
            for the future?
        Our continued effectiveness depends upon a national commitment to
    properly recruit, train, equip, and support the Army. We have received
    considerable support to execute current operations and to reset our
    forces. To provide for future readiness and to break our historic cycle
    of national unpreparedness, the Nation must invest prudently and
    predictably in defense, which it can afford to do.
    addendum a.--provide relevant and ready landpower for the 21st century
                              security environment
        We are improving our capabilities to prevail in the war on terror
    and sustain all of our global commitments. While fighting, we are:
      --Accelerating our efforts to transform and to modernize.
        --Transforming to create an active and reserve component pool of 76
                modular brigade combat teams and approximately 225 support
                brigades.
        --Modernizing--for the time in decades--to develop future combat
                systems, new aviation systems, and over 300 advanced
                technologies and systems.
      --Building a modular force in which brigades--not divisions--can
            ``plug into'' joint and coalition task forces in expeditionary
            and campaign settings.
      --Improving readiness to deal with traditional, irregular,
            catastrophic, and disruptive challenges.
      --Building depth (more) and breadth (more kinds) of capability to
            ensure soldiers and units can adapt to these challenges.
        --Growing the Army and accelerating our schedule to field more
                brigades, to increase our strategic depth and to relieve
                stress on soldiers and equipment.
        --Developing more kinds of capability by making our brigades more
                powerful, versatile, deployable, and relevant to new
                challenges.
        --Transforming our supporting organizations to better support
                combat and logistics operations.
      --Creating improvements in: Sustaining the force, actionable
            intelligence, stability operations, homeland defense, operating
            in complex environments, and more.
      --Ensuring that every investment in our current force benefits our
            future force.

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

                                Accomplishments
    Since 9/11
        Soldiers helped to overthrow two terrorist regimes, rescue two
    nations from oppression, enable vital elections, train and equip Iraqi
    and Afghan security forces, and liberate over 50 million people.
        More than 360,000 Army National Guard (ARNG); 167,000 United States
    Army Reserve (USAR); and 498,000 Active Component (AC) soldiers
    supported Combatant Commanders in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay,
    the Balkans, the Sinai, and elsewhere.
        More than 150,000 ARNG, USAR, and AC soldiers helped to secure the
    homeland by providing security augmentation for key assets, airports,
    special events, and Air Force bases.
        Began 51 of 70 planned Brigade Combat Team (BCT) modular
    conversions; 31 of these 51 conversions completed. Completed 131 of the
    over 200 planned multi-functional and functional support brigade
    conversions.
        Significantly increased depot output to refurbish and reset
    vehicles and equipment for future deployments.
        More than 52,800 soldiers from all components, supported by a
    diverse range of Army civilians and Army aviation, transportation,
    military police, medical, and other units, provided hurricane relief
    support (including support for Katrina and Rita).
        Soldiers also deployed to South Asia and Southwest Asia to provide
    tsunami and earthquake relief.
        Initiated $2.2 billion contract to procure 368 Armed Reconnaissance
    Helicopters--the Army's new manned helicopter acquisition since 1983.
    2006
        Completed conversion of 13 AC BCTs; initiated conversion of an
    additional 13 BCTs (4 AC,9 ARNG). Completed conversion of 19 multi-
    functional and functional support brigades (4 AC, 12 ARNG, 3 USAR).
        Created an intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR)
    integration and synchronization office to improve quick reaction
    capabilities and optimize ISR support to current global war on terror
    (GWOT) operations.
        Integrated space technology to guide munitions, track forces,
    protect against fratricide, and stream real-time battlefield video.
        Continued the transformation of Army pre-positioned stocks (APS) of
    equipment, ammunition, and general support items worldwide to support
    operational deployments.
        Developed and fielded an unprecedented capability to identify
    individuals through an automated biometric identification system.
        Developed and fielded the operational headquarters to perform
    weapons of mass destruction elimination missions at the Joint Task
    Force level.
        Fielded unprecedented intelligence fusion and analysis capability
    to 11 brigades and 73 battalions deployed in support of GWOT.

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

    Support Current Global Operations with Relevant and Ready Landpower
        The Army is transforming and modernizing to build a more capable
    and relevant force for the 21st century, while fully engaged in the war
    on terror and sustaining the range of our global commitments. The
    combined effects of our transformation and modernization are improving
    our readiness to deal with traditional, irregular, catastrophic, and
    disruptive challenges, as a vital member of the Joint Force.
        Modular conversion is the main effort of our transformation. To
    sustain a steadily increasing demand for military forces, we are
    building a modular force centered on brigade combat teams as the basic
    building block of our fighting capability. Our modular conversion of
    active and reserve components is designed to create brigade based
    modules able to ``plug into'' joint and coalition task forces in
    expeditionary and campaign settings. These forces will be better
    organized to accept advanced new capabilities and technology in order
    to meet the demands of the current war, sustain other global
    commitments, establish the organizational structure needed to
    accelerate modernization, and support a new global basing posture that
    will rely more heavily on rotational presence.
        Our plan is creating a rotational pool of 76 BCTs: 48 in the active
    component and 28 in the Army National Guard. These BCTs are organized
    into one of three standard designs: Infantry, heavy, or stryker. We
    will support these BCTs with approximately 225 support brigades. Our
    BCTs require the capabilities of our support brigades to accomplish the
    missions they are assigned. Our support brigades also provide essential
    capabilities to other Services, as well as to civil authorities in
    homeland defense missions, which include consequence management and
    disaster relief.
        Our support brigades are organized into two categories: Multi-
    functional support brigades and functional support brigades. Multi-
    functional brigades perform operational roles including: Combat
    aviation, combat support (maneuver enhancement), sustainment, fires,
    and battlefield surveillance. Functional brigades perform broad support
    roles on a theater-wide basis including: Air defense, engineer,
    chemical, military police, signal, medical, logistics, and
    intelligence.
        Like our theater commands, our corps and division-level operational
    command posts and headquarters, support brigades are also converting to
    modular designs. They will be trained, manned, and equipped to work
    directly for each of these headquarters without augmentation of people
    or equipment.
        We are improving the readiness of our reserve forces that are
    making vital contributions on a daily basis--and have transitioned them
    from a strategic reserve to an operational force as our global
    commitments have increased. We are also working to improve access to
    these forces in order to support our strategic requirements. Strength
    reporting, educational opportunities and special skills training
    opportunities have been improved by reducing overstructure. These
    improvements, coupled with modular conversion, are enhancing the Army's
    overall ability to provide ready forces and capabilities to the
    Combatant Commanders and to civil authorities in a timely manner.
        In addition, to make best use of our resources, we are both
    rebalancing and redistributing our forces. We are rebalancing to create
    the right mix of high demand units and to assign soldiers with critical
    and high demand skills in each of our active and reserve components. At
    the same time, we are redistributing soldiers to create the right mix
    between our operating force and our generating force.
      --To assure timely access to the right types of units and soldiers,
            we are rebalancing skills within our three components. We have
            determined the types of units and skills that are in greatest
            demand in today's environment--including infantry, engineer,
            military police, military intelligence, logistics, Special
            Forces, chemical, civil affairs, and psychological operations
            units--and have identified approximately 116,000 positions to
            rebalance. We have accomplished more than half of this
            rebalancing and project to be completed by 2013.
      --We are redistributing skills from our generating force to increase
            the size of the active component of our operating force. We are
            continuing military-to-civilian conversions (that have already
            returned approximately 7,200 soldiers to our operating force)
            and improving management of our individual soldier assignment
            processes to ensure full manning of our operational units and
            command posts.

        The combined effect of rebalancing, redistributing, and increasing
    our operating force is improving our overall effectiveness. We are
    improving our ability to provide trained soldiers in cohesive
    formations to the Combatant Commanders and to support civil
    authorities, while reducing stress on soldiers and families.
        To support global operations while transforming, we are preparing
    our forces for war--or resetting them--as quickly and efficiently as we
    can. Our reset program links other Army programs together through
    replacement, repair, and recapitalization. This program is restoring
    units returning from war to required levels of readiness to prepare
    them for future missions. As we reset our units, we are simultaneously
    converting many of them to their new modular designs. Several of these
    units have already returned to theaters of war in their new
    configurations.
        The Army's readiness model, Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN), is
    used to manage the force and ensure the ability to support demands for
    Army forces. ARFORGEN sequences activities for all active and reserve
    Army units to include:
      --Reset;
      --modular conversion;
      --modernization;
      --manning adjustments;
      --soldier and leader training and education programs;
      --unit training;
      --employment; and
      --stationing decisions.
        To sustain global commitments, we will transition units through a
    progression of three sequential readiness pools: Reset and train
    (recovering from deployments, resetting equipment and other
    activities), ready (eligible for deployment and exercises), and
    available (immediately available for world-wide employment).
        ARFORGEN establishes a basis to schedule deployments on an Army-
    wide scale. Our planning objective is to be able to generate a
    continuous output of trained and ready forces that will be ready to
    support one operational deployment and 2 years at home station for the
    active component. The planning objective for involuntary mobilization
    of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve units is 1 year mobilized
    and 5 years demobilized. This goal will be achievable only after
    completion of all projected modular conversions.
        Current levels of operational demand--to include the Balkans, the
    Sinai, and other global commitments in addition to Iraq and
    Afghanistan--exceed the levels which had been projected. To meet
    sustained global demand for Army forces, we require timely
    implementation of policies intended to ensure recurrent, assured, and
    predictable access to our Army National Guard and our Army Reserve
    units. Without full access to our reserve component units, our active
    component units will continue to deploy for a year, return home for a
    year, and then redeploy--a situation which is creating unsustainable
    levels of stress on the force.
        When fully operational, ARFORGEN will enable the development of a
    schedule to bring units to full readiness--with people, equipment, and
    training--before they are scheduled to deploy. It is also designed to
    enable the following critical objectives:
      --Reduce uncertainty for soldiers, families, and the communities that
            support installations;
      --improve availability of forces for Combatant Commanders;
      --generate a continuous level of BCTs, augmented by all required
            supporting organizations (given appropriate mobilization
            authority); and
      --surge additional BCTs, augmented by all required supporting
            organizations (given appropriate mobilization authority).
    Build A Campaign-Quality Modular Force with Joint and Expeditionary
            Capabilities for Today and Tomorrow
        The war on terror and the changing paradigm for maintaining forward
    presence have created both the necessity and the opportunity to
    accelerate change from the current to the future force. Our conversion
    to a modular force--one that is carefully balanced between active and
    reserve component BCTs, support brigades, and division and corps-level
    operational command posts--is well under way. This conversion is
    transforming the Army into a more lethal, flexible, deployable, and
    sustainable force. It is enabling us to shift the center of gravity of
    our capabilities (previously focused primarily on traditional
    challenges) to better address the full spectrum of traditional,
    irregular, disruptive, and catastrophic challenges.
        The 21st century necessitates a highly versatile Army that can
    handle a diverse array of operations and missions. The combination of
    transformation, to build a modular Army, and continuous modernization,
    to field future combat systems (FCS) new aviation systems, and other
    advanced technologies and systems, is methodically producing the future
    force.
        FCS is a system of interconnected weapons, communications, and
    intelligence systems (which include sensors, manned and unmanned ground
    and aerial vehicles, as well as improved linkages to national and
    theater level surveillance and imagery systems) that will be
    immediately responsive to soldiers and commanders. When fielded, FCS
    will provide a persistent, ubiquitous intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance capability. In addition, it will create an integrated,
    distributed network to leverage the value of intelligence and
    facilitate the rapid employment of all weapons system available.
        FCS is the Army's first major step toward modernization in several
    decades and is our most critical investment. FCS, and Army
    modernization as a whole, is incorporating lessons learned from current
    operations, at home and abroad.
        The capabilities provided by FCS will directly benefit all U.S.
    ground forces, including the Marine Corps and the Special Operations
    Forces from all Services. These capabilities will fundamentally alter
    how we deploy, employ, and sustain our ground forces. They will greatly
    improve our ability to put ``boots on the ground,'' to stabilize
    contested zones, and to support joint, an interagency and multinational
    teams.

        FCS capabilities are providing soldiers with significant tactical
    and operational advantages which are dramatically improving our ability
    to address the dilemma of irregular warfare and to conduct operations
    to prevent and to counter insurgencies.
        FCS provides enhanced awareness of friendly and enemy situations
    and improves the ability to operate across larger areas with fewer
    soldiers. FCS enables the ability to defeat weaponry which includes
    improvised explosive devices, anti-tank weapons, and small arms.
    Because of improved understanding of battlefield conditions and better
    protection, soldiers will be able to operate from extended distances,
    remote locations, and the protection of their vehicles for longer
    periods which will result in fewer casualties. They will also benefit
    from greater precision and responsiveness of their weapons, which will
    improve their ability to operate in urban terrain and other complex
    environments.
        By ``spinning-out'' FCS and advanced technologies into our
    formations--as soon as the capabilities are ready--we are strengthening
    our current forces and working to stay ahead of enemies who are
    constantly adapting their tactics and methods. Through ``spin outs,''
    we are working to improve both our current and future capabilities.
      --The first ``spin out,'' on track for delivery in 2008, will
            introduce unattended ground sensors, non-line-of-sight launch
            systems, and the network. These capabilities will enhance
            soldiers' understanding of their situation in dynamic,
            battlefield conditions by promoting a common perspective of
            enemy and friendly locations on digital maps. This improvement
            will greatly increase the area that soldiers can influence and
            control. The network will also provide soldiers with more
            timely actionable intelligence.
      --The second and third ``spin outs,'' are on track for 2010 and 2012
            respectively. These ``spin outs'' will introduce new unmanned
            ground and air systems and to better support our soldiers.
            These technologies will enable soldiers to employ greater
            numbers of sensors to see and find their enemies first. These
            ``spin outs'' will also enable robotic reconnaissance of
            dangerous areas, mines, and booby traps. Together, they will
            increase soldier protection, effectiveness, and enhance the
            precision of their weapons.
      --The 2012 ``spin out'' includes the technologies required to
            complete the fielding of the network. This improvement will
            reinforce the comprehensive efforts now under way to improve
            the accuracy and responsiveness of the joint weapons systems
            designed to support soldiers, while providing unparalleled
            connectivity and situational awareness.
        When BCTs are fielded with the full complement of FCS systems,
    these units will contain more fighting vehicles and more infantry
    squads than the units we field today. By leveraging technologies, and
    the power of the network, the number of soldiers in an FCS BCT will be
    significantly fewer than current formations, decreasing in size from
    about 3,850 today to 3,200 in the future. These BCTs will have double
    the amount of critical infantry soldiers, enabling these formations to
    operate far more effectively in irregular environments. Soldiers and
    commanders will enjoy far greater ability to see and to act first--
    ahead of their adversaries--while dealing with the full spectrum of
    challenges they will face.
        FCS will produce numerous advantages in tactical and operational
    capability. It will:
      --Enable more efficient use of fuel and supplies, and reduce other
            logistical requirements;
      --reduce costs associated with both manpower and procurement; and
      --improve the ability of modular brigades to operate as self-
            sufficient, independent formations over increasingly larger
            areas in far more complex environments.
        Eventually, as key technologies are fielded across the force,
    battalions will be capable of similar levels of self-sufficiency--
    dramatically increasing the capability and effectiveness of U.S. ground
    and special operations forces at lower levels than today.
        Despite the benefits FCS will provide, budget cuts and overall
    reductions to the scope of this initiative will delay the development
    and delivery of this much needed capability to our soldiers and the
    Nation.
        The future force comprises more than just FCS-enabled, modular
    BCTs. It includes all of the improvements in strategic agility found in
    the formations above the BCT and efficiencies that will result from
    implementing base realignment and closure and global defense posture
    realignment decisions. These decisions will enable the repositioning of
    forces to better respond to emerging strategic challenges. We will also
    be able to execute much of our enduring overseas presence mission with
    units that deploy from the United States for overseas duty, during
    rotational windows scheduled and managed as part of the ARFORGEN model.
        For both rotational duties and for contingencies, our units will
    rely on strategic mobility provided by airlift, sealift, and
    prepositioned equipment. To increase both strategic agility and
    efficiency, we began modernizing our prepositioned equipment sets to
    the extent that resources allowed. However, current operational demands
    require us to use prepositioned stocks to provide forces today.
        We lack sufficient funding to realign our prepositioned equipment
    sets to support the global footprint we need to achieve. Future agility
    and responsiveness will depend on establishing the right balance among
    forward stationed forces, prepositioned equipment, and strategic
    mobility. In addition, our need to rapidly move forces and equipment
    from home station and between theaters of operation will become an
    increasingly important determinant of our ability to execute the
    National Defense Strategy.
        Another key aspect of our plan for our future force is
    standardization. We are reducing the number of variants of our heavy
    combat vehicle fleet. This initiative will promote standardization,
    decrease the number of systems that we must train active and reserve
    soldiers to operate, and reduce maintenance costs.
        Our commitment to being a learning, adaptive organization is
    evident in our efforts to apply lessons learned from our operations
    both at home and abroad.
        We are working to develop a future force that is better able to
    fight as part of joint and coalition formations--in either protracted
    campaigns or in expeditionary operations and to serve the Nation--by
    examining how to best accomplish traditional and nontraditional
    missions such as:
      --Sustaining the force is paramount to the Army's success in
            defeating our adversaries. It enables modular Army logistics
            units to better anticipate requirements and provide rapid,
            precise capability to Army, joint, and multinational partners.
            We are creating 360 degree visibility of all the assets and
            resources, both deployed and in-transit, and improving theater
            wide distribution systems needed to support military
            operations.
      --Actionable intelligence is providing soldiers and leaders with
            expanded situational understanding by distributing intelligence
            with more speed and accuracy, ultimately leading to successful
            operations.
      --Improve capabilities for stability operations is developing and
            improving our capability and capacity to conduct stability,
            security, transition, and reconstruction operations within
            joint and coalition operations and to support other U.S.
            Government agencies while continuing to conduct combat
            operations.
      --Improve contributions to homeland defense is focusing on balancing
            capabilities in the active and reserve components to ensure the
            right capabilities are available to address expanded homeland
            defense requirements and broaden the options available to civil
            authorities.
      --Increase Army capabilities to dominate in complex environments is
            focusing on improving the Army's ability to operate in complex
            human, informational, and physical environments by increasing
            soldiers' and organizations' cultural awareness, regional
            familiarity, and language skills.
        The combination of transformation and modernization, reinforced by
    our commitment to learn and adapt to traditional and nontraditional
    missions of this type, and continued improvements in training soldiers,
    developing leaders, and improving facilities is producing relevant and
    ready landpower for the 21st century.
        The following initiatives (found at Addendum G) reinforce our
    efforts to provide relevant and ready landpower:
      --Develop operational capabilities in LandWarNet.
      --Execute major acquisition programs.
      --Restructure Army aviation.
      --Enhance joint interdependence.
      --Stabilize soldiers and units to enhance cohesion and
            predictability.
      --Leverage science and technology.

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

                                Compelling Needs
        Full, timely, and predictable funding of the Army's fiscal year
    2008 President's Budget request and supplemental appropriations are
    required to build readiness needed to execute the National Defense
    Strategy and to pay for the costs of war.
        Resource the Army's requirements for resetting the force. Full
    funding is needed to restore units--a process with both materiel and
    human dimensions--to required levels of readiness to execute projected
    operational deployments, while remaining prepared for likely future
    contingencies and homeland defense missions.
        Support the Army's efforts to grow our operational forces, and
    restructure our operating and generating forces in our active and
    reserve components, to meet global commitments now and in the future.
        Fully fund continuous modernization of the current force through
    future combat systems and key supporting programs including: increasing
    soldier protection, sustaining development of advanced technologies,
    transforming LandWarNet, transitioning Joint Network Node to Warrior
    Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T), and rebalancing active and
    reserve component units and skills.
        Accelerate momentum established in transforming the force through
    modular conversions scheduled in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, and
    support plans to grow our operating force, to meet current and future
    requirements:
      --Continue or complete conversion of 17 brigade combat teams (1 AC,
            16 ARNG).
      --Continue or complete conversion of 27 multi-functional or
            functional support brigades (12 AC, 8 ARNG, 7 USAR).
      --Begin conversion of 16 brigade combat teams (4 AC, 12 ARNG) and 2
            ARNG Headquarters.

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

      addendum b.--train and equip soldiers to serve as warriors and grow
                                adaptive leaders
        We are better preparing our soldiers for the rigors of war and
    developing our leaders to serve as multi-skilled pentathletes able to
    thrive amidst complexity and uncertainty. Recognizing that intellectual
    change precedes physical change, we are:
      --Producing soldiers armed with the mindset, values, and combat
            skills to serve as competent, resilient warriors.
      --Reinforcing a commitment to our Warrior Ethos among all of our
            soldiers and Army civilians.
      --Enhancing education and training programs throughout the Army: at
            home stations, at our combat training centers, within our
            schools, by leveraging distance learning methods--and by
            increasing opportunities for graduate level education.
      --Growing innovative, adaptive leaders through training and education
            programs that quickly apply lessons learned during combat,
            stability operations, reconstruction, and in providing support
            to civil authorities.
      --Enhancing our capabilities by providing the best possible training,
            weapons, sensors, protection, and equipment to our soldiers.
      --Expanding our emphasis on language training and enhancing cultural
            awareness in our military education programs.
      --Improving our soldiers' abilities to operate in complex
            environments overseas and with other governments and militaries
            to strengthen the capacity of partner nations.

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

                                Accomplishments
    Since 9/11
        Continued to adapt combat training centers to replicate current
    cultural and language environments, emphasizing urban operations, live-
    fire convoy training, defeating improvised explosive devices, and
    working with joint and allied forces.
        Continued to enhance soldier protection by fielding flame resistant
    uniforms and improving individual body armor. Today, every soldier
    serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is issued improved body armor.
        Continued to meet Combatant Commanders' requirements for tactical
    vehicle armor, delivering over 14,000 up-armored HMMWVs to key theaters
    of operation.
        Equipped over 800,000 soldiers with mission enhancing equipment
    through the rapid fielding initiative.
    2006
        Distributed and pre-positioned over 7,000 items of equipment to
    better posture the Army National Guard to respond to hurricanes and
    other missions.
        Applied combat lessons to continue improvements in training on
    essential warrior tasks and drills provided for all soldiers, in all
    specialties, during initial military training.
        Improved quantity and quality of language training. Soldiers and
    Army civilians can now study 30 languages available via the internet
    including Arabic, Chinese, and Tagalog. To date, more than 66,000
    personnel have completed over 85,000 units of instruction.
        Reduced combat vehicle fatalities by 71 percent from the previous
    year by using a composite risk management process in all plans and
    operations.
        Conducted over 1,700 different resident, non-resident, and distance
    learning training courses in fiscal year 2006 for soldiers and
    civilians across all Army components, other services, and many partner
    nations.
        Expanded our institutional training instruction--from training
    provided to soldiers entering the Army to the education provided to our
    most senior officers--to increase development opportunities for
    soldiers, military and civilian leaders, and students from partner
    nations.
        Added cultural awareness training to all professional military
    education courses, providing training for over 260,000 soldiers and
    leaders.
        Deployed a new joint precision airdrop system to reduce numbers of
    cargo trucks on the road and limit soldier exposure to enemy fire.

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

    Reinforce Our Centerpiece: Soldiers as Warriors
        Soldiers are the Army. This idea is foremost in our thinking. It is
    the soldier--well trained, equipped, and led--who serves as the
    ultimate expression of the capabilities the Army provides to the Joint
    Force and the Nation. For this reason, soldiers are the centerpiece of
    our formations. Their ``boots on the ground'' provide capabilities that
    no technology could ever replace.
        Our soldiers operate in the human dimension--interacting with the
    populace, facing their enemies in close combat, while preserving the
    lives of innocent civilians around them. We reinforce these warriors by
    preparing them with the mindset, training, and equipment they need to
    accomplish their mission in an increasingly uncertain, unpredictable
    security environment.
        The warrior ethos, a set of principles we live by, is imbued and
    reinforced through adherence to Army values, and exemplary standards of
    conduct and discipline. Our warrior ethos serves as the bedrock to
    prepare soldiers and leaders to face danger and uncertainty, think
    critically, and solve the complex problems they face on today's
    battlefield. These values are reflected in three sets of guideposts for
    key groups within our Army: the soldier's creed, the Noncommissioned
    Officer's creed, and the civilian corps creed. To reinforce our
    commitment to values, we work aggressively, in our units and across the
    training base, to build pride in the Army's traditions and our record
    of service to the Nation.
        Our soldiers believe in their mission. They are making enormous
    sacrifices so that others may live in peace and freedom. Their
    continued honorable, selfless service against ruthless, adaptive
    enemies is a testament to our values-based Army. Our Nation must remain
    equally committed to them by providing the capabilities and support
    they need to succeed in their mission.
    Train Soldiers
        To accomplish our mission, we are preparing our soldiers from all
    components to conduct the full spectrum of operations as part of joint,
    interagency, and coalition teams. This spectrum ranges from engaging
    with friends, allies, and partners to strengthen their capacity to
    conducting major combat operations.
        We are transforming how we train and educate our soldiers to better
    prepare them to deal with the challenges they will face today and
    tomorrow. We take a ``lifelong approach'' to enhancing knowledge and
    skills. We begin upon entry into service and furnish opportunities for
    professional growth and learning throughout their careers.
        To better prepare soldiers for combat, we have enhanced the rigor
    and relevance of training for newly enlisted soldiers and recently
    commissioned officers. Today, every soldier and officer, regardless of
    specialty, becomes a warrior first. A grouping of carefully selected
    warrior tasks and battle drills, developed from lessons learned on the
    battlefield, builds proficiency and confidence to function in today's
    operational environment. We conduct a biannual review of these tasks
    and drills to ensure continued relevance.

        Through a program we call Operation Warrior Trainer, we are using
    the recent combat experiences of junior leaders from the Army National
    Guard and the Army Reserve to better prepare leaders for the challenges
    they will encounter. This program relies upon officers and
    noncommissioned officers who volunteer to serve in our training support
    brigades. They teach, coach, and mentor their fellow soldiers in the
    tactics, techniques, and procedures that were successful during their
    recent combat tours.
        We are increasing our investment in our soldiers to develop foreign
    language capability and to increase their appreciation, understanding,
    and respect for other cultures. These two areas establish the
    foundation for improving our soldiers' abilities to operate in complex
    environments overseas and to work closely with other governments and
    militaries to strengthen the capacity of partner nations.
        Our operations in recent years have underscored the important role
    that language proficiency plays in the execution of successful
    operations. It accelerates the process of building rapport with the
    local populace, partner nations, and other organizations. In addition
    to language training in our schoolhouses, we also provide training on
    30 languages to all soldiers and Army civilians through modern distance
    learning methods. Language proficiency, coupled with focused
    instruction, is helping to improve cultural awareness and enhance
    leader development. In addition, we are expanding opportunities for
    graduate level studies in all aspects of foreign cultures, which has
    the additional benefit of helping to retain our junior officers.
        In addition to these enhancements in training soldiers and leaders,
    we are improving how we develop the readiness of our units. Our
    combined arms training strategy is designed to provide trained and
    ready forces to meet the Combatant Commanders' operational
    requirements. This strategy features specific activities throughout
    what we refer to as multiple training domains: institutional, unit, and
    self-development. The cycles of Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN)--reset
    and train, ready, and available--allow commanders to optimize available
    training time in each of these domains, in a progressive manner, from
    individual training and education to more complex tasks in which whole
    units are involved. We carefully manage the flow of equipment
    throughout the cycles of ARFORGEN to ensure units have the tools they
    need to conduct demanding, realistic unit training. Applying the latest
    technology to use simulated training experiences and other tools is
    helping us to remain ahead of our adversaries and to quickly adapt our
    doctrine and training methods to prepare for a complex, dynamic
    environment.
        We are also expanding our distributed learning program to enhance
    opportunities to develop our soldiers and Army civilians. On an average
    day over 22,000 soldiers participate in one or more of the over 2,600
    available online courses, including foreign language and cultural
    awareness training, to improve job proficiency and to work toward
    civilian degrees. Army knowledge online, the largest and most mature of
    all Department of Defense (DOD) portals, is the model for development
    of defense knowledge online (DKO). Defense knowledge online will be
    established as the DOD portal for personnel from all services, and will
    be the interface for providing DOD users with the services needed to
    accomplish their mission.
    Enhance the Combat Training Centers
        To better prepare our forces for the rigors of an increasingly
    uncertain, complex, and dangerous environment, we are continuing to
    enhance our combat training center program. We maintain three combat
    training centers (CTC) which support large scale training operations. A
    fourth center supports the execution of the battle command training
    program, which facilitates training through advanced simulation based
    exercises. We are adapting the settings, conditions, and scenarios used
    at all of our centers based on operational experience. To better
    prepare our soldiers, leaders, and units, our goal is to accurately
    reproduce the complex environments--terrain, culture, language, and
    information--in which they will operate.

        At the CTCs, our brigade combat teams and other units conduct pre-
    deployment training on their core mission skills. As units practice
    their missions at the CTCs, they will encounter nongovernmental
    organizations, media, coalition forces, hundreds of civilians,
    interagency organizations and often, special operations forces. This
    training is crucial to developing readiness for combat. It enables our
    units to hone their skills and to develop into effective, cohesive
    teams before they deploy to our theaters of operation.
        As we transform to a larger, more capable operational force, we
    require additional training capacity. In addition, our training centers
    are exceeding their capacity because of sustained high levels of
    strategic demand for Army forces. To meet the increasing need for
    world-class training to certify our units before they deploy, we are
    developing an exportable training capability. This capability is
    providing an experience that is close to what is provided at our actual
    centers at units' home stations. This initiative provides greater
    flexibility to meet the schedules established by the Combatant
    Commanders. It can also serve to reduce the time that our soldiers are
    away from their home stations.
        Our battle command training program provides realistic, stressful
    training, and leader development for corps, division, and brigade
    commanders and their staffs. We use the latest simulation technology
    and developments in operational scenarios to create the challenging,
    dynamic conditions these headquarters will encounter when deployed.
    This program prepares them to serve as joint and coalition task force
    operational headquarters in combat.
        The rigor and relevance of our CTC program is enhancing our
    capabilities across the full spectrum of operations. By improving pre-
    deployment preparation, it is also reducing risk to our soldiers.
    Grow Adaptive Leaders
        Today's security environment requires more of Army leaders at all
    levels. The evolving transition team mission that our officers and
    noncommissioned officers are performing--to train foreign nation's
    security forces--is but one example of the challenges our leaders are
    dealing with. As we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Europe,
    across the Americas, in peace enforcement operations around the world,
    and while providing civil support, the actions of individual soldiers
    and leaders are vital to success and can have strategic consequences.

        To better prepare our leaders to develop creative solutions to the
    complex, ambiguous problems they will face, we formed a special task
    force to review education, training and assignments for leaders. We
    drew upon the ideas and experiences of the finest leaders inside and
    outside of the Army.
        The results of this task force's work are now being incorporated
    into Army leaders for the 21st century (AL21)--a comprehensive
    initiative designed to build leaders akin to pentathletes, skilled in
    many disciplines and able to rapidly transition between complex tasks
    with relative ease.
        We are evolving our training and education programs for our
    officers, noncommissioned officers, and civilians to grow military and
    civilian pentathletes. We are teaching our leaders critical thinking
    skills--emphasizing how to think, not what to think. Our focus is to
    develop highly adaptive leaders who have the intellectual agility
    needed to thrive in adverse, dynamic situations.
        For our newly commissioned officers we implemented the Basic
    Officer Leader Course (BOLC). Consistent with our warrior first
    approach, this tough, standardized, small-unit leadership experience
    ensures that all junior officers, in all of our branches, master the
    skills they will need to lead in combat. Our warrant officer and
    noncommissioned officer programs are experiencing similar improvements
    in the rigor and relevance of training and education.
        Guided by AL21, we are also overhauling our civilian education
    system. We are creating a progressive, sequential program to enhance
    leader development and provide structured education opportunities for
    our Army civilians throughout their careers. Our goal, is to create
    Army civilians who, as pentathletes, exemplify the civilian corps creed
    in dealing with the full range of challenges they will face in
    providing our soldiers with the resources, quality of life,
    infrastructure, and other support they will need to accomplish the
    Army's mission.
    Equip Our Soldiers
        Providing our soldiers with the best possible equipment is our
    highest priority. The changed conditions of warfare necessitate that we
    can no longer accept risk in how we equip all of our soldiers. Since
    there are no front lines in today's battlefields, we must now equip all
    of our units with night vision goggles, crew served weapons,
    communications equipment, and other critical items they need to
    survive. We must also provide them with every means available to
    protect them and to minimize the risks to which they are exposed.
        One of the many programs we have designed to increase individual
    soldier capabilities is the rapid fielding initiative.
        This initiative accelerates the fielding of commercial, off-the-
    shelf technologies to quickly deliver state-of-the-art equipment to our
    soldiers to enhance their performance. The rapid fielding initiative
    provides a specific set of equipment to every one of our deploying
    soldiers. We provide additional items of equipment to our soldiers
    assigned to brigade combat teams. Since its inception, this initiative
    has equipped nearly 800,000 soldiers.
        Recent experiences in operational theaters help us to determine the
    items we furnish to our soldiers. Key examples of rapid fielding
    initiative successes include: the advanced combat helmet, which
    enhances protection, comfort, and permits better hearing; and the
    improved first aid kit, which improves the ability to treat bleeding
    from wounds and remove airway obstructions. We plan to complete
    fielding these items to all operational forces by October 2007.
        Another key program, in which we restore battle losses and repair
    worn equipment, is our reset program. During ``reset,'' we restore
    soldier and unit capability by repairing or replacing key items of
    their equipment, or issuing whole new types of equipment to them. We
    also provide training on new equipment that our soldiers are issued.
        Like other aspects of support for an Army at war, our soldiers'
    effectiveness and protection depends upon a sustained national
    commitment to train and equip them properly. Since 2003, we have issued
    over 900,000 sets of improved body armor. We have delivered more than
    14,000 up-armored HMMWVs to our theaters of operation. In addition, we
    have deployed manned and unmanned systems to detect and to defeat
    improvised explosive devices (IEDs). We have also fielded new systems
    such as the armored security vehicle and the Buffalo Armored
    Reconnaissance Vehicle to better protect our convoy formations.
        The IED is the deadliest terrorist method being used against our
    soldiers. We are investing unprecedented resources to counter this
    threat. The Army Asymmetric Warfare Office is our focal point to
    integrate a diverse range of asymmetric warfare initiatives. These
    initiatives include countering IEDs and to provide specific training.
    This office also serves as our link to Defense Department initiatives
    in this area.
        Our rapid equipping force is another means we are using to better
    protect our soldiers. This force works in partnership with industry,
    academic, and military leaders to quickly support unit equipping needs.
    It furnishes commanders with readily employable solutions to enhance
    lethality and survivability, using both off-the-shelf and new
    technologies. The rapid equipping force is enabling us to remain ahead
    of adaptive enemies and save soldiers' lives. Examples of rapid
    equipping force successes include the deployment of language
    translators, vehicle scanning systems, and robots able to inspect
    possible IEDs.
        The following initiatives (Addendum G) reinforce our efforts to
    train and equip soldiers to serve as warriors and grow adaptive
    leaders:
      --Army initiatives to improve in irregular warfare capabilities;
      --expand cultural awareness and foreign language capabilities; and
      --support the joint national training capability.

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

                                Compelling Needs
        Full funding for Army operations and maintenance accounts to ensure
    readiness--of fully manned, trained, and equipped units--able to
    execute the full spectrum of operations.
        Full funding of equipment modernization programs to accelerate the
    delivery of advanced technologies to our soldiers to increase their
    combat effectiveness and protection.
        Continued support to reset unit equipment, needed to train soldiers
    and to develop readiness to meet current and future challenges and
    defend the homeland.
        Support to implement Army leader for the 21st century policies,
    programs, and initiatives designed to build pentathletes.
        Full funding of infrastructure improvements--new construction and
    upgrade of existing training facilities and ranges--to support our
    Combat Training Center Program and at our installations.
        Full funding to expand our capacity to train Soldiers and grow
    adaptive leaders at our Combat Training Centers, at home stations, and
    across our institutional training base to accommodate the expansion of
    the Army.
        Full funding to support the continued expansion of our language and
    cultural awareness programs in our schoolhouses and in our unit based
    activities.

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

        addendum c.--sustain an all-volunteer force composed of highly
      competent soldiers that are provided an equally high quality of life
        Our continuing success in accomplishing the Army mission is
    directly attributed to the talented men and women of our Army who
    provide ``boots on the ground'' around the world. We are sustaining the
    all-volunteer force by:
      --Honoring our commitment to care for these versatile young Americans
            and their families.
      --Enhancing numerous programs for housing, education, health care,
            and other areas to improve how we support our soldiers and
            their families.
      --Promoting a greater sense of belonging to units and communities to
            build readiness and cohesion while reducing uncertainty.
      --Executing a full range of initiatives to recruit and retain
            soldiers with the right aptitudes and attitudes.
      --Working to match the quality of life that our soldiers enjoy to the
            quality of service they provide to the Nation.
    Recruit and Retain the All-Volunteer Force
        Sustaining the all-volunteer force as an enduring institution is a
    fundamental strategic objective for the Army. It serves as a vital
    investment in the future security of our Nation.
        We enjoyed great success in manning the Army during 2006. More than
    184,000 qualified men and women answered the call to duty by choosing
    to serve. We exceeded our 80,000 total accession goal for the active
    component by 635 soldiers--the most we have accessed since 1997. Our
    Army National Guard met 98.6 percent of its total annual goal (69,042
    of 70,000)--achieving its highest number of accessions since 1993. Our
    Army Reserve finished the year at 95.4 percent of its total annual goal
    (34,379 of 36,032).
        The success we enjoyed during 2006 is significant in light of
    changing public attitudes toward the war and an improving economy and
    job market. Less than one-third of our primary recruiting market (17 to
    24 year old males) is fully qualified to serve in the Army (see figure
    C-1). We compete with the other Services for this relatively small pool
    of eligible candidates. Our challenge is perhaps the most difficult in
    the Armed Forces because we are the largest, most manpower-intensive
    Service. We recruit more new enlistees each year than all of the other
    Services combined.

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

                                Accomplishments
    Since 9/11
        Exceeded combined active and reserve retention goal each year.
        Built over 26,500 barracks spaces and modernized over 12,200
    existing spaces through our Barracks Modernization Program.
        Dramatically improved family housing by privatizing 73,000 sets of
    quarters at 34 different installations through the Residential
    Communities Initiative.
        Consistently improved care for injured and severely wounded
    soldiers upon their return from theater.
        Established a comprehensive well-being framework to integrate,
    resource, and measure quality-of-life programs for soldiers and
    families.
        Provided rest and recuperation opportunities for more than 400,000
    deployed soldiers and Army civilians.
    2006
        Exceeded retention objectives in all three components.
        Achieved Active Component recruiting objective of 80,000 soldiers--
    most soldiers recruited since 1997.
        Improved support to families by improving family support programs
    at installations.
        Increased command support for family readiness groups at all levels
    of organization.
        Expanded virtual family readiness groups to improve support for
    families in remote locations.
        Expanded community-based child and youth services programs for
    child care, youth outreach, and school transition to support more than
    200,000 Army children and youths.
        Expanded the Residential Communities Initiative to include
    construction of 392 apartments to house bachelors and unaccompanied
    soldiers.

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

        With the support of the Congress and the Department of Defense, we
    accomplished our objective in 2006. We attribute our success to
    improved advertising, an expanded recruiter base, and enlistment
    incentives program enhancements. New programs, such as the Army
    Referral Bonus and the Recruiter Incentive Pay Program, along with
    several recruitment policy changes and improved processes, also
    contributed to these successes. We will require continued resources and
    support in the coming year to attract and access the best possible
    soldiers to man our formations.

        In October, we announced a new Army recruitment advertising
    campaign: Army Strong. This campaign highlights the physical, mental,
    and emotional strength of soldiers. It draws from past successes the
    Army has achieved and underscores the strength and pride our soldiers
    demonstrate daily while serving the Nation, at home and abroad. We are
    optimistic that this campaign, reinforced by the support of the
    Congress and the American people, will enable our 2006 recruiting
    successes to continue during 2007.
        The Army continues to retain soldiers at tremendously high levels.
    While fighting the war on terror, we have surpassed our combined Army-
    wide retention goals, each year, since 2002. In 2006, we exceeded our
    retention goals in the active component by 5 percent, in the Army
    National Guard by 18 percent, and in the Army Reserve by 3 percent.
        Our soldiers value the Army's tradition of service to the Nation.
    They appreciate the opportunity to contribute to national security in a
    meaningful way. We continue to reenlist two out of every three eligible
    soldiers who reach the end of their term of service. We are
    particularly proud that one out of every two first-term soldiers
    decides to reenlist. We believe that our success in retention results
    from the high quality of leadership that our soldiers experience in
    their units.
        The continued support of spouses, parents, and veterans, along with
    the employers of our reserve component soldiers, plays a huge role in
    recruiting and retaining our all-volunteer force. Their support
    directly affects the pride and morale of each of our soldiers. We have
    recognized over 800,000 of these key influencers through the Freedom
    Team Salute Program.
    Care for Soldiers, Civilians, and Army Families
        Caring for Army families plays a vital role in sustaining the
    commitment of our soldiers and Army civilians. Our leaders concentrate
    on this critical aspect of their duties. We apply resources carefully
    to maintain and to improve the programs that are of the greatest
    concern to our family members. We constantly work to assure our
    soldiers, their families, and our civilian employees that they will be
    well taken care of and that their needs will be met.
        Army well-being programs provide leaders a variety of ways to care
    for our people. We have integrated numerous Army-wide quality of life
    functions into a comprehensive well-being framework to better enable us
    to focus resources, measure success, and address the needs of an Army
    at war. Our expanding morale, welfare, and recreation programs are a
    key part of this framework. These programs help to reduce the stress of
    daily challenges and enhance mental and physical fitness for our
    soldiers, their families, and our Army civilians.
        Family readiness groups, to include virtual family readiness
    groups, continue to be the centerpiece of our efforts to care for
    families before, during, and after soldier deployments. Our new Family
    Readiness Deployment Assistant Program, which provides administrative
    and logistical support to family readiness group leaders and rear
    detachment commanders, has been a great success. In 2006, The Army
    Chaplaincy's Strong Bonds Program reached more than 40,000 active and
    reserve soldiers. This program is designed to help our soldiers to
    maintain healthy family relationships.
        Other programs and initiatives designed to reduce the stress of war
    for our soldiers, families, and Army civilians include:
      --U.S. Central Command Rest and Recuperation Program.
      --Deployment Cycle Support Program.
      --Military One Source.
      --Multi-Component Family Network.
      --Child and Youth Services School Transition Services.
      --Spouse Employment Partnership.
      --Family First Household Goods Shipping Initiative.
        Health care is another critical aspect of caring for our soldiers
    and their families. The Army provides world-class health care for over
    3.5 million beneficiaries, on the battlefield, and at hospitals and
    clinics worldwide. To fulfill our obligation to care for soldiers and
    families, we continually look for ways to improve health and well-
    being. The U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program exemplifies our commitment
    to honor the soldier's creed by ``never leaving a fallen comrade.''
    This program provides continuous, comprehensive transition and support
    services for our severely wounded soldiers. These services continue,
    even if a soldier is medically retired, to help our wounded warriors
    receive the support they have earned through their service to the
    Nation.
    Improve Soldier and Family Housing
        Our commitment to providing quality housing for our soldiers is
    reflected in the progress we are making in our Barracks Modernization
    Program and in our Residential Communities Initiative. We have been
    working aggressively, over many years, to improve the quality of the
    barracks which house our soldiers. By the end of 2006, we had funded 85
    percent of our goal for Army-wide modernization. We expect to complete
    the funding of this vital initiative by the end of 2011. In addition,
    we are planning for 36 percent of our barracks for new soldiers
    entering the force to be modernized by 2013. We are continuing to
    modernize the barracks used by our Army National Guard and Army Reserve
    soldiers during their annual training.
        Through the Residential Communities Initiative, we are providing
    better family housing for our soldiers by employing an innovative
    privatization process. This program leverages private investment
    capital to improve housing at much faster rates than traditional
    methods of financing and contracting for military construction. When
    completed in 2010, over 98 percent of Army housing in the United States
    will have been privatized--over 86,000 units at 45 installations. We
    have also constructed more than 7,600 family homes and renovated over
    8,000 existing homes using traditional military construction.
        Improving housing is one of the most effective ways to provide our
    soldiers and families with a quality of life that recognizes their
    service to the Nation. Our programs in this area have a positive,
    enduring effect on morale, enable our soldiers to provide for their
    families, and contribute immeasurably to our ability to sustain our
    all-volunteer force.
        The following initiatives (found in Addendum G) reinforce our
    efforts to sustain an all-volunteer force:
      --Provide competitive compensation;
      --develop resilient Army families; and
      --provide a system that promotes continuous personal and professional
            learning development.

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

                                Compelling Needs
        Support and full funding for critical recruiting and retention
    goals that enable the Army's effort to grow the Army by:
        --Achieving accession and retention goals across all components of
                the Army by providing incentives, recruiters, advertising,
                and other support.
        --Continuing support of Army initiatives to provide greater
                predictability and stability for soldiers and their
                families in both our active and reserve components.
      --Support and full funding for quality-of-life programs that sustain
            the propensity to serve demonstrated by our soldiers, their
            families, and our civilian employees and ensure a quality of
            life that matches the quality of their service to the Nation
            by:
        --Supporting housing initiatives to provide quality housing for
                soldiers and families at installations impacted by current
                operations, base realignment and closure, and the global
                defense posture realignment.
        --Supporting initiatives to improve medical care in both active and
                reserve components that attest to the Nation's concern for
                soldier well-being.
        --Supporting construction of child development centers, youth
                centers, fitness centers, recreational facilities, and
                chapels.

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

    addendum d.--provide infrastructure and support to enable the force to
                    fulfill its strategic roles and missions
        To better enable the force to fulfill its strategic roles and
    missions, we are:
      --Adjusting our global footprint to be better positioned for the
            challenges of the 21st century and the long war on terror.
      --Transforming our installations, depots, and arsenals--and the
            information network that connects them--to become more
            efficient and better able to support the Army's mission, at
            home and abroad.
      --Challenging the way we conduct the business of the Army--constantly
            finding ways to improve, to increase productivity, and to
            maximize the use of every dollar.
      --Transforming the Army's structure, systems, processes, and
            logistics automation to enable soldiers to sustain the full
            range of our global commitments.
    Adjust Global Footprint to Create ``Flagships of Readiness''
        We are repositioning all of our bases and facilities in one of the
    most sweeping structural and basing changes in our history. Our plan
    directs, by 2013, the movement and consolidation of major elements of
    our operating and generating forces through over 1,800 individual
    moves. We are working now to establish the environmental foundation and
    to initiate the renovation and construction required to reposition many
    of our schoolhouses, headquarters, and major supporting activities.
        We are committed to creating ``Flagships of Readiness,'' a concept
    that is an imperative for our Amy and the Nation. To be ready to
    execute the National Defense Strategy, in wartime, we are working to
    dramatically improve our capacity to train soldiers and leaders and to
    generate combat power in time of war.

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

                                Accomplishments
    Since 9/11
        Created the Installation Management Agency to unify the business
    structure of Army installations and to create uniformly high standards
    of quality for soldiers and their families.
        Developed a strategic stationing plan that synchronizes base
    realignment and closure, global defense posture realignment, Army
    modular force initiative, and the demands and realities of the global
    war on terror.
        Optimized Power Projection Platforms.--Enabling wartime
    mobilization and facilitating over 700,000 soldier deployments for the
    war on terror.
    2006
        Developed facilities support strategy to meet the target dates
    established by base realignment and closure law, global defense posture
    realignment, and to build the Army modular forces which requires the
    execution of approximately $38 billion in military construction and
    related projects between 2007 and 2013.
        Implemented Lean Six Sigma methodology within all Army commands,
    direct reporting units, Army Service Components of Joint Commands, and
    across Headquarters, Department of the Army.
        Received four Shingo Prizes for the Public Sector for improving
    business practices at key Army Materiel Command depots.
        Activated the Army Sustainment Command to serve as our national
    logistics integrator.

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

        Our plan is guiding the overall transformation of our support
    infrastructure to better enable our ability to:
      --Furnish tough and realistic training;
      --prepare and deploy forces;
      --provide standards for quality of life that our soldiers and
            families deserve;
      --establish modern working conditions for our Army civilians; and
      --establish the infrastructure needed to support and sustain the all-
            volunteer force.
        Our plan integrates base realignment and closure decisions, global
    defense posture realignment, and the actions required to build a
    modular Army--which will allow us to divest Cold War era bases and
    facilities to create the global infrastructure required for a new era.
    This plan depends on careful synchronization of our stationing,
    construction, and deployment schedules to support the war on terror and
    other missions. If done efficiently, this consolidation will yield
    tremendous savings over time--while posturing our forces, logistics
    activities, and power projection platforms to respond to the demands of
    the Nation as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

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

                         Major Stationing Moves in 2007
        1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division moves from Germany to Fort Bliss.
        2nd BCT, 4th Infantry Division moves to Fort Carson.
        17th Fires Brigade moves from Fort Sill to Fort Lewis.
        5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team 7)
    activates at Fort Lewis.
        Support Brigade (Maneuver Enhancement) activates at Fort Polk.
        3d COSCOM moves to CONUS and will reflag as the 3d Expeditionary
    Sustainment Command.

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

        In support of our plan, we have received significant support from
    the President, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress; however, we
    require significant resources to improve training, housing, and
    deployment facilities on our installations and infrastructure. We are
    continuing to assess the impact of budgetary challenges on the timing
    of our comprehensive global restationing plan. We started fiscal year
    2007 under a continuing resolution for the Military Construction,
    Quality of Life, and Veterans Affairs (VA) Bill. This measure kept
    dollars flowing, yet greatly affected the timing of our ability to
    construct vital facilities needed to house and to train our soldiers.
        We are at the forefront of an extraordinarily complex challenge,
    one that must be supported with timely funds to adhere to an intricate,
    complex schedule. Repositioning our forces worldwide impacts not only
    the lives of our soldiers and their families; but also, our overall
    ability to execute the National Defense Strategy. To execute our plan
    according to schedule, and to continue to meet strategic requirements
    for forces and capabilities, we require timely, sustained funding.
    Failure to underwrite this commitment with sustained and timely
    resources will increase risk for the Army and the Nation.
    Implement Business Transformation
        As we are changing the way we operate militarily, we are also
    changing how we do business. We are aggressively transforming our
    business methods and our workforce culture to reflect best practices in
    civilian industry. These changes will enhance the Army's ability to
    deal with the challenges we will face today and tomorrow.
        Successful business transformation is essential to our long-term
    health. It is freeing human and financial resources that we are
    directing to our core warfighting missions. In addition, by ``taking
    work out'' of our processes--reducing waste in all its forms--we are
    accelerating the rate of our transformation.
        The centerpiece of our business transformation is continuous
    improvement. Through the application of Lean Six Sigma (LSS), we are
    critically analyzing how we do business. Using this methodology, now
    increasing its appeal throughout civilian industries, we are constantly
    identifying ways to increase productivity, reduce cycle time, and
    decrease our overall resource demands.
        The initial focus of our LSS deployment has been on processes used
    within our operating and generating forces. We currently have over 500
    active projects designed to improve efficiency across the Army. We have
    already enjoyed great success from completed projects in certain areas,
    as evidenced by continued improvement in manufacturing and repair
    processes at several depots and arsenals within our Army Materiel
    Command (AMC). During the past year, four of these AMC depots received
    the coveted Shingo Prize in 2006 for their efforts to improve
    manufacturing practices. We will continue to work toward full
    implementation throughout the Army and to replicate these successes in
    all our activities.
    Develop the LandWarNet Institutional Infrastructure
        We continue to invest in information technology (IT) at our
    installations and reserve component facilities. We are working to
    establish the architecture to provide the foundation for LandWarNet,
    the Army's portion of the Global Information Grid. LandWarNet moves
    information through a seamless network to better support our combat
    forces and the infrastructure that generates and supports them. Our IT
    infrastructure will also enable operational forces to ``reach back''
    for data in the form of high definition intelligence products, voice,
    video, and data.
        Consolidating IT network services is helping to increase
    LandWarNet's efficiency and effectiveness. LandWarNet is enabling us to
    establish area processing centers to better facilitate and consolidate
    support for operations in many diverse regions. LandWarNet is reducing
    vulnerabilities, while increasing both access to and security of our
    information. Our investment in LandWarNet is helping to improve the
    Army's ability to conduct joint, interagency, and multi-national
    operations. This capability will fully leverage the potential value of
    the network to promote common understanding, move data in real-time,
    and support operations, at home and abroad.
        We are improving how we manage our network. We are applying new
    technologies and implementing sound investment guidance. We are also
    dramatically improving the quality of available data by transforming
    the processes used to analyze and distribute it. While helping to avoid
    information overload, this initiative will enable the sharing of
    knowledge needed to optimize decisionmaking. It will also facilitate
    more effective and more efficient mission planning and performance
    across the Army.
    Enhance Logistics Readiness
        While the global war on terror remains our top priority, we must
    also prepare the Army for future challenges. To be successful, we are
    transforming the Army's structure, equipment, and processes, while
    sustaining the Army's ability to fulfill the full range of its global
    commitments.
        The Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process identifies emerging
    equipment requirements and permits a complete corporate view of
    equipment readiness. Our reset program enables us to meet those
    requirements and quickly restore the capabilities of our units.
    Congress has funded this restoration process for this year and must
    continue to do so in future years. Our retrograde program enables us to
    account for and redistribute millions of dollars in excess equipment to
    meet warfighting requirements.
        We are ensuring that Logistics Transformation keeps pace with
    broader Army transformation initiatives by:
      --Providing commanders with transformed logistics organizations that
            are fully embedded in their formations to provide more
            immediate, more responsive support;
      --deploying logistics headquarters that are fully able to operate
            with other members of the Joint Team and provide unified,
            theater-wide command and control of logistics operations and
            activities; and
      --improving home station and wartime accountability by implementing
            an aggressive logistics automation governance strategy which is
            rapidly creating and fielding an automation architecture to
            better support and sustain our modular forces.
        The following initiatives (found at Addendum G) reinforce our
    efforts to provide infrastructure and support:
      --Execute base realignment and closure;
      --implement Army sustainability strategy; and
      --implement logistics automation governance strategy.

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

                                Compelling Needs
        Support to execute a carefully synchronized plan to achieve a new
    global basing posture, and grow the Army, while fulfilling the
    requirements of the National Defense Strategy. The requirements of this
    plan (for renovation, construction, environmental remediation, and
    other costs) will exceed the resources currently apportioned for base
    realignment and projected to be recouped through consolidation and
    closure (a situation that will require continuous reevaluations in
    future years).
        Support Army efforts to synchronize global defense posture
    realignment, base realignment and closure, and stationing of modular
    forces.
        Fund base operations and sustainment accounts to meet minimum
    support levels while providing a predictable spending level to Army
    installations.
        Fully fund sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts to
    slow the rate of deterioration of Army infrastructure.
        Fully fund the Installation Information Infrastructure
    Modernization Program.

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

      addendum e.--data required by national defense authorization act of
                                      1994
        Sections 517 and 521 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1994 require the information in this addendum.
    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)
        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.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Army Average
                                               AC in RC \1\         \2\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2005:
        Major...............................            93.6            97.7
        Lieutenant Colonel..................            42.1            88.7
    Fiscal year 2006:
        Major...............................            93.9            97.5
        Lieutenant Colonel..................            68.7            90.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Active component officers serving in reserve component assignments
      at time of consideration. All figures represent percentages.
    \2\ Active component officers not serving in reserve component
      assignments at the time of consideration. All figures represent
      percentages.

    Section 517(b)(2)(B)
        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).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Army Average
                                               AC in RC \1\         \2\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2005:
        Major...............................             4.1             6.2
        Lieutenant Colonel..................             2.9             6.0
    Fiscal year 2006:
        Major...............................             5.1             6.8
        Lieutenant Colonel..................             3.2             8.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

    Section 521(b)
        The number and percentage of officers with at least 2 years of
    active-duty before becoming a member of the Army National Guard or the
    U.S. Army Reserve Selected Reserve units.
      --Army National Guard (ARNG) officers: 20,284 or 55.0 percent.
      --Army Reserve officers: 7,088 or 26.6 percent.
        The number and percentage of enlisted personnel with at least 2
    years of active-duty before becoming a member of the Army National
    Guard or the U.S. Army Reserve Selected Reserve units.
      --ARNG enlisted: 114,560 or 37.0 percent.
      --Army Reserve enlisted: 29,498 or 26.6 percent.
        The numbers 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 and, of those officers:
      --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 2006, no officers were released to the Selective
                Reserve to complete their obligation.
      --The number for whom waivers were granted by the Secretary of the
            Army under section 1112(a)(2) of ANGCRRA, together with the
            reason for each waiver:
        --In fiscal year 2006, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
                the Army.
        The number of officers who were commissioned as distinguished
    Reserve Officers' Training Corps graduates and were released from
    active duty before the completion of their active-duty service
    obligation and, of those officers:
      --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 2006, no distinguished Reserve Officers' Training
                Corps (ROTC) graduates were released before completing
                their active duty service obligation.
      --The number for whom waivers were granted by the Secretary of the
            Army under section 1112(a)(2) of ANGCRRA, together with the
            reason for each waiver:
        --In fiscal year 2006, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
                the Army.
        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) 2 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 2006, five ROTC graduates were released early from
            their active duty obligation. Of this number, all five are
            completing the remainder of their obligation through service in
            the ARNG, and none through service in the Army Reserve.
        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
    Army Reserve data also reported).
      --1,960 ARNG officers from units were recommended for position
            vacancy promotion and promoted.
      --89 Army Reserve officers from units were recommended for position
            vacancy promotion. A total of 82 were favorably considered.
        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 2006, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
            the Army.
        The number and distribution by grade, shown for each State, of
    personnel in the initial entry training and non-deployability 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 Army
    Reserve is also provided.)
      --In fiscal year 2006, the number of ARNG non-deployable personnel
            was 63,839. The National Guard Bureau (NGB) maintains the
            detailed information.
      --In fiscal year 2006, the Army Reserve had 20,080 soldiers that were
            considered non-available for deployment for reasons outlined in
            Army Regulation 220-1, Unit Status Reporting (i.e., pending
            administrative/legal discharge or separation, medically non-
            available).
        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. (Army Reserve data also reported).
      --The number of ARNG soldiers discharged during the previous fiscal
            year pursuant to section 11115(c)(1) of ARNGCRRA for not
            completing the minimum training required for deployment within
            24 months after entering the ARNG is 170 officers and 12,435
            enlisted soldiers, which includes all 54 States and
            Territories. The breakdown by each State is maintained by NGB.
      --The number of Army Reserve soldiers discharged during the previous
            fiscal year for not completing the minimum training period
            required for deployment within 24 months after entering the
            Army Reserve is 173 officers and 547 enlisted soldiers. Those
            soldiers who have not completed the required initial entry
            training (IET) within the first 24 months are discharged from
            the Army Reserve under AR 135-178, Separation of Enlisted
            Personnel.
        The number of waivers, shown for each State, that were granted by
    the Secretary of the Army during the previous fiscal year under section
    1115(c)(2) of ANGCRRA of the requirement in section 1115(c)(1) of
    ANGCRRA, together with the reason for each waiver.
      --In fiscal year 2006, no waivers were granted by the Secretary of
            the Army.
        The number of Army National Guard members, shown for each State,
    (and the number of AR 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 that did not meet minimum physical profile standards for
    deployment; and (b) the number and percentage who were transferred
    pursuant to section 1116 of ANGCRRA to the personnel accounting
    category.
      --The number and percentage who did not meet minimum physical profile
            standards required for deployment:
        --In fiscal year 2006, approximately 96,603 ARNG soldiers underwent
                a physical. Of these personnel, 4,386, or 4.5 percent, did
                not meet the minimum physical profile standards required
                for deployment.
        --In fiscal year 2006, approximately 23,146 Army Reserve soldiers
                underwent a retention physical. Of these personnel 3,214 or
                13.8 percent were identified for review due to a profile-
                limiting condition or failure to meet retention standards.
      --The number and percentage that were transferred pursuant to section
            1116 of ANGCRRA to the personnel accounting category.
        --In fiscal year 2006, 12,042 ARNG persons were transferred from a
                deployable to a non-deployable status.
        --Fiscal year 2006, 2,474 Army Reserve soldiers were considered
                non-available for deployment. This is a decrease of 1,748
                from the beginning of fiscal year 2006 (21,828).
        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.
        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.
        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.
        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 118 of ANGCRRA.
      --Public Law 104-106 (NDAA 1996), Div A, title VII, section 704(b),
            February 10, 1996, repealed section 1118 of ANGCRRA.
        The estimated post-mobilization training time for each Army
    National Guard combat unit (and Army Reserve 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 Army
    Reserve units) in a post-mobilization period for purposes of section
    1119 of ANGCRRA.
      --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, Operations, Readiness and
            Mobilization Division.
      --Information on the type of training required by units during post-
            mobilization is maintained by the appropriate Army Command
            (ARCOM) or Army Service Component Command (ASCC), i.e.,
            FORSCOM, USAREUR, and USARPAC).
      --During fiscal year 2006, the ARNG began transforming enhanced
            separate brigades (ESBs) and divisional brigades to brigade
            combat teams (BCT). To reduce post-mobilization training time,
            ARNG BCTs will train in accordance with the Army force
            generation model (ARFORGEN). This 6-year model, executed prior
            to mobilization, culminates with ARNG BCTs achieving company
            level training proficiency prior to arrival at the mobilization
            station. The post-mobilization training for ARNG BCTs will then
            focus on theater specific training requirements. Additionally,
            ARNG BCTs will conduct collective training in order to attain
            brigade level training proficiency. This training focuses on
            combat tasks associated with attack, defend, and support/
            stability operations.
      --The Army Reserve no longer manages units through the force support
            package (FSP) model, but is transitioning into the ARFORGEN.
            The Army Reserve has 77 percent of their units integrated into
            the ARFORGEN model. Post mobilization training for Army Reserve
            units typically consists of common task testing, NBC defense,
            force protection, sustainment, command and control, weapons
            qualification, tactical communications training, and branch-
            specific technical training. Virtually all units require
            branch-specific technical training to meet deployment
            standards. Five additional days are required to conduct convoy
            lane training (includes live fire and immediate action drill
            training).
        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 Army Reserve).
      --During fiscal year 2006, the ARNG synchronized the use of existing
            and ongoing live, virtual, and constructive training aids,
            devices, simulations and simulators (TADSS) programs with the
            training requirements of the ARFORGEN. By synchronizing the use
            of TADSS with the ARFORGEN, the ARNG will improve unit training
            proficiency prior to mobilization.
      --To support the training requirements of M1A1 Abrams and M2A2
            Bradley equipped BCT's the ARNG continued the fielding of the
            advanced Bradley full-crew interactive simulation trainer (AB-
            FIST) which provides a full crew simulations trainer for M2A2
            units and the conduct of fire trainer (COFT) XXI. When fully
            fielded these devices in addition to the Abrams full-crew
            interactive simulation trainer (AFIST) XXI will be the primary
            simulations trainers to meet the virtual gunner requirement of
            M1 and M2 crews. In order to meet the virtual maneuver training
            requirements in the ARFORGEN, M1 and M2 units utilize the close
            combat tactical trainer (CCTT) and the rehosted simulations
            network (SIMNET).
      --In order to train all ARNG units on the tactics, techniques, and
            procedures (TTPs) of convoy operations, the ARNG is fielding
            the virtual convoy operations trainer (VCOT). The VCOT, through
            the use of geo-specific databases, also provides commanders
            with a unique and critical mission rehearsal tool. Currently,
            there are 21 VCOT systems positioned in the ARNG force to train
            the fundamentals of convoy operations.
      --In order to meet basic and advanced rifle marksmanship
            requirements, the ARNG is fielding the engagement skills
            trainer (EST 2000). This system is the Army's approved
            marksmanship training device. The EST 2000 is also used 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 vital homeland defense missions. Additionally, in
            order to more quickly provide critical marksmanship training
            capability to ARNG units, the ARNG is using the fire arms
            training system (FATS) as in lieu of training system for the
            EST 2000.
      --The ARNG supplements its marksmanship training strategy with the
            laser marksmanship training system (LMTS). The ARNG currently
            has over 900 systems fielded down to the company level. The
            LMTS is a laser-based training device that replicates the
            firing of the soldier's weapon without live ammunition. The
            LMTS is utilized for developing and sustaining marksmanship
            skills, diagnosing and correcting marksmanship problems, and
            assessing basic and advanced skills.
      --Through the ARNG Distributed Battle Simulation Program, civilian
            infrastructure commanders receive assistance from Commander's
            Operational Training Assistants, TADSS facilitators, and Janus
            Technical Team Exercise Support in the planning, preparation,
            and execution of simulations-based battle staff training that
            augments the support provided by training support XXI soldiers
            and greatly enhances unit proficiency and readiness.
      --In order to provide the critical culminating training event of the
            ARFORGEN, the ARNG has implemented the eXportable combat
            training capability (XCTC). The XCTC program provides the
            method to validate that ARNG combat units have achieved the
            company level maneuver proficiency prior to mobilization. The
            XCTC incorporates the use of advanced live, virtual, and
            constructive training technologies to replicate the training
            experience until now only found at one of the Army's combat
            training centers. The centerpiece of the XCTC is the deployable
            force-on-force instrumented range system (DFIRST). DFIRST
            utilizes training technologies that allows for full
            instrumentation of the training area from major combat systems
            down to the individual soldier, role player and civilian on the
            battlefield.
      --The most important part of every training exercise is the after
            action review (AAR). By fully instrumenting the training area
            units receive an AAR complete with two dimensional, three
            dimensional and video playback of the actual training exercise.
            This allows commanders and soldiers to see what occurred during
            the training exercise from a different prospective further
            enhancing the training experience.
      --The Army Reserve continues to focus on integrating simulations,
            simulators, and TADSS into training plans. As part of the Army
            Campaign Plan Decision Point 72, the Army Reserve has created
            an entire battle command training division with simulations
            brigades strategically placed throughout CONUS. These brigades
            provide Army Reserve units train-up exercises which culminate
            in participation in corps warfighter and battle command staff
            training exercises to enhance training readiness.
      --The Army Reserve remains an active member of the Army's simulation
            community by participating in the live, virtual, constructive
            (LVC) training environment periodic review and as a member of
            the LVC integration concept team. The Army Reserve continues to
            press PEO-STRI and the National Simulation Center on the
            priority for the development of combat support and combat
            service support functionality within the Army Constructive
            Training Federation to ensure training capabilities for the
            entire spectrum. The Army Reserve has also identified the need
            for increased digital equipment fielding for the Reserve
            components. Current and future forces need digital capability
            to train effectively in the contemporary operating environment
            (COE) and the joint national training capability (JNTC)
            environment of Army capabilities.
      --The Army Reserve continues to investigate alternative training
            mechanisms to simulate urban terrain and potential terrorist
            activities, including the virtual emergency response training
            system (VERTS). The Army Reserve continues to develop the
            simulations operations functional area assessment to ensure
            that capabilities exist to support the DOD training
            transformation goal of integrated live, virtual, and
            constructive training in a joint environment.
      --At the tactical level, the Army Reserve is using paintball weaponry
            to simulate conditions in battle. Convoy live-fire training,
            using paintball technology, teaches valuable combat skill at
            the cost of soldiers having to wash off paint stains rather
            than blood. The Army Reserve continues to work on a joint
            learning process that develops leaders who are agile and
            adaptive, ready to participate in any theater of operation.
      --The Army Reserve is prepared to meet any challenge as we move
            towards the future to combat persistent adversaries in the
            global war on terror, homeland defense, and weapons of mass
            destruction.
        Summary tables of unit readiness, shown for each State, (and for
    the 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:
      --Explanations of the information:
        --Readiness tables are classified. This information is maintained
                by the Department of the Army, G-3.
      --Based on the information shown in the tables, the Secretary's
            overall assessment of the deployability of units of the ARNG
            (and Army Reserve), including a discussion of personnel
            deficiencies and equipment shortfalls in accordance with such
            section 1121:
        --Summary tables and overall assessments are classified. This
                information is maintained by the Department of the Army G-
                3.
        Summary tables, shown for each State (and Army Reserve), of the
    results of inspections of units of the Army National Guard (and Army
    Reserve) by inspectors 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:
      --The number of such inspections;
      --identification of the entity conducting each inspection;
      --the number of units inspected; and
      --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.
        --During fiscal year 2006, ARNG State level inspectors general
                conducted extensive inspections throughout the United
                States. State level inspectors general (IG) conducted
                approximately 1,410 inspections during the year, visiting
                361 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 inspections conducted by inspectors general 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.
        --In accordance with AR1-201, Army Inspection Policy, the United
                States Army Reserve Command (USARC) conducts inspections of
                RRCs/DSUs within requirements of the USARC organizational
                inspection program (OIP). Per the Army regulation, at
                division levels and above, OIPs are comprised primarily of
                staff inspections, staff assistance visits and IG
                inspections. Staff inspections are only one aspect by which
                the Commanding General can evaluate the readiness of their
                command. The Inspector General conducts inspections and
                special assessments based on systemic issues and trends
                analysis; issues that may possibly impede the readiness of
                the Army Reserve.
        --The Chief, Army Reserve directed the Inspector General to conduct
                a special inspection in fiscal year 2006 derived from
                concerns about a myriad of soldier support issues, such as
                pay and promotions procedures, awards processing and
                evaluations.This inspection also covered the particular
                special interest item of motorcycle safety, an additional
                concern due to increasing motorcycle accidents throughout
                the command.
      --The Army Reserve is meeting regulatory requirements through a
            combination of battle focused readiness reviews (BFRR) and
            staff assistance visits, with the assistance visits conforming
            to regulatory requirements listed in AR 1-201. The BFRR is the
            tool used by major subordinate commanders to provide the Army
            Reserve Commanding General a lay-down on the readiness and
            resource status of their command, and resolve systemic issues/
            trends in order to achieve continuous improvements in
            readiness. The Army Reserve conducted 16 BFFR in fiscal year
            2006. BFRRs were halted until the new Deputy Commanding General
            was selected and resumed in December 2006, with a review of the
            104th Division (IT). The staff assistance visits are more
            assistance oriented in nature.
        A listing, for each ARNG combat unit (and U.S. Army Reserve FSP
    units) of the active-duty combat units (and other units) associated
    with that ARNG (and U.S. Army Reserve) unit in accordance with section
    1131(a) of ANGCRRA, shown by State, for each such ARNG 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.
      --There are no longer ground combat active component (AC/reserve
            component (RC) associations due to operational mission
            requirements and deployment tempo.
      --As forces command's executing agent, First Army executes the
            legislated Active Duty Associate Unit responsibilities through
            both their pre-mobilization and post-mobilization efforts with
            RC units. When RC units are mobilized, the units are thoroughly
            assessed in terms of manpower, equipment, and training
            initially by the appropriate RC chain of command and that
            assessment is approved by First Army.
      --Validation of the compatability of the RC units with the active
            duty forces occurs through the mobilization functions with the
            direct oversight of First Army and FORSCOM at the mobilization
            centers.
      --The Army's transformation from a division-centric to brigade-
            centric organization under the ARFORGEN model, coupled with the
            acceleration of the ARNG modularity and recognition of the
            combat experience of deployed RC personnel and units; should
            render the reporting requirement as specified in U.S. Code:
            Title 10,10542. Army National Guard Combat Readiness Annual
            Report as no longer appropriate.
        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.C. 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 29, 2006, the Army had 3,327 active component
    soldiers assigned to title XI positions. In fiscal year 2006, the Army
    began reducing authorizations in accordance with the National Defense
    Authorization Act of fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108-767, section
    515). The Army G-1 and U.S. Army Human Resources Command carefully
    manage the authorizations and fill of title XI positions.

                                       TITLE XI (FISCAL YEAR 2006) AUTHORIZATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OFF             ENL             WO             Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Human Resources Command.........................  ..............               5  ..............               5
    U.S. Army Reserve...............................              37             147  ..............             184
    TRADOC..........................................              97             167  ..............             264
    FORSCOM.........................................           1,358           2,318             129           3,805
    ESGR............................................               1               3  ..............               4
    USARPAC.........................................              30              58               1              89
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................           1,523           2,698             130           4,351
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       addendum p.--helpful army websites
        The following websites provide greater information on various
    topics:
        The Army Website. This site is the most visited military website in
    the world, averaging about 7 million visitors per month or 250 hits per
    second. It provides news, features, imagery, and references.
          http://www.army.mil
        The Army National Guard. Provides information about the Army
    National Guard.
          http://www.arng.army.mil
        The United States Army Reserve. Provides information about the Army
    Reserve.
          http://www.armyreserve.army.mil/usar/home
        Army Families Online. This site provides information and links to
    other support programs that support our soldiers and their families.
          http://www.aflo.org/skins/WBLO/home.aspx?AllowSSL=true
        U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program. This site provides information
    on the Army's Wounded Warrior Program which provides support for
    severely wounded soldiers and their families.
          https://www.aw2.army.mil/
        Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G-1. For information on
    personnel issues.
          http://www.armyg1.army.mil
        Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2. For information on
    intelligence issues.
          http://www.dami.army.pentagon.mil
        Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and Policy, G-3/5/7.
    For information on Army plans and operations.
          http://www.g357extranet.army.pentagon.mil/#
        Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, G-4. For information on Army
    logistics.
          http://www.hqda.army.mil/logweb/
        Chief Information Officer, CIO/G-6.
          http://www.army.mil/ciog6/
        Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs. For information on materiel
    integration.
          http://www.g8.army.mil
        Future Combat Systems. For information on the Future Combat Systems
    program.
          http://www.army.mil/fcs
        Army Logistics Transformation Agency. For information on Army
    logistics transformation.
          http://lta.army.mil
        Army Medicine. For information on Army medical programs.
          http://www.armymedicine.army.mil
        Army Posture Statement. For the web-based version of the Army
    Posture Statement which includes amplifying information not found in
    the print version.
          http://www.army.mil/aps
        Army Modernization Plan. Provides a detailed overview of the Army's
    organizational and materiel modernization efforts.
          http://www.army.mil/features/MODPlan/2006/
           addendum q.--additional information on army related topics
        We have provided additional information on the following topics in
    the CD-ROM and web-based versions of the 2007 Army Posture Statement.
    They are available as in-text links and may be accessed through this
    addendum either on the CD-ROM or the Web.
    2006 Army Modernization Plan
    Actionable Intelligence
    Active Component/Reserve Component Rebalance
    Adapting the Major Army Command Structure
    Add-on Armor for Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
    Army Barracks Modernization Program
    Army Capabilities to Dominate in Complex Environments
    Army Career Intern Program
    Army Community Service
    Army Energy Strategy for Installations
    Army Environmental Programs
    Army Equipping and Reuse Conference
    Army Family Action Plan
    Army Initiatives to Improve in Irregular Warfare Capabilities
    Army Knowledge Online (AKO)/Defense Knowledge Online (DKO)
    Army Leaders for the 21st Century
    Army Leads Biometrics Integration
    Army Prepositioned Stocks
    Army Referral Bonus Pilot Program
    Army Reserve: All-Volunteer Force and the Army Reserve
    Army Reserve: Army Reserve Child and Youth Services Program
    Army Reserve: Army Reserve Education Services
    Army Reserve: Army Reserve Employer Relations
    Army Reserve: Army Reserve Facility Management Transformation
    Army Reserve: Army Reserve Family Programs
    Army Reserve: Full-Time Support Revalidation
    Army Reserve: Regional Personnel Service Centers
    Army Reserve: Reserve Components Separate Competitive Categories for
    Officer Promotions
    Army Reserve: Selected Reserve Incentive Program
    Army Reserve: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program
    Army Reserve: Trainees, Transients, Holdees and Students Account
    Army Reserve: Voluntary Selective Continuation of Alerted and Mobilized
    Selected Reserve Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels
    Army Retention Program
    Army Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
    Army Spouse Employment Partnership
    Army Strong
    Army Sustainability
    Army Training Support System
    Army Transferability of GI Bill Benefits to Spouses Program
    Army Values
    Asymmetric Warfare Group
    Base Realignment and Closure Decisions for the Army
    Basic Officer Leader Course
    Battle Command (Annex)
    Battle Command (as a Weapons System)
    Battle Command (Equipping)
    Building Partnership Capacity through Security Cooperation
    Campaign Quality Force
    Child and Youth Services
    Child and Youth Services School Transition Support
    Civilian Creed
    Civilian Education System
    Clinger-Cohen Act Title 40, Subtitle 3 Compliance and Certification
    Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
    Composite Risk Management
    Concept Development and Experimentation
    Consolidated IT Services
    Core Enterprise Services
    Cultural Awareness and Foreign Language Capabilities
    Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System
    Defense Support to Civil Authorities--(Annex)
    Defense Support to Civil Authorities
    Defense Support to Civil Authorities (Establishment of Army North)
    Defense Support to Civil Authorities (Hurricane Katrina Response)
    Defense Support to Civil Authorities (Pandemic Flu Preparation)
    Defense Support to Civil Authorities (Special Events for 2006)
    Deployment Cycle Support Process
    Expeditionary Capabilities
    Families First Program
    Family Readiness Group Deployment Assistant Program
    Family Readiness Group
    Force Stabilization
    Freedom Team Salute
    Full Spectrum Operations in Army Capstone Doctrine
    Global Force Posture
    Information Assurance and Network Security
    Installation Design Standards
    Interceptor Body Armor
    IT Interoperability Testing
    IT Portfolio Management
    Joint Interdependence
    Joint Knowledge Development and Distribution Capability
    Joint National Training Capabilities
    Joint Tactical Radio System
    LandWarNet and the Global Information Grid
    Life Cycle Management Initiative
    Live, Virtual, Constructive Training Environment Integration
    Major Acquisition Programs: Armed Recon Helicopter
    Major Acquisition Programs: Black Hawk Utility Helicopter
    Major Acquisition Programs: CH47 Medium Lift Helicopter
    Major Acquisition Programs: Future Combat Systems
    Major Acquisition Programs: Light Utility Helicopter
    Major Acquisition Programs: Longbow Apache Attack Helicopter
    Major Acquisition Programs: Medium Extended Air Defense System
    Major Acquisition Programs: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Raven)
    Major Acquisition Programs: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Shadow)
    Major Acquisition Programs: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Warrior)
    Medical and Dental Readiness
    MILCON Transformation
    Military Family Life Consultants Programs
    Military One Source
    Military-to-Civilian Conversions
    Modular Force Conversion
    Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR)
    Multi-Component Family Network
    National Guard: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High
    Yield Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package
    National Guard: Counterdrug Program
    National Guard: Education Support Center
    National Guard: Every Soldier A Recruiter
    National Guard: Exportable Combat Training Capability
    National Guard: Family Assistance Centers
    National Guard: Family Readiness Programs
    National Guard: Recruiting Assistance Program
    National Guard: Historical Armory Activities
    National Guard: Homeland Defense
    National Guard: Operational Support Airlift Agency
    National Guard: Personnel Services Delivery Redesign
    National Guard: State Partnership Program
    National Guard: Strategic Reserve to Operational Force
    National Guard: Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
    National Security Personnel System
    Non-Commissioned Officers Creed
    Officer Retention
    Rapid Equipping Force
    Rapid Fielding Initiative
    Recruiter Incentive Pay Pilot Program
    Recruiting Incentive Program
    Recruitment Policy Changes
    Red Team Education and Training
    Reset
    Residential Communities Initiative
    Restructuring Army Aviation
    Retrograde Task Force
    Review of Education, Training and Assignment for Leaders
    Science and Technology
    Soldier's Creed
    Spiraling Technology into the Current Force
    Stability Operations Capabilities
    Stabilizing Soldiers and Units to Enhance Cohesion and Predictability
    Strong Bonds Program
    Sustainable Range Program
    The Army Distributed Learning Program
    The Digital Training Management System
    U.S. Army Combat Training Center Program
    U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program
    U.S. CENTCOM Rest and Recuperation Program
    Unit Combined Arms Training Strategies
    Up-Armored Vehicle Program
    Utilities Privatization
    War Reserve Secondary Items
    Warfighter Information Network--Tactical
    Warrant Officer Education System
    Warrior Ethos
    Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
    Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
                             addendum r.--acronyms
        AC--Active Component
        ACOM--Army Command
        AMC--Army Materiel Command
        APOE--Aerial Port of Embarkation
        APS--Army Prepositioned Stocks
        ARFORGEN--Army Force Generation
        ARI--Army Research Institute
        ARNG--Army National Guard
        ASC--Army Sustainment Command
        ASCC--Army Service Component Command
        ASV--Armored Security Vehicle
        AW2--U.S. Army Wounded Warrior Program
        BCT--Brigade Combat Team
        BfSB--Battlefield Surveillance Brigade
        BOLC--Basic Officer Leader Course
        BRAC--Base Realignment and Closure
        BT--Business Transformation
        CBRN--Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
        CBRNE--Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High Yield
    Explosives
        CES--Civilian Education System
        CM--Consequence Management
        COIN--Counterinsurgency
        CPI--Continuous Process Improvement
        CS--Combat Support
        CSS--Combat Service Support
        CT--Counter Terrorist
        CTC--Combat Training Center
        CWMD Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction
        DCGS-A--Distributed Common Ground System--Army
        DMDC--Defense Manpower Data Center
        DOD--Department of Defense
        ES2--Every Soldier a Sensor
        FCS--Future Combat Systems
        FTS--Full Time Support
        FY--Fiscal Year
        GBIAD--Ground Based Integrated Air Defense
        GCSC-A--Global Combat Service Support--Army
        GDP--Gross Domestic Product
        GDPR--Global Defense Posture Review
        GFEBS--General Fund Enterprise Business System
        GWOT--Global War on Terrorism
        HMMWV--High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
        HSDG--High School Diploma Graduates
        HST--Home Station Training
        HUMINT--Human Intelligence
        IBA--Improved Body Armor
        IED--Improvised Explosive Device
        ISR--Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
        IT--Information Technology
        JIEDDO--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
        JIOC-I--Joint Intelligence Operations Capability--Iraq
        JTF--Joint Task Force
        LMP--Logistics Modernization Program
        LSS--Lean Six Sigma
        METL--Mission Essential Task List
        MFO--Multinational Force and Observers
        MI--Military Intelligence
        NCO--Non-Commissioned Officer
        NDAA--National Defense Authorization Act
        OA&D--Organizational Analysis and Design
        OEF--Operation Enduring Freedom
        OIF--Operation Iraqi Freedom
        OPTEMPO--Operational Tempo
        O&M--Operations and Maintenance
        PLM+--Product Lifecycle Management Plus
        QDR--Quadrennial Defense Review
        RC--Reserve Component
        RCI--Residential Communities Initiative
        RDA--Research, Development, and Acquisition
        REF--Rapid Equipping Force
        RFI--Rapid Fielding Initiative
        SDDC--Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
        SIGINT--Signals Intelligence
        SMS--Strategic Management System
        TPFDD--Time Phased Force Deployment Data
        QOL--Quality of Life
        UAS--Unmanned Aerial Systems
        USAR--United States Army Reserve
        VA--Veterans Affairs
        WMD--Weapons of Mass Destruction

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. General
    Schoomaker.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL PETER SCHOOMAKER, CHIEF OF STAFF,
                UNITED STATES ARMY
        General Schoomaker. Well, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks very much for
    the opportunity to appear today and also for your kind words.
    You know, I joked in the past about answering the cell phone on
    my pick-up truck and what a mistake it was but the reality is,
    it's been a tremendous honor to serve once again our great
    Nation and to serve with the young men and women, their
    families of all components and I really appreciate your kind
    words.

                            INTRODUCTION OF SOLDIERS

        As has been our tradition in the past, I've brought three
    soldiers again today that I would like to introduce to the
    subcommittee. They represent all three components of our Army
    and the thing that I like to remind everybody, as General Laten
    once said, the people aren't in the Army. The Army is people.
    So these great young people I'd like to introduce.
        The first is Sergeant Jonathon James from Tuscaloosa,
    Alabama. He's a member of the Alabama Army National Guard. He
    deployed to Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom III as an infantry
    team leader in Alpha Company First Battalion 167th Infantry,
    attached to the 48th Brigade Combat Team. Sergeant James
    participated in the capture of eight of the top insurgents or
    blacklisted personnel in his division area of operations. He
    led his four-man fire team on successive missions that engaged
    and disrupted three separate insurgent motor teams who were
    firing on U.S. and Iraqi army positions as well as on Iraqi
    civilians in the nearby town of Lutifiya.
        As a testament to his leadership, Sergeant James
    participated in the capture of the largest weapons cache in the
    division and led over 70 combat operations over the course of
    his year at FOB Roe, all without a single friendly casualty. He
    has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation
    Medal with V-Device for Valor and the Combat Infantryman Badge.
    Sergeant James.
        The second soldier I'd like to introduce is Sergeant Sandra
    or Sandy Kitzinger, a native of Heilbronn, Germany who joined
    the U.S. Army Reserve in August 2001. Due to the restrictions
    from the German government on her initial efforts to deploy to
    Afghanistan, they were denied because of those restrictions as
    a German citizen.
        Sandy became a U.S. citizen in June 2005, then immediately
    volunteered to deploy to OIF IV, with the 3rd Corp Support
    Command. A personnel specialist, she served as a
    noncommissioned officer in charge of the casualty-tracking cell
    in the logistics support area, Anaconda. On the morning of
    January 16, 2006, Sergeant Kitzinger was returning from her
    guard mount when the camp came under rocket propelled grenade
    (RPG) attack. Caught in the open along with one of her
    soldiers, Sergeant Kitzinger acted quickly and with total
    disregard for her own safety by pulling the soldier away from
    the direct impact area of an incoming RPG. In shielding the
    other soldier from the blast, Sergeant Kitzinger sustained
    hearing loss in her right ear, a severe concussion, and
    injuries to her face. The other soldier was unhurt.
        As a soldier on active Guard Reserve status, Sergeant
    Kitzinger also represents a critical aspect of what our Reserve
    component soldiers provide and that is full-time support to
    enable our Guard and Reserve units to sustain the high
    operational tempo and to support their mobilization activities.
        She is a recipient of the Purple Heart Medal, the
    Meritorious Service Medal and the Combat Action Badge. Sergeant
    Kitzinger.
        Finally, Corporal John Stewart of Huntington, West
    Virginia. He is an active duty soldier and combat medic from
    the 101st Airborne Division. Corporal Stewart was deployed with
    the 1st Brigade Combat Team during both OIF III and OIF IV as
    an infantry scout platoon medic. He participated in more than
    500 missions during those two tours, ranging from route
    clearance to raids on insurgents and strongholds.
        On the night of June 23, 2006, PFC Stewart accompanied his
    platoon in the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle when it was
    struck by an improvised explosive device or IED. The vehicle's
    fuel cell ruptured and flames quickly engulfed all six
    occupants. With clear and decisive thinking, PFC Stewart was
    able to extinguish himself, exit the burning vehicle and begin
    to direct the efforts of other platoon members to extinguish
    the other five occupants.
        After helping to move everyone away from the secondary
    explosions of the still-burning vehicle, he then began triage
    and administered initial aid to the severely burned, barely
    conscious crew members of the Bradley fighting vehicle. Despite
    the shock and concussion of the IED blast and after suffering
    second and third degree burns to his face and hands, PFC
    Stewart refused medical treatment for himself until all other
    casualties were safely aboard the medivac helicopter.
        For his valiant efforts, he earned a Purple Heart Medal,
    the Bronze Star Medal with V-Device for valor, an Army
    Commendation Medal with V-Device in the Combat Medic Badge.
    Corporal Stewart has since returned to his unit after more than
    7 months in Brooke Army Medical Center, where he was both a
    patient and finally served as a division liaison officer for
    the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division.
        Now these soldiers are why I'm so proud of being associated
    with the United States Army and for having had the opportunity
    to serve.

                          FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS (FCS)

        What I'd like to do now--we have a few representations of
    the future combat system. So very briefly, what I'd like to
    show you are the kinds of things we're doing with your support
    and the money that you have given us to support these great
    soldiers with things that will help them do their job.
        First of all, if you look at the screen up here, this young
    man is going to operate a robotic vehicle. Got it going? Now we
    have several hundred of these deployed right now overseas, some
    of them in larger version EOC that allows you to enter caves,
    it allows you to climb steps, it allows you to enter buildings
    and rooms without putting soldiers in harms' way.
        You can see that--why don't you turn around and look at
    some of these better--this provides soldier standoff,
    especially in the kind of environment that we find ourselves
    in, in regular warfare. And as I said, we have larger versions
    of these, several hundred of them already deployed. These are
    the kind of spinouts that we are taking from the future combat
    system and spinning onto the current force that allows the
    current capability to be enhanced. In this picture, now because
    of the bandwidth we have throughout our forces, going all the
    way down to the lowest tactical levels, these pictures now can
    be shown from the top of the organization to the bottom, over
    the bandwidth in the backbone that we have.
        Now likewise, on the table over here are some unattended
    ground sensors and any kind of sensor can be placed in these,
    acoustic, oral seismic, EO, night--whatever you want, IR.
    Again, these signals, which can be distributed all over the
    battle space, are able to be transported over the bandwidth
    that we now have all the way down into vehicles with squads in
    them. They can watch places where we've seen people put up
    mortars. They can watch places where we know they put caches,
    watch road intersections, roads, see people that are trying to
    put in IEDs, et cetera. So again, this is a spinout that we're
    actually involved in right now.
        Finally, down here on the floor--I don't think we're going
    to fly it in here but that's a UAV. It looks like a little beer
    can. You can expect--if somebody might walk out there and just
    move that in the center of the floor, if you wouldn't mind.
    These will be deployed--the money in 2008 will fund these and
    they will be fielded in 2010. We already demonstrated these but
    what is different about these and the tactical UAVs we have
    today is this hovers and it allows you to move this thing and
    land on building tops, hover and look in windows and stare at
    things that--you know, otherwise with something that's got to
    fly, you don't have that staring capability. This is operated
    at the tactical level and there is a small one and then there
    is a larger one, solo man, portable. It starts like a lawnmower
    or something and it's controlled here with these things on a
    joystick that kids today are very comfortable in operating.
        I just wanted to show you this kind of technology is what
    is being spun out of the future, out of the future combat
    system capabilities and where the network is so important
    because it ties all these things together in such a way that
    all the way from a core commander down to the lowest rifleman,
    they can really enhance their ability, their situation on the
    battle space and of course, it enables these great young people
    with capabilities that causes them not have to put themselves
    in harm's way to learn things, as they develop the battle
    space.
        So finally--thank you very much. Finally what I'd like to
    say is that--sir?
        Senator Domenici. General, that one there, does it merely
    direct traffic or it is also itself--does it carry armament
    capability?
        General Schoomaker. Well, we have not armed this. This is
    purely something to look around a corner in an urban
    environment or over a hill or----
        Senator Domenici. To tell somebody what's happening.
        General Schoomaker. But obviously, even not arming this,
    you can put things on this that allow you to pinpoint targets
    that other platforms can put ordinance on a target, like laser
    designation, that kind of thing.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        General Schoomaker. There is a lot of capability here to
    network and this is what allows this great combat team and the
    modular force and certainly the future combat system equipped
    team now to kind of cover the kind of battlespace that before
    it would have taken a division to cover. Now you can do it with
    a brigade. In some cases, you can do what a corps used to do in
    terms of the situational awareness and this is very, very
    important to our future and of course, it's one of the big ways
    in which we are transforming this Army into one that is
    relevant for the 21st century and the irregular warfare kind of
    things that we now are doing.
        I'm very proud of the achievements we've had here and your
    continued support is going to allow us to refine these things,
    continue to deploy them and of course, our soldiers will show
    us how to use them to the best advantage.
        Finally, I have many members of the Army staff and the
    Secretary here. I'm not going to introduce them all but they
    provide subject matter expertise. I would like to recognize
    two, though.
        The first is the Director of the Army National Guard,
    Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn. I want you to know that he is
    here and Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, who is the Chief of
    our Army Reserve.

                                 ARMY READINESS

        Again, thank you very much for your support. I continue to
    have my concerns and I stand with Secretary Geren and his
    concerns about the stress that is on our force and about the
    strategic depth of our Army and about the need for us to
    continue to energetically--you know, keep great energy and to
    accelerate these capabilities and accelerate in the
    transformation of the Army so we have the depth to meet the
    requirements.
        Senator Stevens. I'm going to ask all those general
    officers to be listed. We've got General Lovelace, General
    Speakes, General Melcher and General Jackman behind those that
    you've already mentioned, General. We will put their names all
    in the record with your consent.
        General Schoomaker. Major General Boles with the G4 is also
    here. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General and thank you,
    Mr. Secretary and may I now call on Senator Stevens for
    questioning.
        Senator Stevens. One of the things I'd like to learn is how
    close we are to needing the monies that we've got in the
    supplemental. Are you prepared to talk about that, Mr.
    Secretary or General Schoomaker?

                PASSAGE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL IN A TIMELY FASHION

        Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, I am and we really don't have to
    speculate on what the impact would be if this supplemental does
    not reach us in a timely manner.
        Senator Stevens. What is timely?
        Mr. Geren. We would need it by the end of April, sir and if
    we don't have it by the end of April, we're going to have to
    start pulling levers. We're going to have to start making
    decisions that are going to impact our force, up and down the
    force. Obviously, our----
        Senator Stevens. If we get you money by the end of April,
    that means we'll have to get this to the President by about
    April 15 at the latest because it takes time to get it
    processed and then get you that money through the Department
    released. So you're saying you actually need--the Army actually
    needs money no later than the end of April, right?
        Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, we do and if we don't, we will have to
    start making adjustments. We'll have to start reprogramming in
    order to make sure that we have the resources to fully support
    the force that is in combat. We had this happen last summer. We
    had to start making changes. We had to start reprogramming
    money and the impact was everything from the quality of life of
    our families. We did everything from closing swimming pools in
    the middle of summer at some of these bases to slowing down
    some of our work at our depots. We laid off contractors, we
    laid off temporary employees. We've, around the country, the
    bases felt the impact of that delay because we had to make sure
    we could reprogram our assets to meet the needs of the soldiers
    in the theatre.
        Senator Stevens. Did you do all that just so you could move
    money into the combat area?
        Mr. Geren. Yes, sir. We did a reprogramming to make sure
    that we were able to meet the needs of our soldiers in the
    field and it caused the troops back home and their families to
    pay a price.
        Senator Stevens. General Schoomaker, we're told that you
    want to grow the Army force by 65,000 soldiers over the next 5
    years, is that right?
        General Schoomaker. That is correct, sir. Actually, the
    total Army is around 74,000. Eight thousand in the National
    Guard and a little over 1,000 in the Army Reserve and 65,000 in
    the active component.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, do we have a plan to
    adequately house those people and provide the equipment and
    facilities they need within 5 years?
        Mr. Geren. Yes, sir, we do, if you combine what we have in
    the Milcon budget as well as the BRAC funding. We have a plan.
    It's a tightly synchronized plan and delays in either Milcon or
    BRAC make it difficult to accomplish those goals but our budget
    and our plans over the next 5 years will allow us to meet the
    needs of housing those soldiers and their families and
    providing them a quality of life that matches the quality of
    their service. But it's tightly synchronized and any time it
    slips, it requires us to make adjustments. In fact, we are in
    the process of making adjustments now because of the delay in
    the BRAC funding.

                      BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

        Senator Stevens. Under the current BRAC plan, the Army
    proposes to close Walter Reed and to consolidate the functions
    there and with those in Fort Belvoir. Being one that has
    expressed concern already about doing that with the surge that
    is going on right now, does this plan really make sense now? I
    mean, why? That facility is a working facility. It's had some
    problems here about the support buildings but Walter Reed is
    still performing, I think, the basic work for those that are
    seriously injured in this war. Why are we going on with a plan
    to move it before that space is over?
        Mr. Geren. Walter Reed is used, so correctly stated, as a
    critical piece in our care to our soldiers and their families.
    Under the BRAC, we're going to build a better facility at
    Bethesda, a world-class center as well as an additional
    facility at Fort Belvoir. What I would suggest rather than
    reopening BRAC and changing the decision on Walter Reed, that
    we make sure that Walter Reed is fully operational, able to
    deliver a 100-percent quality care up until the moment that the
    Bethesda center and the Belvoir center are open and going. What
    we want to see happen is emphasis on getting those two new
    facilities up and going, getting the investment made and make
    sure they are done on time and in the meantime, make sure that
    the quality of service at Walter Reed is continued, up until
    the moment that we cut the ribbon on those new facilities and
    move the soldiers into them. It's going to require emphasis in
    the Army as well, I think, in the Congress, to make sure that
    those two facilities are expedited and done and ready in time.
        General Schoomaker. Mr. Chairman, if I could add, Walter
    Reed isn't supposed to close until 2011. I share your concerns
    and I think that--my big concern is BRAC is underfunded and if
    we don't robustly fund BRAC and we don't establish the proper
    capability of Bethesda and we don't expand the capability to
    handle the outpatient stuff at Belvoir, we'll find ourselves
    closing Walter Reed and having real issues. For instance, there
    are no barracks at Bethesda that are funded right now. There
    are other issues that are not funded at Bethesda and BRAC that
    exist at Walter Reed.
        The second issue I would tell you is I agree. I think in
    this long war and with the unknowns that are ahead of us that
    we ought to think long and hard before we take capability down,
    capacity down in the medical system because there are certain
    capabilities that military medicine has, especially when you
    start talking about chemical, biological or radiological kinds
    of problems, you start talking about mass casualty problems.
    Until some of the unknowns are known in the future, I would be
    careful about hastily taking things down without making sure
    there is not very robust capacity or you establish what if.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I've taken more than my time
    already, General, but I've got to tell you, when we went over
    and took a look at Aviano and Vicenza, moving the bases from
    Germany to Italy and I look at this process of moving Walter
    Reed to Bethesda and Fort Belvoir and building new facilities
    over at Bethesda, I just question seriously the use of that
    money at a critical time. I really think we ought to be
    concentrating our money on protecting the individuals that are
    over there now. That's just my feeling. This BRAC schedule, to
    move so many people with enormous costs of building bases and
    building things now at a time we're facing just tough choices
    on what to fund for the combat soldier, I think is really
    questionable.
        But let me just say this. This is your last meeting before
    us, General Schoomaker. We thank you for coming back and for
    taking the reins. Was it worth it?
        General Schoomaker. Absolutely, sir.
        Senator Stevens. What do you mean?
        General Schoomaker. There were some days that were a year
    long but you know, the 4 years passed very quickly and it was
    absolutely worth it and I think that we've got the best Army in
    the field today that we've ever had. I think we're on the right
    path. I think with your help that we will have an Army that is
    part of a joint team that is absolutely going to be necessary
    in this century.
        Senator Stevens. People ask us from time to time what we
    think is our greatest accomplishment. I'd just say staying
    alive. What do you think is yours?
        General Schoomaker. Well, staying alive is one of them but
    I personally am very proud of the warrior ethos that we have in
    the Army and how that has emerged in this fight. I just see our
    young men and women living it every day and I'm very, very
    proud of that.
        Senator Stevens. Do you have confidence that General Casey
    can fill your shoes?
        General Schoomaker. Absolutely.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary and General, thank you very
    much for being here. I want to ask about two things--well,
    first of all, thanks for your service and our thoughts are with
    the soldiers who are in harm's way today.

                    MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTECTED VEHICLE

        I want to ask about two things. One, retired Colonel
    Hammonds testified 1 year or so ago in Congress and he said,
    you know, our country is not mobilized for the war. We send
    soldiers to war but our country is not mobilized. We say, put
    on a uniform and go to war and we'll go shopping and his point
    was, in the Second World War, at the end of the Second World
    War, our country mobilized. We were putting out tens of
    thousands of airplanes a year. I mean, we mobilized everything
    and he made a point about the mine-resistant ambush protected
    vehicle, the MRAP. He said, we can produce vehicles that will
    reduce casualties. I've read since that time, to reduce
    casualties by two-thirds. We have the capability to put that
    vehicle out and produce that vehicle but we're buying far too
    few of them. Give your estimate of that. Why would, if we have
    that capability, why would we not do everything to mobilize, to
    move as many of them into the field as is possible?
        General Schoomaker. Well sir, we can build what we can get
    the funds to build. It's strictly an issue of money and as you
    know, we have an unfinanced requirement for the vehicles we've
    asked for to do--over $2 billion for the MRAP vehicle. We
    believe that not only do we need the MRAP immediately to give
    us better protection but that we need to stay on a path to get
    an even better vehicle than the MRAP for the long haul because
    the enemy is going to continue to adapt. We're going to
    continue to see more and more lethal kinds of problems and we
    know that there are technologies and capabilities out there
    that we need to continue to reach for. So I see it as an
    immediate issue with what we're doing with obviously FRAG-KIT 5
    and these kinds of things, with the more mid-term issue of MRAP
    and then I see a real need for us to continue to look deeper
    because this is a problem that's not going to go away.
        Senator Dorgan. But if MRAP would reduce casualties by two-
    thirds from roadside bombs, why would we request only 2,500 be
    built? My understanding is that Congress has actually funded
    more than you have requested at this point and the point that
    Colonel Hammonds was making is we just are not mobilized to say
    we're going to do everything we can to get the latest equipment
    in the field post haste.
        General Schoomaker. Well, I will have somebody else speak
    or we'll get for the record but it's my belief that we are not
    fully funded for all 2,500, that we have a shortfall of what?
        Mr. Geren. In this budget, we have funding for 700, in the
    supplemental.
        Senator Dorgan. What did the Army request in their budget
    submission to DOD, for the MRAP?
        Mr. Geren. It was a supplemental funding request. It was
    generated after the budget was submitted and the total
    requirement is about $1 million for each vehicle so for 2,500
    vehicles, we're talking then about----
        Senator Dorgan. Two point five billion dollars.
        Mr. Geren. Two point five billion dollars is what the total
    is.
        Senator Dorgan. I'd like to send some questions and again,
    it gets back to the question of have we mobilized as a country
    to do everything necessary to support those troops? I mean, we
    want to do that. I want to ask one other question, if I might,
    General.
        General Schoomaker. Could I answer the mobilization
    question?
        Senator Dorgan. Yes.

                             MOBILIZING THE NATION

        General Schoomaker. The country is not mobilized. Less than
    one-half of 1 percent of the people are participating in this
    and I absolutely believe that we've got to get people out of
    the spectator stands and onto the field. So it's not just
    mobilizing industry, it's mobilizing people to serve, it's
    mobilizing people's energies in terms of--in all directions. So
    I am absolutely on board with the fact this country is not
    mobilized and I believe this is a very long, serious fight that
    is going to continue to get more and more dangerous and that we
    ought to be paying some attention. But World War II level
    mobilization is not the answer. This is not one of those kinds
    of fights. This is a fight that is going on generationally. So
    we're going to have to have a sustained effort to deal with
    this.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, the fight against terrorists is the
    fight against an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform. I mean, I
    don't disagree with--the terrorist fight is going to go on.
        General Schoomaker. We see future threats already talking
    about adapting these irregular warfare capabilities into their
    conventional forces. This is now something we'll see for this
    next century. This is not just a terrorist fight anymore. Every
    foe we see in the future is now going to employ these methods.

                        UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS)

        Senator Dorgan. General, when I came to Congress some long
    while ago, I joined Senator Gary Hart and Republicans and
    Democrats that had what was called a Defense Reform Caucus. I
    was very interested in that. One of the things that peaked my
    interest recently is a project in the Army called the Warrior,
    where the Army is building a UAV in this case that will fly at
    25,000 feet for 36 hours, carry sensors, very much like the Air
    Force Predator, carry a couple of missiles, four missiles, I
    guess. I don't understand why we would have two services in the
    Department of Defense, both working on nearly identical
    programs for UAVs to fly at medium or high level. It seems to
    me to be duplicative and my guess is, the research that went
    into it from both services is a duplication of research. Why
    would that not be, at least with respect to that function of a
    UAV--this would be yours, I understand. Why would the one I've
    described not be an Air Force function at 25,000 feet, a nearly
    duplicate system that exists with the Predator that we've
    funded so aggressively?
        General Schoomaker. Well, for the same--first of all, it's
    not duplicative. Our business is in the tactical and
    operational role. The Air Force has got a higher role than
    that. Listen, we have different services, manufacturing
    different weapon systems. They do similar things. We have
    different services, buying different kinds of helicopters. We
    have all kinds of things that go on because there are real
    differences in terms of how these are employed and what's going
    to happen with them. So I personally think that we have sorted
    this out with the Air Force. We have an MOA--a memorandum of
    agreement. We have a joint office out at Nellis Air Force Base
    where we are operating all of the doctrinal themes in how we're
    going to employ this and quite frankly, they are not, as you
    described, duplicative. There may be some similarities in how
    they fly and some other kinds of things but how they're
    connected and what they do is not duplicative.
        Senator Dorgan. It appears to be but I'd be happy to
    receive additional information and I think those of us in
    Congress who are required to appropriate the funding for this,
    I think what we would like is for every service not to want to
    do everything that perhaps we could have one service do
    something, a cross service for the purpose of another service.
    And as I look at the UAV, your point this morning about a
    hovering opportunity here with sensors, I understand that.
    That's ground support. I understand even battlefield tactical
    support for 1,000 feet or 2,500 feet but when you're building a
    UAV to fly at 25,000 feet and we're spending aggressively on
    the Air Force Predator program, I don't have contractors in
    either of these. I'm just asking as somebody who years ago took
    a look at this duplication and said, what on Earth are we doing
    here and I take a look at the UAV issue and wonder, why is the
    Army building a nearly identical program to the Predator and
    calling it the Warrior and wanting to run it yourself. It seems
    to me----
        General Schoomaker. Sir, I think we owe you--we owe you a
    complete lay-down. We'd be glad to do that. We'll get our
    experts over and see if we can't----
        Senator Dorgan. I'd be happy to meet them but I raise the
    question just because it's a question in my mind and we have
    limited resources for nearly unlimited wants in these areas.
    You know, it's tough to meet all of the needs and we certainly
    want to try.
        Well, Mr. Secretary, I didn't ask you a question but thank
    you for your service. Thanks for being here as well.
        Mr. Geren. Thanks a lot.
        Senator Dorgan. General, thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Might I first say, Senator, if you don't
    mind and that meeting is set up, would you spread the word--so
    they won't have to do it in every office, could you invite me
    so I could get the same briefing? I think it would be
    worthwhile. I was going to ask the same question. But I thank
    you for asking it.
        Let me talk about--I'm going to submit a whole series of
    questions that I thought I was going to ask you and I'm not.

                WALTER REED BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ISSUES

        Senator Domenici. I'm going to talk a minute about the idea
    of building a brand new hospital to take the place of Walter
    Reed. Senator Stevens sort of started talking about this,
    around the edges as to whether we're going to be able to do
    this while we're at war.
        You were answering, General, that in a sense, we're really
    not fully mobilized. We're a country that is kind of doing
    both. We're immobilized here at home and only a little piece of
    our productivity and power is being devoted to the war. But I
    want to tell you, sir, I would really ask for the very best
    minds to be allocated to putting together the plans,
    specifications and implementation for that new hospital. I
    already know it is a dream of a hospital. The Army is looking
    at, saying we don't always get a chance to be first but we are
    building a new hospital at a time when a new hospital is really
    something special. And it has all kinds of gadgets and it will
    be a super, super hospital. I want to urge you and today I want
    to go on record as saying, if you try to do that new hospital
    with our current operational efforts, it won't get done right.
    And I urge that you be very careful and maybe that you hold up
    on that new hospital until you have a much, much bigger ability
    to see daylight. This is going to be a terrible thing to build
    at the same time you're taking care of people and have this war
    going on. Maybe you better just talk a bit. I don't--I'm not--
    --
        General Schoomaker. Well, see I don't disagree with
    anything you've said but I think it is really important to
    understand this isn't an Army deal. This whole move of Walter
    Reed to Bethesda was done in the joint cross service group that
    was done under OSD and it was done with all the services that
    are involved. So this isn't the Army doing this by itself. It
    was--all of the reasons for doing it made a lot of sense to the
    joint cross service group and of course, we had our
    representatives on this group but it's not funded to do what it
    said and it's now in law. This is outside of our control right
    now, internally.
        By 2011, the BRAC is supposed to be complete and that's in
    law. So all I'm reporting on is what I have been told and that
    is, is that we have a very aggressive plan. It's not fully
    funded. As you know, we're $2 billion short this year in BRAC
    and we're sitting here 6 months into the fiscal year and still
    without the bill. These are the kind of things that the
    Secretary talked about that really become problematic if we are
    to be able to accomplish what the law is requiring us to do and
    to do it on our back, in trying to mobilize the nation, try to
    run the depots, fight the war and all the other things we're
    trying to do, it's very, very difficult. So we're going to need
    a lot of help and again, I'll just end with this. I am
    concerned that we do it right.
        Senator Domenici. You bet.
        General Schoomaker. And we do it without taking any risk in
    the capacity in our military healthcare system, at a time of
    war, when there are so many uncertainties ahead on this. And
    I'm not suggesting----
        Mr. Geren. We must be sure that we maintain top quality,
    first class medical care at Walter Reed until these other two
    facilities are up and running and ready to go. That's the
    commitment of this administration. The chief pointed out that
    we, because of a number of issues, the 2011 deadline for
    accomplishing BRAC is going to be a tight squeeze. There's no
    doubt about it but our commitment to our soldiers must be that
    we will continue to offer first class care there until such
    time as those facilities are up and going. Those facilities
    will add, as you've described, Senator, capabilities that we
    cannot currently deliver. They will be first class, state-of-
    the-art healthcare facilities for our soldiers and their
    families. But the commitment we must make to the soldiers is
    that Walter Reed will continue to offer first class care until
    such time as those are open.
        Senator Domenici. Yes, sir. I see the misunderstanding. I
    don't know what that means but I'm certainly not arguing
    against the hospital. I'm arguing--trying to make the point
    that somehow, you have to have super, super talent allocated to
    this kind of proposition or the tradeoffs won't occur and
    you'll have half a half and half a half and what will happen is
    nothing. It won't work. So we'll get cut short and you'll be up
    here testifying that we're almost there but the hospital isn't
    open.
        Mr. Geren. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Right?
        Mr. Geren. I appreciate that.
        Senator Domenici. And I'm saying to the chairman, that's
    going to be the problem. Thank you for giving me so much time.
    I yield.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Before you proceed, I should note that
    there is a vote pending now.

                            ARMY OUTPATIENT SERVICES

        Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you
    to both of you for being here and I appreciate, Mr. Secretary,
    your addressing at the top, the concerns about Walter Reed. It
    is deeper than painting walls and moving people. It is about
    the bureaucracy that they've been caught in and I heard your
    comments about mobilizing, the importance to mobilize. Well, if
    we want to mobilize, we better make sure those families are
    taken care of and they don't feel that they get lost in this
    system and that's underlying all of this. I know it's deeper
    than Walter Reed. Newspaper articles in my home State listed
    concerns at Fort Lewis and Madigan Army Medical Center last
    week and we expect these to be addressed by letting us know
    what the costs are in reality, in real terms, so we are able to
    provide the funds to make sure that the people get the support
    they need, get the counselors they need, get all of the things
    that are so important in order to take care of them.
        I will say, the good news, Mr. Chairman, is that Generals
    Dubic and Baxter from Fort Lewis and Madigan, have contacted me
    in the last few days to let me know they are taking some steps
    to deal with this paperwork issue that they've been facing.
    They're making sure that all of their soldiers get their own
    medical records for the first time. They are changing the
    medical board process from 3 days to 10 days so that people
    have some more time to be able to make a very critical decision
    about their life, and they are focusing on retraining some
    caseworkers. Those are initial steps and we need to continue
    them every step of the way.

              RETRIBUTION FOR TALKING OUTSIDE THE CHAIN OF COMMAND

        I wanted to start with you, Secretary Geren. I asked
    General Kiley last week but we are hearing from many, many
    soldiers in our State who are very concerned that if they talk
    to us about the issues that they're facing, that there will be
    some kind of retribution. I got his word last week but I want
    to raise it with you as well because we need to have these
    facts in order for us to make sure we are doing what we need to
    do in order to make sure these families are taken care of. I
    want your word that there will be no retribution to any service
    member that steps forward to any of us or within the system,
    should they come forward with a complaint.
        Mr. Geren. Senator, I can assure you, any form of
    retribution, anything that discourages a soldier or family from
    coming forward and sharing their concerns with us, any form of
    retribution or discouragement will not be tolerated.
        One of the steps we're taking that I think will help in
    that regard, because I've heard the same thing. I've had some
    nurses and I've had some family members tell me that there was
    a perception that there would be retribution if people came
    forward. That's absolutely unacceptable but this 800-number
    that we're putting in that is not going to some bureaucracy
    somewhere, it's going to come to the Army Operations Center, is
    going to give soldiers the opportunity to come straight into
    the Army center and share their concerns. If they want to do it
    anonymously, we'll protect their confidentiality. But we're
    going to----
        Senator Murray. I appreciate that and I want you to get the
    word out and I want you to know we'll take it very seriously if
    there is any retribution that we hear about. So I hope that you
    get that word out to everybody.
        Mr. Geren. Can I say one thing on that point? General
    Schoomaker, Dr. Eric Schoomaker that took over the hospital the
    Saturday before last--I was out there with him the Sunday, the
    day after he took over and in speaking to the staff and in
    speaking to some of soldiers that we're dealing directly with;
    the outpatient soldiers--he made the point on the very front
    end of this conversation. I want the soldiers to talk
    confidentially with me, with you and if there is any
    retribution, it's absolutely unacceptable. From his first day
    on the job, he made that clear at Walter Reed and I can assure
    you, that's the position of your Army leadership.

                               DISABILITY RATINGS

        Senator Murray. And we need it to be system wide. My time
    is short so let me just ask you, Secretary Geren, I am very
    concerned about the PEB ratings for the Army, that only 4
    percent of those have a disability rating of 30 percent or
    higher. That's very different than the other services and I
    want a short answer from you because I have another important
    question I want to get to. But why is it that the Army appears
    to have an artificially low incident of 30 percent disability
    ratings?
        Mr. Geren. I can't answer that question for you right now
    but I'd raise the same question, as has Chief Schoomaker. We
    became aware of that disparity recently and it's part of our
    review. We're looking at the entire disability rating system,
    scrubbing it from top to bottom and that's one of our questions
    and we're going to get an answer.
        Senator Murray. Well, I think that is absolutely critical
    because what I'm hearing from a lot of people on the ground is
    that they believe those disability ratings are artificially low
    because of the encouragement to try and keep people in the
    military. When they have an injury, it's important that we take
    care of them and their family and not rate those artificially
    low. So I expect to have an answer back from that.

              ALTERED MEDICAL EVALUATIONS IN 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION

        Related to that, I don't know if you saw--I'm sure you saw
    an article that ran in Salon this week about soldiers being
    sent back to battle in Iraq even though a medical evaluation
    had listed them as medically unfit. I'm going to read it to
    you. It said, ``as the military scrambles to pour more soldiers
    into Iraq, a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort
    Benning is to decline troops with serious injuries and other
    medical problems, including GI's who doctors have said are
    medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their
    body armor, according to medical records.'' The story goes on
    to say that some soldiers had their medical evaluations altered
    although their medical conditions had not changed. Is the Army
    in the practice of doctoring health records just so we can
    deploy more soldiers overseas?
        Mr. Geren. If anyone is doing that, it's against
    regulation. I am familiar with Salon.com article as well as the
    allegations in it. There was a soldier who spoke on the record
    there. If these allegations are serious and allegation of that
    sort, I can assure you, we're going to follow up on it and
    investigate. General Schoomaker, do you want to speak to that?
        General Schoomaker. I just--I don't know of a commander
    that would want to take somebody with them in their unit that
    wasn't capable of doing the full job. To me, if that's going
    on, it's wrong.
        Senator Murray. I agree and I hope that we can get both of
    you to take a serious look at that and to report back to this
    subcommittee and Congress because that is a very serious issue,
    if soldiers are going into harm's way who can't wear a helmet
    for more than an hour or can't wear body gear or are unfit for
    conditions, have post-traumatic stress syndrome or whatever
    their medical evaluation is. We need to make sure that that is
    not happening, and I hope we can get a report back from both of
    you expeditiously.
        Mr. Geren. You certainly will. I cannot speak to the truth
    of those allegations but we take every allegation seriously and
    we'll check it out fully, I assure and we'll get back to you.
        [The information follows:]

            Altered Medical Evaluations in the 3rd Infantry Division

        On March 13, 2007, the U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM)
    Inspector General (IG) received an Inspector General Action
    Request from the Department of the Army IG (DAIG). The FORSCOM
    IG opened a case that same day, and initiated an inquiry. DAIG
    will retain oversight of the inquiry, which is ongoing. When
    the inquiry is complete, the Army will provide you with the
    final report.

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I believe you're
    going to take control of the problems at Walter Reed, with
    other help and I believe it will be a good outcome. I'm
    counting on that.
        General Schoomaker, we all thank you for your service.
        General Schoomaker. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Shelby. And what you've done. I also want to thank
    you for recognizing these three soldiers here today. We all
    respect them and we salute them. One of them happens to be
    Sergeant James from my hometown, Tuscaloosa, Alabama and that
    makes us all proud and then proud some more.
        Unmanned aerial vehicles--it was brought up just a minute
    ago. General Schoomaker, 2 years ago, the Air Force made a
    major push to become the executive agent over all Department of
    Defense unmanned aerial vehicles. Eventually, the executive
    agency idea was abandoned and instead, the Department of
    Defense established a Joint UAV Center for Excellence as well
    as several service-specific UAV Centers for Excellence because
    we know there is a difference between the services do here.
        To me, the mere concept of the executive agencies for UAVs
    is problematic. Having an executive agent for UAVs carries the
    inherent risk that the service designated, in this case, the
    Air Force, would not have the capability to effectively balance
    and manage something you mentioned, tactical and strategic
    platforms. In addition, setting up a single authority for all
    service UAVs is the unmanned equivalent of establishing an
    executive agent for all manned aircraft. I think it is an
    impossible feat.
        Now, it is my understanding that the Air Force has recently
    made another move to try to establish themselves as executive
    agent over UAVs, this time over medium and high altitude UAVs,
    including tactical. On March 5, 2007, the Air Force Chief of
    Staff, General Mosley, issued a memo outlining their interest
    in establishing this, effectively giving themselves procurement
    authority and operational control over any UAV that flies above
    3,500 feet. That's troubling to me and it should be for the
    Army. Do you have any thoughts in that?
        General Schoomaker. Well, yes, I think it's a problem.
    That's what I just said. I was unaware of his memo but I can
    tell you that he's the third Air Force Chief of Staff I've
    dealt with on that.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        General Schoomaker. And we've had numerous discussions in
    the tank, in the JCS tank, because the Navy has equities in
    this as well.
        Senator Shelby. That's right.
        General Schoomaker. The Army has got equities, the Air
    Force has got equities and it isn't a simple solution. I think
    you're exactly right. I mean, we don't have a single executive
    agent for manned aircraft. We don't have a single executive
    agent for rotary aircraft. There are too many complexities in
    this to do it that simplistically. So my view is, is the
    memorandum of understanding, an agreement that we have today,
    is an effective way to approach this problem.
        Senator Shelby. It's working is it not?
        General Schoomaker. It's working and we have an Army
    commander on an Air Force installation out in Nevada that is
    working it and the services will rotate that commandership in
    terms of how we are working the doctrine and the tactics,
    techniques and procedures for these UAVs. But we have a huge
    need in the United States Army in our modular force. We have
    UAVs down to the lowest tactical level and some of these UAVs
    are going to fly in airspace that you just described. We fly
    helicopters about 3,500 feet. The Air Force flies fixed wing
    below 500 feet. So it's just not--it's not the way we ought to
    go about doing this and I think that we've come up with an
    effective fix and I think we'll go back through, if he is
    approaching it this way and it will stand the test of time
    again, that's it's a more complex issue.
        Senator Shelby. What we're doing works. The Army needs
    control. They need some procurement authority here too, do they
    not?
        General Schoomaker. And we do. I mean, we have the
    authority over our own programs.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, you'll weigh on this, I'm
    sure.
        Mr. Geren. Yes, sir. I agree with what the chief has said.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to try
    to get a vote.
        Senator Stevens [presiding]. The chairman asks that we
    stand in recess until the rest of the subcommittee gets back.
    How about explaining some of these things to me?
        Senator Inouye. Sorry for this interruption but may I now
    recognize Senator Mikulski?
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and we
    need to again welcome the Army leadership in the most cordial
    way. General Schoomaker, I want to express my gratitude for
    your service.
        General Schoomaker. Thank you, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And we wish you well. I hope you stay
    engaged in this advocacy, particularly of the returning soldier
    and what's going to happen to our military. We are relieved
    that your brother, Eric, has taken over Walter Reed. I know him
    from his work at Fort Detrick and we look forward to, along
    with you, this family style of candor. I think if we can all be
    kind of open about the reality of the situation, we can get to
    it.
        Mr. Secretary, we know you're trying to move in a good
    step. I would like to comment very briefly that we appreciate
    the fact that Major General Gale Pollock is the Acting Surgeon
    General. I believe she is the first woman ever to be the
    Surgeon General but we've met with General Pollock and the
    other women nurses, the leadership, about the nursing shortage.
    We could talk all morning just about that. But we're pleased
    that for now, you've got the right people to get to where we
    need to go with Army medical care.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        So let me get right to my questions. I know that Ranking
    Member Stevens has raised the question about BRAC. I think we
    have to be honest and take a look about that. Others have
    raised the flashing yellow lights about whether there is enough
    funding to do this, move to Belvoir and Naval Bethesda and
    also, we can't forget that there is a 50-bed hospital at
    Andrews, which is the only one with an absolutely secure
    facility if we ever had some nature of an attack. So I think
    BRAC might have to be looked at but I don't think that's the
    most important thing. You know, the facilities are important
    but what I'm concerned about is two things: the medical care
    and the disability compensation.

                               DISABILITY RATINGS

        And on this, I'll turn to the Secretary. We're very
    concerned about the disability benefit situation. All of the
    men and women who've been injured want to hit 30 percent. Now,
    why? They want to hit 30 percent so they can get TRICARE. They
    are terrified that if they go into the Veterans Administration
    (VA), it will be even another backlog and also that they will
    wither away because of their chronic, long-term care needs. So
    that's why there is this desire to hit 30 percent and maybe
    that's the way to do it. I don't know. We need to hear from
    you.
        The second thing is, you know the amount of backlog. I
    don't need to repeat it. You have the data. But what I'm
    concerned about is the fact that the protocols used to evaluate
    the men and women are dated, are absolutely dated. We have new
    types of injuries, particularly the TBI or various
    manifestations of it, other grim and ghoulish things that have
    happened to them. So my question is, that while Dole and
    Shalala are looking at one aspect of this crisis, can you tell
    me where you are in taking a look at really, truly getting your
    arms around the disability benefit structure, not only for the
    Army but for the marines and the Air Force as well. But you're
    at 4 percent. That's a flashing light. Senator Murray raised
    it. But you see, what I'm worried about--the backlog and then
    the fact that when they are evaluated, what are your protocols
    and how dated are they? Can you tell us where they are because
    that's why we fear the under-evaluation of the seriousness of
    the disability situation.
        Mr. Geren. We're looking at the disability system from top
    to bottom. The Army IG that completed his study just recently
    is a good first step. You mentioned the protocols. There is no
    question that those need to be reviewed and updated, in light
    of not only changes in the healthcare but changes in the type
    of injuries that we are experiencing now. The TBIs you
    mentioned. Some of the other mental health problems that we
    have, we need to look at the protocols to make sure that those
    are properly considered. But our first step was this IG report
    and the IG has identified that regulations are out of date as
    far as our disability population. Our standards--we're falling
    behind our own timeliness standards. We do not have
    standardized and up to date training. Our quality controls are
    not uniform across the system and we also don't have the type
    of technology to properly track the soldiers as they move
    through the system.

               SEAMLESS TRANSITION TO THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

        I met with General Pollock yesterday, her second day on the
    job and went over this IG report and also, she assured me of
    her commitment to take on this whole issue of disability. You
    mentioned the VA. The long-term solution to this problem is not
    an Army solution, not a DOD solution, frankly. We're going to
    have to look across the Government and at the end of the day,
    if we're going to address this as we should and care for those
    who will have borne the battle properly, as they deserve, we're
    going to have to look across the Government and the final
    solution is going to involve State government as well because
    they have many veterans programs. And the volunteers--using the
    VSOs more effectively than we currently use them.
        But we pledge to you----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, you know and we
    appreciate the volunteer effort. I know that there are some
    stunning volunteer efforts from Walter Reed to my own
    community. But the fact is, we're concerned number one, about
    the fact of once--if they reach a certain disability, they'll
    get TRICARE for life and that's what they want. I mean, that's
    what the majority would prefer because it enables them to, if
    you don't have the availability for a military hospital,
    they'll have availability where TRICARE is contracted with the
    private sector. So in my own State, not only do we have Naval
    Bethesda but you also have Hopkins and University of Maryland
    as part of TRICARE. So that's one of the reasons why the
    military want to be in TRICARE. Then there is going to be the
    overwhelming cost of this. I mean, we're heading to the largest
    workmen's compensation system that this country has ever seen,
    other than World War II. So I think we've really got to be into
    this, to move the claims and then also look at what is the role
    for the Army in TRICARE for life as well as veterans. Are you
    with me? This takes me to another question.
        I peppered General Kiley with a series of questions about
    the 50-year care. This goes right to what you are saying about
    VA. I don't dispute that. But he hadn't even met with VA. He
    hadn't even met with VA about the seamless transition of our
    men and women who will go into the VA system. Remember when
    they're evaluated--they come to a fork in the road. They're
    either in TRICARE or they're in VA. There's no electronic--
    there is not even an electronic record system. Then they have
    to stand in another line for VA. Can you tell then, how you're
    going ahead with VA, because they have a 700,000 person
    backlog?
        Mr. Geren. Well, our relationship, our working relationship
    with the VA is not what it should be when it comes to working
    with these wounded soldiers and their families, absolutely not.
    It's not where it needs to be. Not only is the Army committed
    to working that but Secretary Gates has--that is a priority for
    him. He's working with Secretary Nicholson. We recognize that
    there is a problem there and this administration recognizes
    there is a problem there. I can't sit before you today and tell
    you I know what the solution is but I can assure you that we
    recognize a problem and General Eric Schoomaker, Dr. Schoomaker
    in my first meeting with him, that was one of the issues that
    he raised also, was the issue with how do we manage the
    transition to the VA better and we don't have the answer today.
    But I can assure you, we're committed to working through this
    problem. We're taking it from the bottom up. We're going to
    deal with the bureaucracy issue, the backlog issue. We're
    committed to doing a better job with VA.
        This new deputy commanding general, this one star that is a
    new office added at Walter Reed, his job--and he's a combat
    veteran. He understands what these soldiers have gone through.
    His job is to be the bureaucracy buster--advocate on behalf of
    these soldiers and cut through this bureaucracy that is
    strangling the system. That old of a bureaucracy is a fight
    they should not have to fight.
        Senator Mikulski. I think we're in absolute alignment but
    my question is, when do you see your reports in and how do you
    see action being taken?
        Mr. Geren. We're making corrections every day. We're fixing
    things as we go. I will tell you, if I were--the relationship
    with the VA is something that is not going to change overnight.
    Dr. Gates, Secretary Gates, his work with the VA is going to be
    an important part of that. I know it is high on the President's
    agenda as well. But we are not waiting for any of these final
    reports, whether it is the Dole/Shalala or even the one that we
    have, Secretary West and Secretary Marsh. We are identifying
    problems and fixing them every day and I can assure you,
    General Schoomaker is doing that.
        Senator Mikulski. I can't tell you how much I like hearing
    that because rather than waiting for a report, you're
    addressing that. I think that's outstanding. I would just hope
    that our subcommittee, through part of its oversight, could
    meet with you again and have an ongoing conversation because--
    as we look at the 2008 while we're looking at the supplemental
    now, because again--I know my time is up but we have to think
    about this as 50 years. It's what I said to General Kiley.
    These men and women are now in their twenties. If you've lost
    an arm, you have TBI, you're into a 50-year situation, both to
    manage your care and your outpatient care. These will be
    chronic care situations. Some will need assisted living. Some
    will need assistance with living. Then we haven't even talked
    about the trauma to the spouse and the children. We've got to
    be treating both the warrior and the family and I know General
    Pollock will speak to that. I think the nurses as case manager
    is--just listen to General Pollock. She has lots of excellent
    ideas and she'll tell them to you as well. I think we're clear
    about that.
        But you see, we've got to look at the 50 years, both their
    compensation, then their care and then how we're going to help
    the families get through this.
        Mr. Geren. Yes, Senator, I couldn't agree more. We have a
    commitment as a Nation to--President Lincoln said it best--a
    commitment to those who have borne the battle, his widow and
    his orphan. That is a moral commitment that we as a Nation have
    to every one of those soldiers and their families and we've got
    to stand behind them.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. General Schoomaker,
    listening to your introduction of the three brave soldiers and
    their citations, I would believe that they are deserving of at
    least a Silver Star. Do you have any influence?
        General Schoomaker. Are you saying, are you influencing me?
        Well, sir, you know how the system works and we have to
    work within that and I'd be glad to see them wear the Silver
    Star. I just think they are real heroes. But we work within the
    rules.
        Senator Inouye. To the soldiers, the applause should
    indicate to you how much we admire you and how much we are
    grateful to you. The subcommittee is very grateful for your
    service. Thank you very much.
        I don't want to get involved in the Walter Reed matter but
    I'd like to make a little observation. In all of the furor in
    the front pages, I don't recall reading anything about
    criticisms of surgical and medical service at Walter Reed. I
    think we should note that. Most if not all of the criticism
    came about as a result of Building 18, the mold, the insects
    and such. But no one has ever complained about surgical and
    medical treatment and I think we should note that and express
    our gratitude to the men and women who serve our soldiers
    there.

                                ARMY RECRUITING

        Mr. Secretary, we are now predicting a shortage of troops
    and we are beginning a recruiting drive. DOD sets a recruiting
    quality benchmark and the benchmark says 90 percent of the
    recruits should be high school graduates or men and women who
    have high school diplomas but in fiscal year 2006, we came down
    to 81 percent. We also have increased and doubled the use of
    moral waivers. Are you concerned about this drop in quality,
    the quality set up by your office?
        Mr. Geren. The quality of our force that we have today is
    excellent. We have changed some of the recruiting guidelines in
    order to better meet the demographics of the population we're
    recruiting in. As we stand here today, only one-third of all
    the young men in the age of 17 to 25 are eligible to join the
    United States Army. We have made some changes in the guidelines
    but our Army keeps a close watch on the quality of the force
    and the quality of the force has not gone down. We have
    excellent soldiers from entry level all the way up through
    officer level and we keep a close eye on it. The leadership of
    the Army watches the recruiting numbers. They watch the
    retention numbers, looks at the quality of the force and the
    force that we have today is up to the high standards that you
    expect and we expect but we're going to keep a close eye on it
    and ensure that we maintain those standards.
        We've met our recruiting goals for the active component for
    21 months in a row. The Guard has developed some very
    innovative approaches to recruiting that I think that the
    active component can learn from and we're going to learn from
    them, some best practices. We continue to do better in
    recruiting. We're looking at ways to do better. We're targeting
    certain areas where we've got needs but I can assure you, the
    quality of the forces are a high priority and we're going to
    keep a close eye on it. I think General Schoomaker can also
    speak to the quality and put it in an historical perspective.
        Senator Inouye. Please do.
        General Schoomaker. Sir, I think we've got the most
    experienced, highest quality force that we've ever put on a
    battlefield and I often go back and say, look at this thing in
    a broader context. The laws of the land, the law of the United
    States of America allows us to go to 20 percent CAT-4s. Twenty
    percent. We're below 4 percent CAT-4s. The law of the land
    allows us to go to 65 percent high school graduates. You just
    said we were at 81 percent. Our goal is to go to 90 percent.
        I think back to 1980. We were at 56 percent in 1980, CAT-
    4s, CAT-3 and below, at 56 percent in 1980. I mean, the quality
    of this force and experience of this force is extraordinary and
    yes, I would be concerned about any trend that indicates as you
    said but I think we're talking about very marginal kinds of
    things right now and the demonstrated performance of these
    soldiers is extraordinary.
        The second thing is we watch our attrition very carefully.
    We're seeing right now, although we've made the basic training,
    initial entry training, by far--by several orders of magnitude
    more difficult than it was 3 or 4 years ago, we see our
    attrition now tailing lower than it's ever been and we're
    following those soldiers in the force and we see the same thing
    in the force. The soldiers that are training are very low in
    that. But commanders still have the same problems they've
    always had and that is, if soldiers don't perform, they have
    procedures in which they can remove the soldiers from the
    force. And that's why these attrition figures are important to
    us.
        So I honestly believe that we are fielding a very, very
    high quality force, that these young men and women are just
    extraordinary and what Secretary Geren just said, when less
    than 3 out of 10 young men between the ages of 17 and 24, in
    this Nation today, can qualify to join the Armed Forces, we
    have a bigger problem and I think it's extraordinary that we
    are getting the quality force that we do. In fact, about 15
    percent of that category of people provides about 49 percent of
    all of our Army recruits. I mean, it's pretty extraordinary and
    I would remind everybody, when you look at active Guard and
    Reserve, we are recruiting every year, more soldiers every year
    than the entire Marine Corps is--big. We're recruiting more
    soldiers every year than the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air
    Force and we're getting very high quality folks. So I think we
    need to keep our eye on it. I'm sorry to talk so long about it
    but it is a very important piece of it. I think we ought to be
    concerned about it. We ought to guard it very carefully but I
    think we're a long way from having to set our hair on fire over
    it.
        Senator Inouye. Well, I thank you very much for your most
    reassuring response. The Army is now predicting a shortage of
    3,700 career officers for the next fiscal year. Are you
    concerned?
        General Schoomaker. Well, of course. But again, let's put
    this in context. We started this fight what? Five, six years
    ago and we were about 5,000 captains short in the United States
    Army, when this started and largely because--you know, the Army
    today is only 40 percent the size it was during the cold war.
    So when you draw down what happened was, to manage the force,
    we underassessed lieutenants and that level is passing through
    the system now and--well, now it's the major level. So we're
    seeing that go through. At the same time as we're growing this
    Army, creating more brigades, we're creating more requirements
    for captains and majors and lieutenant colonels and so where we
    started in the hole, we've now also created a larger demand. We
    agreed to see ourselves short for quite some time and one of
    the reasons why we are accelerating promotions of those that
    are high performers, moving that promotion in on ranks, we've
    now moved majors back to 10 years, for instance, from 11, which
    is consistent with the other services. Captains we're promoting
    at the 38 month mark now, back from a 42 month mark, so we're
    doing things that we have to, to appropriately manage the
    force.
        I might remind you, I came in during the Vietnam era. You
    were a second lieutenant for 1 year. You were a first
    lieutenant for 1 year. You were a captain in 2 years. One of
    the field grade officers in the first battalion I joined made
    major in 5\1/2\ years. We're not going there. We were making
    staff sergeants in 6 months, during that period, through what
    used to be called a shake and bake program. We're not going in
    that direction. We are carefully managing this and making sure
    that the education and the training and all the rest of it is
    properly managed. But we do have a challenge and it's one that
    I think is directly related to downsizing the force to 40
    percent of its previous size and now trying to grow a force at
    war, which is a little bit like trying to build an airplane
    while it's flying. It's a pretty touch act. I hope that's
    useful because that's my answer.

                                 ARMY READINESS

        Senator Inouye. In a way, Mr. Secretary, we are constantly
    told that our readiness is being endangered or diminished
    because of the damage and what adequate equipment the Army has
    to continually use. Now you're asking for, I think, $24
    billion. Is that sufficient?
        Mr. Geren. We are able to meet our immediate readiness
    investment goals with that amount of money. That's what we have
    in the budget. It's only a piece of our total investment in
    readiness and reset. You all have helped us last year with the
    $17 billion we are investing in reset and making sure we get
    the equipment ready, not only for the troops that are deployed
    but the troops here at home. But we've got readiness
    challenges. We're committed to full spectrum readiness and
    we've got to, as an Army, got to continue to invest if we're
    going to achieve our goals in that area. Every soldier that
    crosses the wire is prepared and ready for this fight. In order
    to make sure that they are ready in combat, we are having to--
    it's putting a burden on our non-deployed forces and we've got
    to do more in investing in our non-deployed forces and
    investing in our troops back home. Right now, again, I want to
    assure that the soldiers we send to battle are ready for war.
    They are ready for the job we're asking them to do. They are
    the best led, best trained and best equipped but we have to do
    a better job in investing in the folks that are non-deployed.
    The tempo that we're subjecting the soldiers to, the rate of
    deployment--we have got a lot of issues that are putting a
    tremendous stress on the force and there is more we need to do.
    In a way, General, do you concur?
        General Schoomaker. Absolutely. I think I've never, in my
    entire years of service, I've never seen an Army in the field
    as well equipped, led, trained and experienced as this one but
    I'm very, very concerned about the price we're paying on the
    non-deployed forces and I've made this very clear. I've
    testified to this and of course, if we were in a closed
    session, I could be very specific about what my concerns are
    but I think we ought to be very concerned about the readiness
    and the strategic gap that we have in the United States Army
    today when you take a look at the strategic situation we face
    today. I have no concerns about what we're deploying.

                          SOLDIER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

        Senator Inouye. Recently I read a report issued by your
    office, General, which amazed me that in World War II, our
    combat soldiers wore uniforms, steel helmet, boots, rifle, the
    works--to go into combat and the cost in today's dollars, $175.
    The men that you are now commanding serving in Iraq, going into
    combat, have gear that costs $17,000, is that correct?
        General Schoomaker. That is correct and, in fact, depending
    on where you look, some of them are equipped over $20,000 as an
    individual. It was about $170-something back in World War II.
    In Vietnam, we were putting around $1,500 on a soldier and
    today, we're putting upwards of $15,000 to $20,000 on a soldier
    and we have to because of the kinds of things that we face on
    the battlefield today.
        Senator Inouye. Not too long ago, I watched an exercise on
    training and I swear, these GIs were carrying at least 100
    pounds. Is that the way they go into combat?
        General Schoomaker. I would say that people are routinely
    carrying 70 to 100 pounds as they move to combat. When they are
    actually in combat, in some cases, they are fighting a little
    bit lighter than that but if you take the body armor that a
    soldier wears today, the ammunition that he has and his water,
    just that alone, is up there over 50 pounds, 50, 60, 70 pounds.
        Senator Inouye. Now we're talking about adding on to the
    body armor to cover the elbows and the knees and such. That's
    going to be heavier yet. Are we looking for lighter materials?
        General Schoomaker. Absolutely. There are efforts going on
    in soldier systems looking at composites and all kinds of
    things, to include some other additional technologies. One of
    the things FCS does is allow soldiers to remain mounted in
    collective protection longer and it takes technology to start
    trading off heavy armor for other kinds of active protection
    that protects soldiers. So that's why these technologies are so
    important to us as we move forward, because we're running out
    of physics here in terms of being able to stop the kind of
    lethal munitions that are on the battlefield with just getting
    thicker armor.

                                STRYKER BRIGADE

        Senator Inouye. We have been receiving very complimentary
    reports on the performance of the Stryker brigades in Iraq and
    we just learned the National Guard is requesting two Stryker
    brigades. Are you in favor of that, Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Geren. I was not aware that they asked for an
    additional one. The current plan is for the one Stryker Brigade
    in the National Guard but let me say, the Stryker--I think when
    I came to the Pentagon in 2001, all the questions that were in
    the air about the Stryker, whether or not it was the right
    vehicle, whether or not it was going to live up to its
    expectations. This war--the Stryker has certainly proven its
    worth. It is the workhorse of this war effort and it is an area
    where we should continue to invest and as far as that specific
    request, I've not had a chance to look at it.
        As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we're one Army
    now, total force concept and we're calling on the Guard and
    Reserve to step up to the front lines just like the active duty
    does and we have got to make the appropriate investment in them
    and I believe we are. As far as that specific request, I can't
    speak to it. I don't know if General Schoomaker may.
        General Schoomaker. I just looked at this tough son of a
    gun sitting behind right now, Lieutenant General Vaughn and he
    shook his head no. I've never heard of a request for a second
    Stryker but I can tell you, the Stryker vehicle, as a vehicle,
    has demonstrated it is one of the most extraordinarily capable
    vehicles we've got and that's one of the reasons why our
    Special Operations forces are now asking us for Strykers.
        Second, the Stryker concept brigade and the kinds of things
    that it is able to do has demonstrated its worth a great deal.
    As we move forward here with the transformation of the Army, I
    think Strykers are going to play a big role but what we're
    really doing with this kind of capability is as we go to FCS,
    as we go beyond Stryker in terms of the kinds of capabilities
    that it brings.
        Senator Inouye. I have about 2 hours more of questions but
    I would like to submit them to you, General Schoomaker, for
    your responses.
        Senator Stevens. What do you mean, go beyond Stryker? What
    are you talking about?
        General Schoomaker. I'm talking about taking all of the
    goodness of Stryker and providing a lighter, more lethal, more
    capable system through the future combat system capabilities we
    have. For instance, Stryker right now has done some of the
    things that conceptually that we want to do in FCS. It's
    reduced to a more common platform. It has provided speed and
    lethality and situational awareness and all the enabling of
    these technologies. The problem is, we need to have a better-
    protected vehicle so we need to go to active protection. We
    need other things that allow, if a Stryker-like vehicle of that
    weight to be able to survive on the future battlefield. We also
    need to get more commonality of these platforms so we can
    reduce the number of mechanics, reduce the number of tools and
    reduce the difference in repair parts on a common platform. We
    need to go to more fuel-efficient vehicles that generate their
    own electricity and generate their own water and get greater
    fuel economy. We want to get a vehicle that is more
    strategically deployable in terms of its cube and weight. So
    all of these are where we're going with the future combat
    system and it will take all of the goodness of Stryker and
    improve upon it.
        The other thing is, we end up trading off. For instance, if
    you take a look at a Stryker Brigade, it's about 900 soldiers
    smaller than the modular brigade is, yet it has twice the
    number of infantrymen and squads and it's because we have taken
    all of the efficiencies and things like crew-served weapons and
    mechanics and converted those spaces into actual infantry
    spaces that give us the kind of things we need on the
    battlefield. So that's what I mean by going beyond Stryker. It
    improves upon the concept and brings better technologies to
    bear for much more lethal battlefields that we will face in the
    future.
        Senator Stevens. And who is for certain----
        General Schoomaker. We're certain about the amount. This is
    what all this is part of.
        Senator Stevens. Who is for certain the modernization of
    Stryker?
        General Schoomaker. We have. Every Stryker Brigade we feel
    that we've gotten block upgrades on.
        General Speakes. Sir, specific examples of--Stryker is
    first what we call slag armor.
        Senator Stevens. I'm saying you have the money here. Who is
    going to do it?
        General Speakes. Sir, it's funded. We have it as part of
    the program. As General Schoomaker has said, Strykers are
    absolutely essential to our concept of how we support and
    execute this war. Thanks to your generosity, what we now have
    is built-in product improvements in terms of weapon systems,
    the quality of stabilization on the weapon systems, the quality
    of protection and situational awareness on that vehicle.
        Senator Stevens. You'll be able to develop the follow-on
    Strykers with the money in this bill?
        General Speakes. Yes, sir. We will.
        Senator Stevens. You don't need any more money?
        General Speakes. At this point, we're adequately funded for
    the improvements we need. We will continue to improve this
    system and ask for more money if we see a need.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Inouye. I would like to thank the Secretary and
    General. Thank you for your service, General. But something
    tells me we will see more of you here.
        Senator Stevens. When do you leave, General?
        General Schoomaker. Sir?
        Senator Stevens. When do you step down?
        General Schoomaker. In about 3 weeks, sir, the 10th of
    April.
        Senator Stevens. Before you go, expect a call from us.
        General Schoomaker. All right, sir.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department subsequent to the hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                              future combat system
        Question. General Schoomaker, the Army has recently restructured
    the Future Combat System for the second time in four years amid
    concerns of limited resources for this ambitious undertaking. Is the
    Army's goal to transform to the Future Force placing undue pressure on
    budgetary resources?
        Answer. FCS is the only affordable approach to Army modernization.
    The Army has continued to adjust its modernization strategy to meet the
    challenges of fighting and transforming simultaneously. The FCS
    restructure in 2004 was designed to resource modularity and bring FCS
    capabilities into the current force sooner.
        Through spin-outs, we are already providing FCS capabilities into
    the current force, which leverages the investments in the FCS program
    to modernize the entire force. The majority of theater commanders'
    operational needs statements are specifically requesting the
    capabilities we are developing within FCS.
        The Army has found the right balance within its budget to satisfy
    the demands of a long war and responsibly modernize the force. The
    adjustments to the FCS program achieve this balance. It minimizes
    developmental risk where possible and gets FCS technologies into the
    hands of troops sooner rather than later. To help balance the
    affordability of modernization, the Army reduced the FCS program by
    $3.3 billion the Fiscal Year 2008-13 Program Objective Memorandum
    making it even more affordable.
        We cannot afford not to modernize. Operational requirements,
    personnel and logistic costs make the future force strategy an
    imperative. Our current combat platforms are ill suited for the types
    of operations we face today and may see in the future. To achieve this
    goal of balancing sustainment and transformation, it is imperative that
    we continue modernization efforts while fully resourcing reset,
    modularity, pre-positioned stocks, and the other costs of war.
        Question. The Future Combat System (FCS) is the Army's
    modernization program. It consists of 14 integrated weapon systems and
    an advanced information network that requires twice as many lines of
    software code as the Joint Strike Fighter. While the Army maintains its
    program cost estimate of $163.7 billion, independent cost estimates put
    the costs between $203 billion and $234 billion.
        The tension between the ambitious program scope and available
    resources led the Army to restructure the program prior to the fiscal
    year 2008 budget submission. This is the second major restructure in
    four years. As a result, several technologies are being deferred, and
    the procurement of FCS brigades will be decelerated, resulting in full
    fielding of 15 brigades by fiscal year 2030, compared to fiscal year
    2025 under the previous plan.
        According to the Army, the restructure was driven strictly by
    budgetary, not programmatic concerns, fueled in part by congressional
    reductions of $825 million over the past three years. While some
    critics question whether FCS can adequately fight the type of
    asymmetrical insurgent warfare that we are likely to see in the future,
    the Army maintains that FCS gives it the capability to fight future
    wars across the full spectrum of operations.
        General Schoomaker, the Future Combat System is a large and complex
    system. What capabilities will it bring to the type of asymmetrical
    insurgent warfare that we are currently facing in Iraq and are likely
    to face in the future?
        Answer. As I have said on numerous occasions, I believe we are much
    closer to the beginning than the end of a long war. The Future Combat
    Systems (FCS) are specifically designed to counter the 21st Century's
    full-spectrum of threats, including the irregular warfare in which we
    find ourselves today.
        The future is now; through ``spin-outs'' we are already providing
    FCS capabilities into the current force: unmanned aerial vehicles,
    unattended ground sensors, unmanned ground vehicles and robots. Today's
    operating environment requires the ability to find and track
    individuals. The majority of theater commanders' operational needs
    statements are specifically requesting the capabilities we are
    developing within FCS.
        Stryker brigade combat teams are linked together for situational
    awareness and battle command, and they are proving to be the most
    capable and the most effective units in counterinsurgency environments.
    However, this is just a preview of the capabilities that we're going to
    achieve with the FCS equipped brigades. FCS technologies that we're
    developing will provide our Soldiers much better situational awareness
    and battle command, one that is shared real time. We never want to be
    in a fair fight, and with these improvements our Soldiers will have the
    ability to see first, understand first and act first.
        FCS equipped brigades will allow us to accomplish missions faster,
    control much larger areas and reduce casualties compared to our
    traditional modular brigades. Survivability and force protection will
    be greatly enhanced in an FCS brigade combat team which will reduce
    casualties. The information systems and the intelligence systems that
    support an FCS brigade combat team will enable Soldiers to avoid
    detection and therefore reduce engagement by the enemy. Furthermore,
    these capabilities will enable Soldiers to avoid being hit, and when
    they are hit, the vehicle is designed to prevent a kill.
        The middle weight profile of the FCS platforms will fulfill the
    requirements of being able to fight while mounted. The greatest
    advantage of the middle weight platform is its increased survivability.
    Soldiers will be able to make greater use of the armored protection by
    staying mounted longer, and not dismounting until they are much closer
    to their objective.
        With increased endurance and sustainability, the Future Combat
    Systems will provide greater mobility at the tactical, operation and
    strategic level. The FCS brigade combat team is designed to operate for
    72 hours without external support. Its reduced logistics requirements
    will greatly improve sustainability which allows us to reduce the
    overall size of the brigade while doubling the number of infantry
    Soldiers that are interacting with the indigenous population. These
    changes are essential to ensuring our successful outcomes as we prepare
    to conduct military operations in the middle of the 21st century.
        We're up against an adaptive, asymmetric enemy that is changing his
    tactics every day. What you're seeing in today's FCS capabilities is
    the application of technology for the counterinsurgency fight, which
    has always been a human intelligence battle. We need to give our
    soldiers the decisive advantage, today and tomorrow. FCS is our top
    modernization priority, and we can't afford not to provide the best
    technology to our Soldiers. The cost of modernizing is measured in
    dollars; the cost of failing to modernize is measured in lives.
                          counterinsurgency operations
        Question. General Schoomaker, in December of 2006 the Department of
    the Army released an updated field manual that provides principles and
    guidelines for counterinsurgency operations. A recent news article
    credited General Petraeus as the driving force behind its creation due
    to his concern about the lack of strong counterinsurgency training and
    doctrine in the U.S. Army.
        How is this renewed focus on counterinsurgency training going to
    change operations in the Global War on Terror?
        Answer. Just recently, the Department of the Army, in coordination
    with the Marine Corps, released a field manual which establishes
    fundamental principles for military operations in a counterinsurgency
    (COIN) environment. It is based on lessons learned from previous
    counterinsurgencies and contemporary operations. It is also based on
    existing interim doctrine and doctrine recently developed.
    Counterinsurgency operations generally have been neglected in broader
    American military doctrine and national security policies since the end
    of the Vietnam War over 30 years ago. This manual is designed to
    reverse that trend. It provides a foundation for study before
    deployment and the basis for operations in theater. Perhaps more
    importantly, it provides techniques for generating and incorporating
    lessons learned during those operations--an essential requirement for
    success against today's adaptive foes. Using these techniques and
    processes can keep U.S. forces more agile and adaptive than their
    irregular enemies.
        Question. Just recently, the Department of the Army, in
    coordination with the Marine Corps, released a field manual which
    establishes fundamental principles for military operations in a
    counterinsurgency (COIN) environment. It is based on lessons learned
    from previous counterinsurgencies and contemporary operations. It is
    also based on existing interim doctrine and doctrine recently
    developed.
        Counterinsurgency operations generally have been neglected in
    broader American military doctrine and national security policies since
    the end of the Vietnam War over 30 years ago. This manual is designed
    to reverse that trend. It provides a foundation for study before
    deployment and the basis for operations in theater. Perhaps more
    importantly, it provides techniques for generating and incorporating
    lessons learned during those operations--an essential requirement for
    success against today's adaptive foes. Using these techniques and
    processes can keep U.S. forces more agile and adaptive than their
    irregular enemies.
        Secretary Geren, training in counterinsurgency operations will keep
    our forces more agile and adaptive than our enemies. Yet training
    doctrine for such operations has not been updated for over twenty years
    for the Army and twenty-five years for the Marine Corps. Why has the
    Department left such a gap in training for counterinsurgency
    operations?
        Answer. Army doctrine is continuously reviewed to determine if it
    remains relevant or requires revision. The Army and Marine Corps
    recently updated their combined counterinsurgency publication, which is
    heavily influenced by recent lessons learned and historically
    successful principles and guidelines. The fundamentals that guide
    counterinsurgency have not significantly changed, but the ways and
    means of insurgents have changed. Insurgents utilize terror tactics and
    guerilla operations that do not adhere to the laws of war. After the
    Cold War, Army training moved away from threat-based scenarios to
    capability-based scenarios driven by likely missions. But only after 9/
    11 did counterinsurgency and irregular warfare emerge as dominate
    operational themes. Over the last 20 years the Army has been engaged
    primarily in training for conventional war as exemplified by the Air
    Land Battle doctrine, which easily dispatched the Iraqi Army twice, and
    peace operations which are distinctly different from counterinsurgency.
    Training for counterinsurgency is different from conventional
    operations and peace operations. Today, the Army is transforming into
    modular organizations that will conduct full spectrum operations. This
    transformation is still ongoing. Modular Army forces conducting full
    spectrum operations provide the Nation with the capability for land
    forces to engage across the range of operations, from peacetime
    engagement through major combat operations and campaigns, and within
    the entire spectrum of conflict. The Army is always adapting its
    training to new insurgent tactics, but the fundamentals of
    counterinsurgency operations remain the same. The Army is developing a
    generation of leaders and Soldiers who understand the complexities and
    challenges of modern day insurgencies and are capable of executing
    successful counterinsurgency operations.
                              equipment readiness
        Question. Secretary Geren, we are regularly informed that readiness
    is slipping or endangered because the Army's equipment is damaged and
    worn out from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fiscal year 2008
    budget requests $24.8 billion in procurement and the fiscal year 2008
    supplemental adds another $21.1 billion for equipment. How can we
    measure readiness improvements gained by this huge investment in
    equipment? How do you measure progress?
        Answer. The Army measures progress by the change in the percent
    fill of units' authorized levels of equipment (i.e., by its modified
    table of organization and equipment--MTOE). The fiscal year 2008 budget
    and GWOT requests, if fully supported, will have a significant effect
    on our equipment on hand readiness (the S-rating from the Unit Status
    Report). These funds will continue major initiatives, such as Army
    Modularity, Aviation Restructuring, and accelerate conversion of two
    active component brigade combat teams, buy down of pre-existing
    equipment shortfalls, fill theater-specific needs, replace equipment
    consumed in theater, modernize major combat systems to increase
    capability across the force, and replace obsolete equipment, primarily
    in the Reserve Component. Because of procurement lead times, the
    effects of this investment in equipment will become manifest
    approximately a year from appropriation and extend over the following
    year. (We are just now starting to see the initial deliveries of major
    equipment procured with funding from the fiscal year 2006 main
    supplemental, which was enacted in June 2006.)
        Question. The Army's news release accompanying the fiscal year 2008
    budget submission stated that the fiscal year 2008 budget will build
    readiness. Part of that readiness promise is the Army's plan to ``fully
    fund a modernization and recapitalization program to ensure full-
    spectrum ground combat capabilities.''
        In fiscal year 2008, the Army is requesting almost $46 billion for
    procurement in combined baseline and supplemental funding--that is four
    times the level requested in fiscal year 2002. The Army is also
    pursuing a transformation course leading to the Future Combat Systems
    and incorporating lessons learned from current operations.
        General Schoomaker, one of the Army's major challenges is
    ``Achieving the full spectrum of readiness.'' Does the current budget
    request achieve this goal? If not, what are shortfalls associated with
    achieving full spectrum readiness?
        Answer. No. The Army has shortfalls in equipment and modernization,
    sustainment, and training (both unit and institutional) accounts. This
    reflects the fact that the Army is underfunded to support the current
    strategy. Additionally, the Army base budget request reflects offsets
    associated with Reserve Component mobilization, peace-time reductions
    in depot maintenance, and deployed unit operational tempo that all
    would need to be restored for the current budget request to fully fund
    full-spectrum readiness. Additional funding above the current budget
    and supplemental requests would allow the Army to accelerate its
    ability to achieve the full-spectrum of readiness.
        Question. Secretary Geren, when we hear about readiness trends, the
    metrics are often associated with the deployed forces in theater, and
    the readiness of non-deployed forces is sometimes overlooked. Is the
    readiness of the Army's deployed forces achieved at the expense of non-
    deployed forces and what kind of home-station shortfalls are created by
    the OPTEMPO of deploying forces?
        Answer. The readiness of deployed forces does cause reductions in
    the level of readiness of non-deployed forces. Prior to the advent of
    Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the
    Army accepted risk in manning and equipping units based on the
    projected threats and resource constraints. Very few units were
    typically sourced to or near 100 percent of the requirements documented
    in their Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE). The $56
    billion in Army shortages were spread across all units based on levels
    of authorization, which were short of wartime requirements. Units
    currently deployed to OEF/OIF are fully manned, equipped, and trained
    to undertake their directed missions.
        Achieving wartime-required fill rates means cross-leveling must
    come from units that were historically short from the beginning. This
    initial friction is compounded by growing contemporary operational
    requirements. Operational needs statements from Central Command are
    filled whenever possible and equipment frequently comes from
    redeploying or non-deployed units. Wheeled vehicles, machine guns, and
    night vision devices are examples of equipment requirements that exceed
    current MTOE but are considered essential for warfighting in the
    current environment. Units not deployed or scheduled to deploy provide
    the bulk of these materiel solutions. Multi-national force
    headquarters, training teams, and transition teams are examples of
    entities consuming substantial Army resources. These organizations are
    personnel-intensive, particularly in the need for senior officers and
    noncommissioned officers.
        Sensible policies associated with equipping in-theater forces
    contribute to depleted inventories for non-deployed forces. It is
    simpler and more cost-efficient for the Army to keep as much equipment
    as possible in theater for issue to units rotating in and out. This
    equipment pool was grown partly by units leaving behind equipment they
    brought to theater, thus reducing their equipment readiness immediately
    upon redeployment.
        In order to meet the current operational demand, the Secretary of
    Defense extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan to 15 months
    instead of the previous deployment length of 12 months. Dwell time
    between deployments is frequently limited to 12 months. The shortened
    dwell times create a number of challenges for units at home station.
    Equipment left behind in theater and moved into reset typically leaves
    the redeployed units with large equipment decrements. Simultaneously,
    factors associated with the manning lifecycle (block leave, schools,
    permanent change of station, retirements, etc.) lowers personnel
    readiness levels. Because the Army only deploys units that are trained
    and ready for combat operations, every unit must be manned to at least
    100 percent of their required strength, equipped with the most modern
    equipment available and complete an intensive train up prior to their
    next deployment.
        The short time available to move from the reset phase,
    characterized by minimal manning and equipment, to a combat-ready unit
    severely challenges commanders. Soldiers and equipment must be
    available for the units to progress from individual and small-unit
    training (squad thru platoon level) to company and battalion level
    collective training prior to the capstone brigade combat team level
    mission rehearsal exercise. The effect is a ``just in time'' readiness
    model that may not fill all unit requirements until just prior to
    deployment into Iraq or Afghanistan. After returning from deployment,
    taking block leave, and conducting unit level recovery and garrison
    resettlement operations, units are thrust right back into the ``train
    up'' for deployment mode. A significant portion of the units' dwell
    time is spent fielding new equipment and conducting training exercises,
    which adds to the stress on Soldiers and Families as theater demands
    force the Active Component units to a 27-month deployment cycle.
                                 grow the force
        Question. General Schoomaker, the strategic goals of the Army
    include prosecuting the long War against Global Terror, and
    transforming structure and capabilities to better prepare the Army's
    soldiers and leaders for challenges today and in the future. From an
    operational standpoint, why is one of the solutions to meet these
    strategic goals to ``Grow the Army'' by 65,000 active duty Soldiers?
        Answer. Growing the Army reflects the need to increase strategic
    and operational depth, build capabilities to meet combatant commanders'
    requirements, and address persistent shortfalls in high demand/low
    density units.
        Additionally, the Army is rebalancing its Reserve Component force
    to increase operational capabilities in combat support and combat
    service support units. With the growth and rebalance initiatives, the
    Army will increase capacity and improve unit readiness.
        Question. A new initiative in the fiscal year 2008 budget request
    is an increase in Army end strength. The President's Budget proposes
    increasing active duty Army end strength by a total of 65,000 Soldiers
    by fiscal year 2013 in increments of 7,000 annually (growing from
    482,400 to 547,400 total active duty Soldiers). Based on a continuing
    need for military forces, the end strength increase will improve the
    ratio of time spent deployed versus time at home, in turn reducing
    stress on individuals and Families.
        The Army considers ``Growing the Force'' as one of its major
    challenges, because it entails recruiting and retaining the all-
    volunteer force, developing 21st century leaders, and providing the
    required installation infrastructure and equipment.
        Secretary Geren, what is the long-term plan for Army end strength
    (beyond the Future Years Defense Program)? Will the Army remain at the
    higher end strength level? If not, what is the plan for the excess
    infrastructure and equipment purchased to support the increased
    personnel?
        Answer. The long-term plan for Army end strength is to grow and
    maintain levels to meet the projected global force demand. Although
    current operational requirements have influenced decisions to increase
    the inventory of those capabilities in greatest demand such as military
    police, engineers, and military intelligence linguists and
    interrogators, the current operations are not the sole reason for
    determining force growth requirements. The Army will continue to grow
    to its approved end strength and to rebalance capabilities to build
    operational and strategic depth across all three components to enable
    the strategy, meet combatant commanders' requirements, and address
    persistent shortfalls for today and the future.
        The Army plans to remain at the higher approved end strength level
    beyond the Future Years Defense Program. The combined effects of
    growing the force and rebalancing will posture the Army to meet long-
    term strategic requirements by increasing combat power and mitigating
    challenges in high demand combat support and combat service support
    capabilities. This growth in capabilities and increase in force
    capacity will enable the Army to implement the objective Army Force
    Generation model which will improve the dwell rate for the active
    component and provide predictable access to the Reserve Component.
        Under BRAC and with consideration of best military value, the Army
    is selecting installations that will facilitate the growth, ensure
    Soldier and Family quality of life, and meet criteria for the planned
    increase in ground forces. The investment in infrastructure and
    equipment will support the Army's sustained growth in the operational
    force to meet projected global force demands.
                          army reset/depot maintenance
        Question. Secretary Geren, what is the status of the Army depots?
    Do any depots currently have sufficient capacity to absorb an increase
    in workload requirements? Do industry partners have capacity to add
    workload?
        Answer. All of the Army's depots have the capacity to absorb an
    increase in workload requirements. Currently, all depots are working at
    more than 40 hours a week, but no depot is running a 24 hour per day
    operation depot-wide. The rate of return of equipment from the theater,
    the receipt of repair parts, and the Army's priorities drive different
    capacity utilization rates on different maintenance lines. The depots'
    production schedules are meeting the Army's current needs, and the
    depots have the capacity to increase production if required.
        Question. The fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act provided
    a ``Bridge Fund'' in emergency supplemental appropriations of $17.1
    billion for Army equipment reset. Included in that amount was over $4
    billion specifically for Army depot maintenance.
        The fiscal year 2008 Army budget request includes an increase of
    over $400 million in the depot maintenance accounts over last year's
    appropriated amount (fiscal year 2008 more than doubles the fiscal year
    2007 amount). However, in fiscal year 2007, $330 million was taken from
    the baseline program as a ``Depot Maintenance Peacetime Workload
    Adjustment.'' The fiscal year 2008 request most likely will be reduced
    under the same assumptions used over the past few years, which is that
    a lot of Army equipment is in theater and therefore unable to go
    through scheduled depot maintenance.
        Secretary Geren, what are the challenges in executing depot
    maintenance--asset availability for example?
        Answer. Depot maintenance is a complex business that requires the
    synchronization of assets, repair parts, and skilled labor so that the
    right equipment is produced at the right time to meet the Army's needs.
        The availability of assets is certainly critical to successfully
    executing the depot maintenance program. We are intensively managing
    the retrograde of equipment from the theater to ensure our depots
    receive sufficient assets to induct into the maintenance lines.
        The availability of repair parts is also critical. The receipt of
    the funding for the fiscal year 2007 reset operations at the start of
    this fiscal year has enabled us to purchase long lead items in time to
    support the continuous flow of reset workload through fiscal year 2007
    and into fiscal year 2008.
        Over the last several years, the depots have ramped up their
    skilled labor pool by hiring permanent and temporary civilian employees
    and, in some cases, supplementing this workforce with contractor
    personnel.
                              aviation priorities
        Question. Secretary Geren, in light of the proposal to grow the
    size of the Army, has there been a review of the Army's aviation
    programs to ensure that we are buying the right mix of aircraft? Is
    there a need to transfer investments from some aircraft programs into
    higher priority capabilities?
        Answer. The Army continually reviews its programs in light of
    changing conditions to ensure they support Army priorities. With
    respect to the proposed growth of the Army, we continue to assert the
    critical role Army Aviation will play in support of the larger Army. In
    fact, Army Aviation may have to also grow in order to support the
    larger force. Moreover, the President's decision to reinvest the $14
    billion from the cancellation of the Comanche helicopter back into
    Aviation programs has been and continues to be critical to our Army's
    success in the Global War on Terror and to posture the Army for the
    future. Upgrades to the UH-60, CH-47, AH-64 platforms, and to aircraft
    survivability systems coupled with new aircraft programs such as the
    Light Utility Helicopter, Joint Cargo Aircraft, and Armed
    Reconnaissance Helicopter are ensuring the relevance of Army Aviation
    in the future. For the JCA, the Army and Air Force are still committed
    to the MOU signed by both Service Chiefs on January 30, 2006. As
    outlined in the MOA, the Army is the lead Service in the Joint Cargo
    Aircraft program. While the ARH program is currently facing cost,
    schedule and performance issues, the Army's need for an armed
    reconnaissance platform to replace the aging OH-58D Kiowa Warrior fleet
    has not changed. Finally, the investments in our unmanned aircraft
    systems and our manned aviation programs are vital to the Army's
    overall strategy.
        Question. After the 2004 cancellation of the Comanche helicopter,
    the Army committed to spending $14.6 billion that would have been spent
    on the Comanche to a number of other aviation programs. This plan
    included three new aviation programs, the Joint Cargo Aircraft, the
    Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, and the Light Utility Helicopter.
        The fiscal year 2008 budget, along with the fiscal year 2008
    supplemental, contains substantial increases for each of these new
    aviation programs: the fiscal year 2008 budget increases baseline
    funding for the Joint Cargo Aircraft by $85 million, the Armed
    Reconnaissance Helicopter by $368 million, and the Light Utility
    Helicopter by $64 million. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental requests
    an additional $222 million for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.
        The Joint Cargo Aircraft is a joint Army-Air Force program. In
    early 2006, the two services signed a Memorandum of Understanding to
    cooperate in the fielding of the aircraft, but there continue to be
    tensions about the Army having such a major role in a large, fixed-wing
    aircraft program. Last year, the Armed Services Committee transferred
    the authorization of Joint Cargo Aircraft funds from the Army to the
    Air Force.
        Secretary Geren, the Army and the Air Force have been working
    together on the Joint Cargo Aircraft. Some continue to raise questions
    about which service should be leading the program. Are the Army and Air
    Force still committed to last year's Memorandum of Understanding for
    the Joint Cargo Aircraft? Has there been any effort to reopen
    discussions on that MOU?
        Answer. Yes, the Army and Air Force are still committed to the MOU
    signed by both Service Chiefs on January 30, 2006. There has been no
    discussion to reopen the MOU. Following the MOU, the Vice Chiefs of the
    Army and Air Force signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on June 20,
    2006 which further details the agreements of both Services to come
    together for this program. The MOA outlines agreements, resources,
    responsibilities and a timeline for key events in the program to
    include the Joint Program Office which was established on October 1,
    2006. Both Service Vice Chiefs of Staff also signed an addendum to the
    MOA in September 2006 to incorporate input from the TRANSCOM Commander
    agreeing to provide visibility to U.S. TRANSCOM on passengers and cargo
    flown in the JCA. As outlined in the MOA, the Army is the lead Service
    in the Joint Cargo Aircraft program and both services are still
    committed to this plan.
               mine resistance ambush protected vehicles (mraps)
        Question. This Committee has consistently supported the Army's
    force protection programs. By May of this year, Army will have procured
    19,380 Up-Armored HMMWVs, which we note exceeds the current theater
    requirement. Now, the Army has a requirement to procure 2,500 MRAP
    vehicles. The fiscal year 2007 Supplemental request, as amended, would
    buy approximately 750 MRAPs for the Army. There is no funding in the
    fiscal year 2008 budget for this program. Secretary Geren, how does
    Army plan to buy the rest of the requirement, about 1,750 MRAPs?
        Answer. The Army Program Manager for MRAP estimates that fiscal
    year 2007 funding will buy 706 vehicles. The Army still has a validated
    total unfunded requirement of $1.999 billion for MRAP. You are correct
    there are no funds requested in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental. The
    Army requested $520 million in the fiscal year 2008 Global War on
    Terrorism appropriation, but it was not supported. The Army will
    continue to work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to request
    and obtain this required funding.
        Question. The MRAP is a tactical wheeled vehicle that will give
    soldiers and Marines better protection from Improvised Explosive
    Devices. It is a joint USMC/Army program. The Marines, who lead the
    program, have awarded contracts to 9 different vendors with the intent
    to purchase MRAPs and get them in theater as quickly as possible. The
    vendors must deliver four test vehicles for evaluation at Aberdeen
    Proving Ground. After successfully completing testing, the Army and
    Marine Corps can order vehicles for delivery.
        Although Army has validated a requirement for 2,500 vehicles, it
    has not fully funded procurement of that number. The estimated cost is
    $1 million per vehicle; approximately $750 million is included in the
    fiscal year 2007 Supplemental.
        In addition, the Army is treating these vehicles as a one-time buy
    that is unique to Iraq and Afghanistan. MRAPs will not be made part of
    the standard unit equipment lists. Informally, staff has been told that
    MRAPs would be left in theater.
        Secretary Geren, since the ``MRAP'' is a very high priority
    requirement, why didn't it displace some other need in the fiscal year
    2008 budget?
        Answer. There were many competing priorities in the fiscal year
    2008 budget which were adjusted during the budget process by the Office
    of Secretary of Defense. The Army still has a validated total unfunded
    requirement of $2 billion for MRAP.
        Question. General Schoomaker, what is the long-term plan for
    ``MRAP''? Does it replace Up-Armored ``Humvees'' or Armored Security
    Vehicles in the unit equipment lists?
        Answer. MRAP fulfills a Theater-specific requirement to address an
    urgent capability gap for underbelly, wheel well, and flank protection
    against mines and improvised explosive devices. In current operations
    in Theater, the MRAP vehicle will augment HMMWVs to provide the
    combatant commander the flexibility to use the proper vehicle to meet
    the mission requirement. It addresses a current capability gap to
    protect the underbelly, wheel well, and flanks our tactical vehicle
    fleet.
        The Joint Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (JLTV) will ultimately
    replace the Up-armored HMMWV for the Army's Light Tactical Vehicle
    (LTV) fleet. The exact number of MRAP vehicles to be procured hinges on
    the testing and performance of the initial MRAP vehicles and the
    ability of industry to accelerate development and production of the
    JLTV.
        The ASV is one of the candidates in the current MRAP competition.
    The ASV is a Program of Record to fill Military Police modernization
    requirements, so MRAP will not replace ASVs in MP units.
        MRAP's post-war role in Army force structure is the subject of a
    current LTV strategy study to determine the optimum mix of HMMWVs,
    MRAPs and JLTVs for the Force.
                                   stryker's
        Question. Secretary Geren, we've heard that the Stryker Brigades
    are performing well in theater--and that the National Guard may be
    interested in gaining two additional Stryker Brigades. Strykers are the
    first new ground combat system fielded by Army in recent memory. Is
    Army considering increasing the number of Stryker Brigades?
        Answer. The Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs), like all of the
    Army's BCTs, are performing superbly in Iraq. Stryker brigades provide
    our combatant commanders a unique combat capability that ranges across
    the full spectrum of military operations. Stryker BCTs fit into Army
    Force Generation (ARFORGEN) the same as Heavy and Infantry BCTs. The
    Army currently has one SBCT in the National Guard, the 56th SBCT. The
    Army recently received additional authority to build six new BCTs. The
    mix of these BCTs--Stryker, Heavy, or Infantry--has not been
    determined, but analysis is underway that will consider the existing
    requirements, current operational demand, and our assessment of the
    future capabilities needed to meet the strategy. Additional maneuver
    BCTs of any type--Stryker, Heavy, or Infantry--will likely reduce the
    Army's stress and begin to rebuild strategic depth and flexibility.
        Question. The Army plans to have a total of seven Stryker brigade
    combat teams: six active duty units and one in the National Guard
    (Pennsylvania). Stryker is a rapidly deployable system deemed effective
    across the full spectrum of operations. It is an armored vehicle that
    combines high battlefield mobility, firepower, survivability and
    versatility with reduced logistics requirements.
        Stryker was originally envisioned as an interim solution as the
    Army develops the Future Combat System (FCS). Full FCS implementation
    has moved further to the future. Existing units are being reconfigured
    to modular brigade combat teams. Stryker appears to be a good idea that
    the Army has decided not to extend.
        General Schoomaker, are any new equipment or mission changes
    planned for the Guard at this time?
        Answer. The Army National Guard and Army Reserve are transitioning
    from a strategic reserve to an operational force that will continue to
    provide depth to capabilities needed to win the long war. This
    transformation allows us to meet today's demands and to position the
    force for future obligations. We will balance requirements for
    providing National Guard units for combatant command missions with
    obligations for homeland defense.
        Additionally, we are continuing to standardize our formations and
    the levels of equipment modernization. With this modular transformation
    and transition, we will provide the necessary equipment to these
    formations to meet operational requirements. The plan is to equip and
    modernize Active and Reserve Component forces to the same level based
    on ARFORGEN requirements.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
                mine resistant ambush protected (mrap) vehicles
        Question. It is my understanding that the Army's top priority is
    protecting soldiers from the deadly threat of IEDs and that you are
    aggressively pursuing a solution.
        What is the current status of the Army's vehicle armoring program;
    will sufficient FRAG Kit 5 armoring kits be available in time to equip
    those Soldiers supporting the ``surge?''
        Answer. The Army's priority is sending only the best trained and
    equipped Soldiers into combat operations and that means providing the
    best force protection equipment for Soldiers. Even as we plus up troops
    in Operation Iraqi Freedom and beyond, force protection will not be
    shortchanged.
        An excellent example is how the Army is improving the High Mobility
    Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), based on the ever-changing
    battlefield threat. As of this date, the Army has produced enough
    Fragmentation Kits 1, 3, and 5 to outfit every HMMWV in Afghanistan and
    Iraq. Safety enhancements such as driver restraints and fire
    suppression systems have been added as well. Bottom line, the Army has
    sufficient up-armored HMMWVs being produced or fitted with force
    protection and safety enhancements to meet the plus-up requirement.
    These vehicles are being shipped directly from the factory to theater
    to ensure Soldiers in the surge force ``cross the berm'' in a HMMWV
    with essential force protection improvements.
        Question. General Schoomaker previously testified that armor was a
    top priority. There is a $2.25 billion request for the MRAP vehicle on
    your Unfunded Requirements List. Does this mean that you are still
    under funded for armored vehicles? Did you request additional funding
    for MRAP vehicles in your fiscal year 2008 baseline budget or in the
    fiscal year 2008 supplemental?
        Answer. The Army still has a validated total unfunded requirement
    of $2 billion for MRAP. The Army's request for $500 million was not
    approved in the fiscal year 2008 Supplemental.
        Question. What would explain the Army's acquisition plan for MRAP?
    How many do you intend to buy by class, i.e., Category I, II, and III
    variants?
        Answer. The Army may buy up to 17,770 MRAP vehicles. The exact
    number of MRAP vehicles to be procured hinges on the testing and
    performance of the initial MRAP vehicles and the ability of industry to
    accelerate development and production of the Joint Light Tactical
    Vehicles (JLTV). The current estimates for the initial buys are 463 for
    Category I and 2,037 for Category II.
        Question. On more than one occasion you have described MRAP as an
    interim solution. What, in your opinion, is the ultimate solution and
    when will it be available?
        Answer. The JLTV will ultimately replace the Up-armored HMMWV (UAH)
    for the Army's Light Tactical Vehicle requirement in the fiscal year
    2010-15 timeframe.
        Question. Will there be open competition for the contract for this
    ultimate solution armored vehicle?
        Answer. The MRAP program is in response to a Joint Urgent
    Operational Needs Statement which calls for vehicles capable of
    mitigating or eliminating the three kill mechanisms of mines and
    improvised explosive devices (IEDs): fragmentation, blast overpressure,
    and acceleration. The Navy is the lead Service for the MRAP program and
    the Marine Corps, in response to its Request for Proposal (RFP),
    recently awarded nine prime vendors with Indefinite Delivery Indefinite
    Quantity (IDIQ) production contracts. The Marine Corps also awarded a
    sole source contract initially to fulfill initial capability from Force
    Protection Industries, Inc. This award was done prior to the award of
    the nine competitively awarded IDIQ contracts. MRAP vehicles will not
    meet all of the military's armoring requirements. The intent of the
    program is to increase survivability and get the best systems available
    now in the hands of our service members as soon as possible. While it
    will augment the Up-Armored HMMWVs currently in use, it should not be
    considered a long-term solution.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                           future combat system (fcs)
        Question. I have been informed that the Army's Future Combat
    Systems (FCS) armored vehicles will be too large to fit into a C-130
    type aircraft. It seems that air transport options to austere locations
    will be limited to employing the C-17 aircraft.
        Has the Army defined its airlift requirements connected to the
    deployment of FCS and presented them to the Air Force or USTRANSCOM?
        If not, when will this happen?
        Answer. The Army's intent is for the FCS manned ground vehicles to
    be transportable worldwide by air, sea, highway, and rail modes to
    support inter-theater strategic deployment and intra-theater
    operational maneuver. The Army has not yet finalized the design of its
    manned ground vehicles and has not dropped the C-130 sizing construct.
    Analysis to balance capabilities such as survivability, mobility,
    lethality and other functions, as well as discussions with U.S.
    Transportation Command and the Air Force will inform that decision in
    conjunction with vehicle design reviews. By sizing systems and
    organizations against the C-130 profile, the Army increases options
    available to the combatant commander and retains maximum flexibility in
    pursuing future advanced airlift options. The end design, though, will
    balance the capabilities to provide the most effective platforms
    possible using analysis, lessons learned from operations and developing
    technology.
        For assessing Army and global airlift requirements, FCS itself does
    not change the Army's air mobility or C-17 requirements. There is no
    FCS requirement to be able to move any specific size unit of an FCS
    brigade combat team by fixed-wing aircraft. The lighter, highly lethal
    and survivable, and more easily supportable FCS systems simply provide
    greater capabilities that commanders can use in responding to the broad
    array of missions with the lift assets they have.
                               intra-theater lift
        Question. We have seen great success using intra-theater airlift to
    keep convoys off the road and out of the reach of IEDs. Is there a
    shortfall in meeting the current Army intra-theater airlift
    requirement?
        Answer. The U.S. Army continues to mitigate convoy risk by
    streamlining distribution of people and supplies through U.S. Army, Air
    Force, and commercial airlift. Approximately five percent of cargo
    distribution is conducted by airlift. The Air Force's portion of this
    critical distribution is supported with their C-130, C-17, and IL-76
    aircraft. Commercial partners which include DHL, National Air Cargo,
    and UPS, are operating their aircraft to augment intra-theater
    distribution requirements. The Army supplements this system with CH-47
    Chinooks and C-23 Sherpas to provide spontaneous capability to move
    time sensitive, mission critical supplies and personnel to brigade
    combat teams and subordinate units on the current and future
    asymmetrical battlefields. The Army's shortfall lies with the CH-47
    Chinook and C-23 Sherpa. The CH-47 is a tactical asset that is being
    pulled from its designed mission of local tactical and logistical
    employment to conduct longer range intra-theater missions in Operation
    Iraqi Freedom. The C-23's capability shortfalls limit the ability to
    meet on-demand, time-sensitive/mission-critical missions. Specifically,
    the aircraft is restricted to longer runways, cannot operate at
    altitudes requiring pressurized cabins, and cannot accept standardized
    pallets. These are few of the major gaps which limit the Sherpa's
    ability to meet the Army's direct support requirements. The Joint Cargo
    Aircraft, currently in source selection, is required to fill this
    existing capabilities gap for direct support, on-demand transport to
    forward deployed units. Continued congressional support will facilitate
    fielding of this commercial off the shelf capability and bring the Army
    closer to meeting its tactical airlift requirements and aviation
    modernization strategy.
                        additional airlift requirements
        Question. Secretary Geren, current DOD airlift requirements were
    formulated before the announcement of an increase in the size of the
    ground component, projected at an additional 92,000 troops, many of
    them Soldiers.
        What are these additional airlift requirements and have you
    identified them to the Air Force or USTRANSCOM?
        If not, when do you anticipate a new airlift requirement will be
    developed based on the significant end-strength increase?
        Answer. Air Mobility Command (AMC) and U.S. Transportation Command
    (TRANSCOM) co-sponsored a study, Chief of Staff Inquiry: Mobility
    Impact of Army/Marine Increase (CSI: MIAMI). The Army, as well as all
    Services, participated in this quick-look study. The study presented a
    spectrum of potential mobility impacts based on the Plus-up forces and
    tasks to respond to warfighting needs. The Army land force increase is
    designed to increase dwell time between current deployments. The
    Initial finding, a 92,000 increase solely used for rotational purposes,
    anticipated no increase in airlift requirements. The current war plans
    do not include land force increase and have not been modified. The
    results for the CSI: MIAMI were presented at the Air Force's semi-
    annual senior leader conference, Corona, to identify and recommend the
    Mobility Capability Study (MCS)-08 to study to address this issue and
    suggested maintaining the C-17 production line open. The Army is
    satisfied with the current mixture of C-17s and C-5s identified in the
    MCS 05.
                           joint cargo aircraft (jca)
        Question. Will the proposed Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) be capable
    of intra-theater transport of the FCS vehicles?
        Please elaborate.
        Answer. The JCA is designed for a threshold capability of 26,000
    pounds or 13 tons. The key performance parameter for the JCA is for a
    threshold capability to trans-load an Up-Armored HMMWV or an Armed
    Reconnaissance Helicopter. This is insufficient to move the FCS manned
    ground vehicles but will be able to transport the unmanned ground
    vehicles, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and the Non-Line of Sight Launch
    System Container Launch Unit.
                          extended range/multi-purpose
        Question. Some have proposed terminating Extended-Range Multi-
    Purpose (ER/MP) and instead procuring additional Air Force MQ-1
    programs to more effectively manage these HDLD assets under a single
    command and control structure. What is the Army's viewpoint regarding
    such a proposal? If opposed, how would the Army address the
    inefficiencies in two separate command and control structures?
        Answer. The Army has defined, resourced, and fielded UAS solutions
    consistent with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Joint
    processes to vet the required capabilities and solicit industry
    competition for the best materiel solutions for the Joint community,
    vice direct procurement. A single command and control structure will
    force a change in Army core competencies and concept of operations. A
    single command will direct the transfer of ``in theater'' control of
    tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) from reconnaissance,
    surveillance, target, acquisition to central, continental United States
    control of tactical UASs in support of strategic, non-responsive
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Centralized control
    will lead to my loss of the capability, funding, organizational
    employment, and most importantly, direct and assured support of the UAS
    in direct support of ground combat operations. From purely a fiscal
    view point, centralized command and control will lead to DOD's sole
    source procurement of systems from General Atomics and Northrop Grumman
    for the next 15 years.
        Specifically, the ER/MP program is a Joint Capabilities Integration
    and Development-approved program, with a competitively awarded contract
    in 2005. The primary purpose of ER/MP is Land Warfare Tactical
    Operations. The ER/MP has greater capabilities than the Air Force MQ-1,
    at a lower cost. Equipped with a heavy fuel engine, using JP8, the
    common DOD fuel, ER/MP will provide greater endurance, including an
    enhanced payload capacity for both sensors and munitions. ER/MP runway
    requirements also supports stationing and operations collocated at the
    combat aviation brigade, unlike Predator B which requires greater
    runway lengths not normally located within the Army's divisional
    battlespace. Furthermore, the ER/MP will employ a DOD standard common
    datalink, common sensor, the One System Ground Control Station, and the
    One System Remote Video Transceiver, ensuring unrestricted manned/
    unmanned teaming and access to ER/MP sensor information. Additionally,
    the Army will operate the ER/MP using a common military occupational
    specialty.
        From an operational perspective, commanders on the ground
    consistently state that direct tasking authority and control of UAS in
    their battlespace is non-negotiable. The Army has listened to our
    tactical commanders and has demonstrated proficiency in UAS operations
    and procurement. The Army is successfully employing UAS with enlisted
    operators and has taken manned/unmanned integration to new heights of
    tactical success, demonstrating the benefit of airborne and ground
    large scale integration. Additionally, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
    and Special Operations Forces have partnered on UAS training,
    acquisition, test, and employment, demonstrating Jointness from
    procurement through operations. Finally, commanders in Iraq have proved
    UAS command and control in theater is faster and better integrated
    without using the Air Force's method of strategic satellite ``reach
    back'' for operational control and mission execution.
                         recruiting goals and standards
        Question. The Army has previously struggled to meet its recruiting
    goals.
        Is the Army on track to meet its recruiting goals so far this year?
        Please compare the number of recruits vs. targeted goals for 2003,
    2004, 2005, and 2006.
        How has the Army altered its recruiting standards since March 2003?
        Answer. The Army is on track to achieve its fiscal year 2007
    recruiting goals for the Active Component and the Army National Guard;
    however, we are concerned about achieving the recruiting goal for the
    United States Army Reserve. As the table below illustrates, all three
    of the Army's components fell short of achieving fiscal year 2005
    recruiting goals. As a result, the Army implemented measures to expand
    the opportunity for volunteers to serve their nation in its Armed
    Forces, address the recruiting challenges of an improving economy, the
    dwindling pool of qualified prospects and a decreasing propensity to
    serve, and fulfill the Army's increased accession requirements.

                                                                             ARMY RECRUITING MISSIONS (FISCAL YEARS 2002-06)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      RA                                          AR                                         ARNG
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                                                                  year 2003  year 2004  year 2005  year 2006  year 2003  year 2004  year 2005  year 2006  year 2003  year 2004  year 2005  year 2006
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mission.....................................................     73,800     77,000     80,000     80,000     26,400     21,200     22,175     25,500     62,000     56,002     63,002     70,000
    Achieved....................................................     74,132     77,587     73,373     80,635     27,365     21,292     19,400     25,378     54,202     49,210     50,219     69,042
    Percentage..................................................      100.4      100.8       91.7      100.8      103.7      100.4       87.5       99.5       87.4       87.9       79.7       98.6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Beginning in 2005, the Army implemented the following: the Tier Two
    Attrition Screen (TTAS) to assess the retention of non-traditional high
    school equivalency degree recruits; the Assessment of Recruit
    Motivation and Strength (ARMS) to evaluate recruits exceeding entry-
    level bodyfat screening percentages; increased the maximum age limit
    for first-time recruits from 35 to 42; adopted the DOD Test Score
    Category (TSC) benchmark standards; and revised our tattoo policy to
    reflect the changes of American society. These efforts to expand the
    opportunity for service are not a lowering of standards; without
    exception, all Soldiers enlisted meet the qualifications for their
    military occupational specialty.
        Question. Please provide your best assessment of the number of
    soldiers recruited since March 20, 2003, who would not have met Army
    recruitment standards prior to that date. This number might be affected
    by, for example, changes in age requirements, so-called ``moral''
    requirements, and intellectual requirements, among others.
        In answering this question, please do not focus exclusively on
    technical requirements.
        Rather, how many recruits since March 20, 2003 would have
    ``likely'' failed to meet either technical or well-established ``soft''
    standards that were in place through February 2003?
        Answer. The Active Army has enlisted just over 300,000 Soldiers
    since March 20, 2003. Without exception, all of these Soldiers were
    fully qualified for military service and the military occupational
    specialty for which they enlisted.
        Basic enlistment eligibility criteria are age, citizenship,
    education, trainability, physical, and dependents, moral and
    administrative criteria. ``Standards'' are associated with some of
    these criteria. The Army did not make any major adjustments to policies
    or standards in these criteria between March 20, 2003 and midway
    through fiscal year 2005. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Army
    implemented several initiatives and adjusted policy where possible to
    expand the eligible population for enlistment. These programs,
    initiatives, and policy changes include:
      --February 2005, initiated the Assessment of Recruit Motivation and
            Skills (ARMS) pilot program to evaluate recruits exceeding
            entry-level body fat screening percentages.
      --April 2005, implemented Tier Two Attrition Screen (TTAS) pilot as
            an attrition study. Current results are favorable.
      --August 2005, adjusted Test Score Category (TSC) benchmarks to the
            DOD standards of at least 60 percent TSC I-IIIA and less than 4
            percent TSC IV from the Army standards of 67 percent TSC I-IIIA
            and 2 percent TSC IV.
      --January 2006, as part of NDAA 06, increased the maximum age from 35
            to 40 and then in June 2006, from 40 to 42.
      --January 2006, allowed tattoos on back of the neck.
        The increases resulting from these changes are not mutually
    exclusive since recruits can fall under more than one category. From
    fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2007, we estimate that 23,000 to 28,000
    Soldiers have enlisted since implementing these changes that would not
    have qualified prior to the changes. This was approximately a 14
    percent to 18 percent increase over two and half years of recruiting.
        There is no ``standard'' for moral waivers. Waivers are approved or
    disapproved based on their merits and the whole person concept. Waivers
    are approved at two levels based upon the offense. Recruiting battalion
    commanders review misdemeanor convictions; and the Commanding General,
    U.S. Army Recruiting Command, reviews serious criminal misconduct
    convictions (includes felonies, domestic violence, and some misdemeanor
    convictions: two or more DUIs, two time marijuana possession). Some
    offenses (such as sexually violent offenses, drug trafficking, etc.)
    will not be waived. No consideration is given to percentages of
    waivers, caps, or mission accomplishment. The Army continues to monitor
    the effect of these waivers and to date, has seen no evidence of a
    detrimental effect on the force.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                        army disability benefits system
        Question. On Monday, March 12, Army IG released report on
    Disability Benefits System. This report was requested in April 2006 by
    former Secretary Harvey.
        Secretary Harvey requested this IG investigation one year ago, so
    there must have been indications that the system was broken. Please
    provide more detail about this IG report:
        Why did the Army wait to address problem? Why were there no steps
    to fix it until after the series of articles in The Washington Post?
        What is the plan for addressing the problems outlined by the Army's
    own IG?
        What is the timeline for remediation of these problems? Does the
    Army need additional funds?
        When will the Army report back to Congress on progress?
        Answer. In response to a March 2006 Government Accountability
    Office report entitled ``Military Disability System: Improved Oversight
    Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active
    Duty Service Members,'' the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
    Manpower and Reserve Affairs released a request for proposals seeking
    management and analytical support to transform the Army's Physical
    Disability Evaluation System in July 2006. This resulted in the
    formation of the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System
    Transformation Initiative which began its work in November 2006. As is
    apparent from this chronology, the Army identified the need to
    transform its Physical Disability Evaluation System and took steps
    towards its accomplishment. The timeline for the completion of this
    initiative has subsequently been compressed and the Army is working
    diligently to accomplish this transformation.
        We are currently developing a multi-phase Army Medical Action Plan.
    The plan includes more than 30 initiatives that are programmed for
    completion by July 2007. Key in these initiatives is the establishment
    of Warrior Transition Units at Army Medical Treatment Facilities with
    significant populations of Warriors in Transition. These units will
    provide command and control of all Warriors in Transition. Care
    ``triads'' consisting of a medical provider, a nurse case manager, and
    the squad leaders of Warriors in Transition are responsible for the
    management of all aspects of the care and transition of their assigned
    Warriors in Transition. The remaining phases of the Army Medical Action
    Plan will address the development and implementation of an efficient
    and timely system for completing physical their families, vocational
    rehabilitation, and seamless transitioning of Warriors in Transition
    and their families from military to civilian life, to include
    transitioning to the Department of Veterans Affairs for care and
    services, as well as transitioning into civilian employment. These
    phases, scheduled for completion between July 2007 and February 2008,
    will also incorporate ongoing monitoring and oversight to maintain
    program efficiency and effectiveness.
        Major General Gale Pollock and Brigadier General Michael Tucker are
    providing Congress with periodic updates on the progress of the Army
    Medical Action Plan. We will continue to keep the Congress updated on
    the progress of these unprecedented efforts to provide care, training,
    and services that are responsive to the current realities of a
    transforming Army.
                               state of the army
        Question. As you prepare to leave your post as Army Chief after
    nearly 35 years of service, please provide your thoughts and
    assessments on the following issues: How is the Army doing? Do you have
    what you need to continue to fight?
        Answer. Resources provided have allowed the Army to man, equip,
    train, and field the best possible force for the current fight. The
    Army is making progress in rebuilding its capacity for the future;
    however, is challenged to pace with the rate the current force is being
    consumed. Over time, funding will improve unit equipment fill, allowing
    the Army to equip brigade combat teams by 2015 and support brigades by
    2019. Timely and full support from Congress on the Army's budget
    requests will ensure these milestones are achieved. Additional funding
    now will allow the Army to positively affect our near-term challenges
    and accelerate our equipping timelines. The fiscal years 2007 and 2008
    budgets include procurement funds for the equipment necessary to equip
    our modular forces; our Supplemental requests include procurement for
    items that will improve the capabilities of our Soldiers as we
    incorporate lessons learned. The budget request for fiscal year 2008
    also includes Army growth funds required to grow ready units to sustain
    its ability to support our Soldiers. We appreciate the support Congress
    has given the Army as we continue to fight the Long War.
        Question. What are you hearing from our young Soldiers and their
    families? What are the biggest concerns our senior NCO's raise with
    you?
        Answer. Our Soldiers continue to be proud of the mission they have
    been asked to do and morale remains high. The Army's top quality of
    life concerns are single soldier and family housing improvements, child
    care facilities, and a more predictable dwell/rotation time for the
    Reserve Component. This particular issue was addressed by the Secretary
    of Defense on January 11, 2007, in the revised Reserve Component (RC)
    Mobilization Policy, which mandates that RC units would mobilize for
    one year and have five years before another mobilization.
        Question. What is your view of the escalation of U.S. troops in
    Iraq? Can it improve the situation on the ground?
        Answer. The Army and U.S. Central Command support the
    Administrations request for additional troops along with a continued
    support in working with national and international partners, promoting
    development and cooperation among nations, responding to crises, and
    deterring or defeating state and transnational aggression in order to
    establish regional security and stability.
        Question. The United States will soon have more troops in
    Afghanistan than at any time since 9/11. What is the objective of our
    military operations in Afghanistan?
        Answer. Our military is working with International Stabilization
    and Assistance (ISAF), conducting operations that provide security,
    stability, and maturing governance to the people of Afghanistan.
    Through Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A),
    continue to mature and grow the Afghanistan Security Forces. We are
    working with allies and partners to build capacity and set conditions
    for regional security and prosperity.
        Question. Can NATO defeat al-Qaeda and Taliban without better
    support from Pakistan?
        Answer. I am advised by U.S. Central Command that degrading violent
    extremist networks and operations, especially al-Qaeda, is a key
    priority. They are using all available methods to build regional and
    international momentum for moderate behavior while eroding support for
    violent extremist ideology, strengthening relationships and influencing
    all states and organizations to contribute to regional stability and
    the free flow of commerce.
                                  brac/milcon
        Question. The BRAC Commission recommended creating a C4ISR Center
    of Excellence at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) which involves moving
    CECOM from Fort Monmouth, NJ. This requires facilities to be in place
    at Aberdeen before operations are shut down in New Jersey. There are
    highly-technical laboratory and testing facilities in this move and
    other complicating factors.
        How is the delay in funding BRAC for fiscal year 2007 affecting
    Army's implementation of the 2005 BRAC round?
        Answer. We are already experiencing an impact on BRAC execution.
    More than half of our BRAC military construction is delayed, and
    continued delay in fully funding for our fiscal year 2007 BRAC request
    will impact training, mobilization, deployment, and quality of life
    facilities for Soldiers and Families. If the $2 billion fiscal year
    2007 shortfall is not funded, Army will have to re-prioritize the
    remaining unfunded fiscal year 2007 projects and all of the projects
    requested for fiscal year 2008.
        If the Army receives its full fiscal year 2007 BRAC funds in April,
    we will still meet our obligations under the BRAC statute.
        Question. More specifically, is the Army on target to implement
    this complex move of Communications and Electronics Command (CECOM)
    from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey to Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG)?
        Answer. Yes, if BRAC is fully funded in the 2007 Supplemental, APG
    projects will be completed to support CECOM movement under the current
    timeline.
        Question. The installation commander at APG and civilian leaders
    from Harford County have a detailed plan for managing the complicated
    move of CECOM from Fort Monmouth to APG. One of their biggest concerns
    is construction of the new Ordnance Center & School at Fort Lee, VA
    (currently located at APG). The current Ordnance Center & School at APG
    is sitting in the middle of the campus intended to house CECOM. APG
    cannot begin to implement the CECOM move until the Ordnance School is
    moved to Fort Lee.
        What is the Army's timeline for completing construction at Fort Lee
    and moving the Ordnance Center down from Aberdeen?
        Answer. The construction at Fort Lee and subsequent movement of the
    Ordnance Center and School from APG is on track for late 2009.
        Question. Has the delay on fiscal year 2007 funding been a major
    factor impediment in this tightly scheduled move?
        Answer. To date, the delay of funding has not been a major factor
    in the implementation of construction and moves. If funding is not
    received, the impact to the current timelines could be significant.
            procurement practices w/small & disadvantaged businesses
        Question. In recent years DOD had adopted several trends, which
    taken together, have had an adverse effect on small businesses in
    general, and small and disadvantaged businesses (SDB's) in specific,
    impacting their ability to do business with the DOD. These trends
    include:
      --Consolidation of small contracts into very large contracts
            (``Bundling'') so that only very large companies, or teams
            headed by very large companies, can afford to bid.
      --Moving contracts, previously awarded to small companies or 8(a)
            companies as primes, into one of these bundled contracts, once
            period of performance is over.
        --8(a) companies either have to become subs to the larger primes
        --8(a) companies are left out entirely.
      --Issuing multiple awards for Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity
            (ID/IQ)--if small and SDB and 8(a) companies want to play, they
            are forced to joint other teams, usually headed by larger
            companies, as subcontractors. Once ID/IQ contracts are won, SDB
            and 8(a) companies only have license to market, and are not
            assured of any contracting tasks by their primes.
        In view of these trends, please answer the following questions in
    the context of the impacts on small businesses, Small and Disadvantaged
    Businesses, and 8(a) businesses:
        Describe the Army's practice in consolidating (bundling) since
    2001.
        Answer. The U.S. Army follows the acquisition planning rules
    concerning consolidating (bundling) of contract requirements as
    stipulated in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Defense FAR
    Supplement, and the Army FAR Supplement. The U.S. Army does not
    consolidate contract requirements with an estimated total value
    exceeding $5.5 million unless the acquisition strategy includes: (1)
    the results of market research; (2) identification of any alternative
    contracting approaches that involve a lesser degree of consolidation;
    and (3) a determination by the senior procurement executive that the
    consolidation is necessary and justified.
        Question. Does bundling occur in one functional area more than in
    others? E.g., Logistics, Financial, Information Technology services,
    Program management, personnel?
        Answer. Procurements can be divided into two broad categories: (1)
    Services and (2) Supplies & Equipment. Within these categories,
    procurements can be further identified by Federal Supply Group (FSG).
    Services include functional areas such as Information Technology,
    Professional Administrative and Management Support Services, and
    Logistics Services. Supplies and Equipment include items such as
    aircraft and airframe structural components, weapons systems
    components, and vehicular components. During fiscal years 2003 through
    2006, Supplies and Equipment involved more bundled contracts than
    Services. The following illustrates the Aircraft and Airframe
    Structural Components FSG. This FSG had 22 contracts valued at $374.8
    million. Within the Services category, the FSG for Automatic Data
    Processing and Telecommunications had 23 bundled contracts valued at
    $3.3 million.
        Question. Please identify those contracts that have been
    consolidated or bundled in this fashion. For each contract listed,
    provide information to include: name of contract and value of contract;
    office or command served; type of contract; total amount of contract,
    and awardee(s); indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ); and
    multiple award--if yes, how many? Who were the winners?
        Answer. The attached Microsoft Excel spreadsheet contains the
    requested information. Missing data is not available from existing
    automated systems. The spreadsheet is tabbed for each of the fiscal
    years covered (i.e., fiscal year 2003-06). Criteria for selecting this
    data were: (1) the contract action was coded as a bundled contract and
    (2) the contract action had a positive dollar value.

                                                                             U.S. ARMY PROCUREMENT ACTIONS CODED AS BUNDLED
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Type of                                      Multiple or                        FPDS-NG CAR
              Org Level 1             Org Level 2      FPDS Award PIIN Extended     Contract      Type of IDC        Contract        Single        Contr Name       Obligated Amt    Award Face Val
                                                                                  Pricing Desc                       Bundling        Award                             Change              Amt
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           FISCAL YEAR 2003

    Total Fiscal Year Contract      ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $56,148,858
     Bundling.

               SERVICES

     Automatic Data Processing and
      Telecommunication Services

    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DAAB15-02-D-1002-0001......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $87,924.00        $87,924.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DAAB15-02-D-1002-BM01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft               $161,580.00       $161,580.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DAAB15-02-D-1002-BM02......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $71,300.00        $71,300.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DAAB15-02-D-1002-1N01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $63,074.00        $63,074.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  CECOM..........  DAAB15-02-D-1002-ZS01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $74,300.00        $74,300.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    ATEC..........................  N/A............  DAAB15-02-D-1002-0RRS......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $67,964.00        $67,964.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    DCCW..........................  N/A............  DAAB15-02-D-1002-F702......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $75,160.00        $75,160.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    USACE.........................  N/A............  DAAB15-02-D-1002-ZA01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $74,083.00        $74,082.84
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    USACE.........................  NWD............  DACW57-03-F-0130...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $56,300.00        $56,300.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $731,685.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Education & Training Services

    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DASW01-00-D-3000-2H07......  Labor.......  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Resource                $121,274.00       $121,274.19
                                     Region.                                      Hours.......                                                  Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $121,274.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
         SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT

    Aircraft & Airframe Structural
              Components

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0001......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft    $21,933,692.00    $22,046,500.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0002......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft     $1,364,499.00     $1,364,499.04
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0003......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft        $77,751.00        $77,750.57
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0004......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft    $28,962,862.00    $45,192,985.87
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0005......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft        $60,690.00        $58,965.23
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0006......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft       $208,991.00       $208,991.34
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0007......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft     $1,471,356.00     $1,471,356.36
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................    $54,079,841.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
       Communication, Detection,
     Coherent Radiation Equipment

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAE07-99-D-N006-0020......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Honeywell                 $6,001.00         $4,650.64
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................         $6,001.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
        Hardware and Abrasives

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-00-D-0111-0002......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Alcoa Global             $37,160.00        $37,160.20
                                                                                                                                                Fasteners, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................        $37,160.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
      Maintenance and Repair Shop
               Equipment

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH01-03-C-0037...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Lockheed Martin         $299,280.00       $299,280.00
                                                                                                                                                Corporation.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $299,280.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Materials Handling Equipment

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAE07-02-D-S040-0003......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Grove U S L L C..        $77,905.00        $77,905.10
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................        $77,905.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
                Valves

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAE07-01-D-S061-0005......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Parker Hannifin         $114,104.00       $114,104.00
                                                                                                                                                Corporation.
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAE07-02-D-S040-0002......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Grove U S L L C..        $34,348.00        $34,348.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $148,452.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
    Vehicular Equipment Components

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAE07-99-D-S006-0140......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Caterpillar Inc..       $647,260.00       $645,760.24
                                                                                                                  Critical.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $647,260.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
           FISCAL YEAR 2004

    Total Fiscal Year Contract      ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $96,048,732
     Bundling.

               SERVICES

     Automatic Data Processing and
      Telecommunication Services

    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DAAB15-02-D-1002-1V02......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $81,924.00        $81,924.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DAAB15-02-D-1002-1N02......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $67,149.00        $67,149.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  CECOM..........  DAAB15-02-D-1002-ZS02......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $74,049.00        $74,049.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAB15-02-D-1002-DG01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $55,424.00        $55,424.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    INSCOM........................  N/A............  DAAB15-02-D-1002-YJ01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft               $253,219.00       $253,219.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    INSCOM........................  N/A............  DAAB15-02-D-1002-YJ02......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $48,640.00        $48,640.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    NGB...........................  N/A............  DAAB15-02-D-1002-2Y01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft               $984,696.00       $984,696.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................     $1,565,101.00

     Education & Training Services

    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DASW01-00-D-3000-0Q01......  Labor.......  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Resource                 $28,135.00        $28,135.20
                                     Region.                                      Hours.......                                                  Consultants, Inc.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DASW01-00-D-3000-2H09......  Labor.......  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Resource                $145,915.00       $145,915.20
                                     Region.                                      Hours.......                                                  Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $174,050.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
         SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT

    Aircraft & Airframe Structural
              Components

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0008......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft    $80,837,530.00    $82,837,529.52
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0009......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft       $347,632.00       $347,632.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-C-0203...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  McDonnell Douglas     $7,000,000.00   $121,545,613.64
                                                                                                                                                Helicopter C.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0001......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dyncorp                 $860,971.00       $860,971.00
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................    $89,046,133.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
         Aircraft Components &
              Accessories

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0003......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dyncorp                 $340,965.00    $17,138,066.22
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0004......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dyncorp                   $5,494.00       $208,385.80
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0005......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dyncorp                   $7,014.00        $76,100.83
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0227-0001......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Fenn                    $716,950.00       $716,950.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing Co.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................     $1,070,423.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
       Communication, Detection,
     Coherent Radiation Equipment

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0006......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dyncorp                   $6,483.00         $6,483.38
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  CECOM..........  DAAB07-01-D-H806-0188......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Motorola, INC....        $87,089.00        $87,089.31
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  W56HZV-04-C-0642...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Rockwell Collins,       $387,380.00       $387,380.00
                                                                                                                                                Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $480,952.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
       Automatic Data Processing
               Equipment

    NGB...........................  N/A............  DABL01-03-D-1008-0193......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing           $10,954.00  ................
                                                                                                                                                Limited
                                                                                                                                                Partnership.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................        $10,954.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
            Guided Missiles

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W31P4Q-04-C-0024...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Raytheon Company.       $373,576.00       $359,267.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $373,576.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
                Weapons

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W31P4Q-04-C-0010...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Herstal SA.......       $103,063.00       $111,619.82
                                                                                                                  Critical.
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAE20-03-D-0143-0005......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  F N                   $3,224,480.00     $3,348,990.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing,
                                                                                                                                                Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................     $3,327,543.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
           FISCAL YEAR 2005

    Total Fiscal Year Contract      ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................      $347,559,207
     Bundling.

               SERVICES

     Automatic Data Processing and
      Telecommunication Services

    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DAAB15-02-D-1002-1V04......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $85,449.00       $145,499.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DAAB15-02-D-1002-G803......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $89,799.00        $89,799.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DAAB15-02-D-1002-1E03......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft               $499,718.00       $499,718.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $674,966.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Professional, Administrative
        and Management Support

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-05-C-0020...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Honeywell            $19,358,027.00    $19,358,026.53
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     International
                                                                                                                                                Inc.
    AMC...........................  CECOM..........  DAAB15-02-D-1002-ZS03......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft               $116,149.00       $116,149.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................    $19,474,176.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Transportation and Travel and
              Relocation

    ACA...........................  ACA, PACIFIC...  W91QVP-05-A-4501-0009......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Miscellaneous             $3,744.00  ................
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Foreign Contract.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................         $3,744.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
         SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT

    Aircraft & Airframe Structural
              Components

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0010......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft    $52,875,890.00    $53,875,889.59
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0011......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft    $51,831,122.00    $52,060,560.01
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0011......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp                 $42,951.00        $42,950.77
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0012......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp              $5,657,655.00     $5,657,655.11
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0013......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp                 $99,881.00        $99,881.47
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0014......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp                $224,215.00       $224,215.03
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0016......  Fixed Price   Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp              $7,356,393.00     $7,356,393.40
                                                                                   Redetermina                                                  International
                                                                                   tion.                                                        LLC.
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAH23-02-G-0008-BR01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Bell Helicopter         $271,206.00       $271,205.90
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Textron, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................   $118,359,313.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
         Aircraft Components/
              Accessories

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0002......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp                $679,940.00       $679,940.16
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0007......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp                  $2,266.00         $2,265.98
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0227-0002......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Fenn                      $7,252.00         $7,252.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing Co.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0227-0003......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Fenn                  $1,226,900.00     $1,226,900.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing Co.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0227-0004......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Fenn                    $858,830.00       $858,830.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing Co.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0227-0005......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Fenn                  $1,319,490.00     $1,319,490.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing Co.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0227-0006......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Fenn                    $997,100.00  ................
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing Co.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0227-0007......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Fenn                    $113,896.00       $113,896.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing Co.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0227-0008......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Fenn                  $2,483,124.00     $2,483,124.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing Co.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................     $7,688,798.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
       Ammunition and Explosives

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  W56HZV-05-C-0418...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Rockwell Collins,       $118,495.00       $118,494.70
                                                                                                                                                Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $118,495.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
          Engine Accessories

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0008......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp                  $2,269.00         $2,269.17
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................         $2,269.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
         Ground Motor Vehicles

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  W56HZV-05-G-0005-0001......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  B A E Systems        $71,500,000.00    $71,500,000.00
                                                                                                                                                Land & Armaments.
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  W56HZV-05-G-0005-0002......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  B A E Systems        $78,378,300.00    $78,378,300.00
                                                                                                                                                Land & Armaments.
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  W56HZV-05-G-0005-0004......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  B A E Systems        $18,626,266.00    $18,626,266.00
                                                                                                                                                Land & Armaments.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................   $168,504,566.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
            Guided Missiles

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W31P4Q-05-C-0314...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Lockheed Martin         $388,421.00       $388,420.89
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $388,421.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
      Instruments & Lab Equipment

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0009......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp                  $2,266.00         $2,265.98
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0010......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp                 $17,704.00        $22,233.28
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................        $19,970.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
    Vehicular Equipment Components

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  SP0750-02-D-9724-BR04......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  United Defense LP       $142,669.00       $142,669.46
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  W56HZV-05-G-0005-0003......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  B A E Systems        $31,444,479.00    $31,444,479.00
                                                                                                                                                Land & Armaments.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................    $31,587,148.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
                Weapons

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAE20-03-D-0143-0006......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  F N                     $737,341.00       $737,341.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing,
                                                                                                                                                Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $737,341.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
           FISCAL YEAR 2006

    Total Fiscal Year Contract      ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................      $124,522,201
     Bundling.

               SERVICES

    Architect & Engineering
     Services--Construction.

    ACA...........................  ACA, South       W911SF-06-F-0217...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Herman Miller,           $91,086.00        $91,086.23
                                     Region.                                                                                                    Inc.
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN13-03-A-0020-0009......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  .................         $1,043.28         $1,043.28
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN13-03-A-0020-0010......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  .................         $4,014.00         $4,013.56
    USACE.........................  LRD............  W91237-05-D-0020-0015......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Project Time &           $16,993.00        $16,992.91
                                                                                                                                                Cost Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $113,136.28
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Automatic Data Processing and
      Telecommunications Services

    ACA...........................  ACA, ITEC4.....  DAAB32-02-A-A021-0930......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Western Wireless         $40,017.00        $40,016.76
                                                                                                                                                Corporation
                                                                                                                                                (7897).
    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DAAB15-02-D-1002-1V05......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft               $145,499.00       $145,499.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAB15-02-D-1002-BJ01......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Microsoft                $52,280.00        $52,280.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAB15-01-A-1005-BRV1......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing L         $43,518.52        $43,518.52
                                                                                                                                                P.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $281,314.52
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
       Construction Structures/
              Facilities

    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN13-03-A-0014-0024......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  .................           $284.58           $284.58
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN13-03-A-0014-0025......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  .................            $45.53            $45.53
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN13-03-A-0014-0026......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  .................           $284.58           $284.58
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN13-03-A-0014-0027......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  .................           $113.83           $113.83
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN13-03-A-0014-0028......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  .................           $626.07           $626.07
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-06-H-0085...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Miscellaneous            $15,000.00  ................
                                                                                                                                                Foreign
                                                                                                                                                Contractors.
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-06-H-0103...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Miscellaneous            $91,747.00  ................
                                                                                                                                                Foreign
                                                                                                                                                Contractors.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $108,101.59
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Lease or Rental of Equipment

    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912PB-04-D-0025-0079......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Toi Toi Sanitaer             $56.00            $55.66
                                                                                                                                                Systeme GMBH.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................            $56.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Maint. Repair/Alteration Real
                 Prop

    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912PF-05-D-0002-0004......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  DI Gabbia Adolfo        $621,918.00       $529,721.74
                                                                                                                                                E Figlio SRL.
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912PF-05-D-0002-0005......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  DI Gabbia Adolfo         $15,708.59        $13,379.87
                                                                                                                                                E Figlio SRL.
    USACE.........................  NAD............  W912GB-04-D-0030-0047......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  SKE GMBH Und            $405,000.00       $355,792.50
                                                                                                                                                Bauunternehmung
                                                                                                                                                E.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................     $1,042,626.59
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
          Natural Resources &
             Conservation

    NGB...........................  N/A............  DAHA92-01-D-0006-WV09......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  AMEC Earth &             $75,000.00  ................
                                                                                                                                                Environmental,
                                                                                                                                                In.
    NGB...........................  N/A............  DAHA92-01-D-0006-WV13......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  AMEC Earth &             $60,000.00  ................
                                                                                                                                                Environmental,
                                                                                                                                                In.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $135,000.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Professional, Administrative
        and Management Support

    USACE.........................  N/A............  DACA78-99-D-0003-0058......  Cost Plus     Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Brown & Root            $808,100.00  ................
                                                                                   Fixed Fee.                                                   Services
                                                                                                                                                Corporat.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $808,100.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Education & Training Services

    NGB...........................  N/A............  W91151-04-D-0018-9H05......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Lear Siegler              $5,000.00  ................
                                                                                                                                                Services
                                                                                                                                                Incorporated.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................         $5,000.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
      Transportation, Travel and
              Relocation

    ACA...........................  ACA, North       W911S1-06-A-0009-0007......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Hospitality                 $177.00           $177.00
                                     Region.                                                                      Critical.                     Properties Trust.
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN03-03-D-0005-0088......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Auto Joncker GMBH         $8,954.00         $8,953.90
                                                                                                                                                & Co. KG.
    NGB...........................  N/A............  W91SMC-05-A-0017-0018......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Maple Hill                  $605.00           $604.80
                                                                                                                                                Partnership.
    USACE.........................  SWD............  W912HQ-04-D-0006-DY13......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  The Gallup                $4,056.00         $4,056.00
                                                                                                                                                Organization.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................        $13,792.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
       Utilities & Housekeeping
               Services

    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DABN13-03-D-0003-0032......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dale SRL.........         $3,806.94         $2,696.44
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DAJA61-02-D-0001-L183......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Le Techno Clere             $529.31  ................
                                                                                                                                                SPRL.
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  DAJA61-02-D-0001-L190......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Le Techno Clere             $560.05  ................
                                                                                                                                                SPRL.
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-05-D-0020-UG17......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Noelke GMBH......        $20,545.98  ................
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-05-D-0020-UG23......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Noelke GMBH......        $15,646.81  ................
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-05-D-0020-UG24......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Noelke GMBH......        $18,783.36  ................
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-05-D-0020-UG28......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Noelke GMBH......         $2,468.58  ................
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-05-D-0020-UG34......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Noelke GMBH......         $1,292.54  ................
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-05-D-0020-UG38......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Noelke GMBH......           $611.38  ................
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912PB-06-C-0033...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Nordbayerische          $399,544.00       $399,544.22
                                                                                                                                                Staedtereinigung
                                                                                                                                                Altvater GMBH
                                                                                                                                                and Company KG.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $463,788.95
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
         SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT

    Aircraft & Airframe Structural
              Components

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0012......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft    $98,622,379.00    $98,622,379.40
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  DAAH23-03-D-0043-0014......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  Sikorsky Aircraft     $5,546,368.00     $5,546,368.01
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Corporation.
    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-04-D-0034-0017......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dynacorp              $9,124,802.00     $9,124,802.05
                                                                                                                                                International
                                                                                                                                                LLC.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................   $113,293,549.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Communication, Detection, and
     Coherent Radiation Equipment

    NGB...........................  N/A............  W912L8-06-F-0086...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Avaya Inc........         $5,814.96         $5,814.96
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................         $5,814.96
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
               Furniture

    ACA...........................  ACA, South       W91247-06-F-0225...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  The Hon Company..       $140,689.00       $140,688.97
                                     Region.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       W9124Q-06-F-4033...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Diebold                   $3,811.25  ................
                                     Region.                                                                                                    Incorporated.
    ACA...........................  ACA, USACCE....  W912CM-06-A-6008-0001......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Miscellaneous             $3,878.55  ................
                                                                                                                                                Foreign
                                                                                                                                                Contractors.
    USACE.........................  SAD............  W91278-06-F-0104...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Knoll Inc........        $58,306.00        $58,306.01
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $206,684.80
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
       Automatic Data Processing
               Equipment

    ACA...........................  ACA, ITEC4.....  DABL01-03-D-1008-E1B8......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing           $59,490.00        $59,490.24
                                                                                                                                                Limited
                                                                                                                                                Partnership.
    ACA...........................  ACA, ITEC4.....  W91RUS-06-F-0088...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  4 Sure.Com Inc...         $3,209.00         $3,208.79
    ACA...........................  ACA, ITEC4.....  W91RUS-06-F-0090...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Spirent Federal         $189,000.00       $189,000.00
                                                                                                                                                Systems Inc.
    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DAAB15-01-A-1005-1GT6......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing L        $125,221.00       $125,220.50
                                     Region.                                                                                                    P.
    ACA...........................  ACA, North       DABL01-03-D-1009-0S09......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Hewlett-Packard           $3,104.00  ................
                                     Region.                                                                                                    Company.
    ACA...........................  ACA, North       W91QF6-06-F-0020...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing          $110,624.00       $110,624.40
                                     Region.                                                                                                    Limited
                                                                                                                                                Partnership.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DAAB15-01-A-1002-1E29......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  CDW Government,          $81,304.00        $81,304.00
                                     Region.                                                                                                    Inc.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DABL01-03-D-1008-1E51......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing           $84,501.94        $84,501.94
                                     Region.                                                                                                    Limited
                                                                                                                                                Partnership.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DABL01-03-D-1008-1E58......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing          $117,371.76       $117,371.76
                                     Region.                                                                                                    Limited
                                                                                                                                                Partnership.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       DABL01-03-D-1008-1E66......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing           $41,298.62        $41,298.62
                                     Region.                                                                                                    Limited
                                                                                                                                                Partnership.
    ACA...........................  ACA, South       W911SE-06-F-0293...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  GTSI Corporation.       $193,739.05  ................
                                     Region.
    NGB...........................  N/A............  DAAB15-01-A-1005-YX07......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Dell Marketing L         $51,012.35  ................
                                                                                                                                                P.
    NGB...........................  N/A............  W9124X-06-F-0133...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  MPC-G, LLC.......        $92,300.00  ................
    NGB...........................  N/A............  W912NS-06-F-0035...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Hewlett-Packard          $16,044.00  ................
                                                                                                                                                Company.
    USACE.........................  MVD............  W912EQ-06-F-0067...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  MPC-G, LLC.......         $3,480.00         $3,480.00
    USACE.........................  POD............  W9128A-06-F-0002...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Trimble                   $7,830.00         $7,830.00
                                                                                                                                                Navigation
                                                                                                                                                Limited.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................     $1,179,529.72
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
      Instruments & Lab Equipment

    AMC...........................  AMCOM..........  W58RGZ-06-C-0178...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  BAE Systems             $212,485.00       $212,485.00
                                                                                                                                                Incorporated
                                                                                                                                                (9942).
    NGB...........................  N/A............  W912L7-06-F-0098...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  Olympus                  $60,501.00        $60,501.00
                                                                                                                                                Industrial
                                                                                                                                                America Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................       $272,986.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
         Office Machines, Text
    Processing Systems and Visible
           Record Equipment

    ACA...........................  ACA, ITEC4.....  W911T8-06-F-0061...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  CDW Government           $17,800.00        $17,800.00
                                                                                                                                                Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................        $17,800.00
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
     Refrigeration, A/C Equipment

    NGB...........................  N/A............  W912JF-06-F-0100...........  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Other..........  Unknown....  American Hotel            $8,433.58         $8,433.58
                                                                                                                                                Register Company.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................         $8,433.58
                                                                                                                                                                 ==================
                Weapons

    AMC...........................  TACOM..........  DAAE20-03-D-0143-0007......  Fixed Price.  Not Applicable.  Mission          Unknown....  F N                   $6,566,487.00     $6,566,487.00
                                                                                                                  Critical.                     Manufacturing,
                                                                                                                                                Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                 ------------------
          Total...................  ...............  ...........................  ............  ...............  ...............  ...........  .................     $6,566,487.00
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Do your ID/IQ's or large bundled contracts have set
    asides for small and disadvantaged businesses (SDB's)? If yes,
        i. What is the average size of the SDB's (employee's size and
    revenue) that have received bundled contract awards?
        ii. What percentage of business do these small and disadvantaged
    businesses get from your ID/IQ tasks?
        Answer. The U.S. Army uses small business set-asides when the
    contracting officer is able to determine there is a reasonable
    expectation that offers will be received from at least two responsible
    small business concerns and the award will be made at fair market
    prices. The level of detail of the information requested above
    (example: average size of the SDB's (number of employees and revenue))
    is not available in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation
    or the U.S. Army contract writing systems.
        Question. Does the Army have a Small and Disadvantaged Business
    Policy?
        If yes--please describe how and when this policy is applied to each
    procurement that the Army conducts--at Acquisition strategy time? At
    the time of drafting the Statement of work? At the time of the release
    of the RFP? At the time of contract award?
        How to you enforce this policy?
        Answer. Yes, the Army does have a small business policy which
    includes the small and disadvantaged business (SDB) program. It is Army
    policy to ensure that a fair proportion of the total Army purchases are
    placed with small businesses and SDB firms at both the prime and
    subcontract levels. The policy also provides for outreach and
    counseling to these entities to assist them in understanding how to do
    business with the Army. At each Army contracting activity, a small
    business specialist (SBS) is assigned. The SBS is responsible for
    reviewing requirements early in the procurement cycle, during the
    acquisition strategy development phase, to determine if the acquisition
    is suitable for small/SDB participation. As a function of their
    responsibilities, the SBS will conduct market research to determine if
    there are two or more small/SDBs capable of performing the requirement.
    If so, they will recommend that the requirement be set-aside for small/
    SDB firms as prime contractors. One of the enforcement tools the SBS
    has is to non-concur if the acquisition strategy is not incompliance
    with the policy. This required on all acquisitions over $10,000. The
    SBS is also required to forward their non-concurrence to the Small
    Business Administration.
        Question. Does the Army have a Small and Disadvantaged Business
    Utilization Advocate (SADBU Advocate)?
        Answer. Yes, in accordance with the Small Business Act of 1953 and
    Public Laws 83-163 and 85-536, the Army has a Director, Small and
    Disadvantaged Business Utilization (SADBU). The Director, SADBU
    traditionally reports directly to the Secretary of the Army.
        Question. What is the overall role of the SADBU in the Army? Is it
    an advocacy role? Or an enforcer role? Or a reviewer role? Does each
    command have a SADBU?
        Answer. The Director, SADBU, advises the Secretary of the Army and
    the Army leadership on small business related matters; spearheads
    innovative initiatives that contribute to expanding the small business
    industrial base relevant to the Army mission and priorities; and
    leverages the use of minorities serving educational institutions in
    support of Army science and technology programs. Each Army command is
    required to appoint an Associate Director for Small Business.
        Question. What is the SADBU's role in each procurement? Is it
    substantive? Or advisory?
        Answer. The SADBU performs in an advisory capacity on procurement.
    However, the SADBU role in the procurement process can be very involved
    as they conduct market research to determine if there are capable
    small/SDB firms available to perform the stated requirement and reviews
    the acquisition strategy to ensure that no barriers to small business
    participation exist.
        Question. Can the SADBU redirect procurements to Small and
    Disadvantaged businesses to include SBA-certified 8(a) businesses?
        Answer. When market research shows that there are two or more SDB
    firms, including SBA-certified 8(a) firms capable of performing the
    requirement, the SADBU can request that the requirement be set-aside
    for SDB/8(a) firms.
        Question. Does the Army have an 8(a) set-aside program?
        Answer. Yes, the Army fully supports the Small Business
    Administration 8(a) Business Development Program as required by the
    Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988 [15 U.S.C.
    636(j)16(a)  (B)].
        Question. How does the Army define an 8(a) set aside program? What
    disadvantaged group do you include in this program? Do you give
    preference to a particular disadvantaged group? How is this program
    run?
        Answer. The Army supports fully the 8(a) program as defined by
    Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act [15 U.S.C. 637 (a)]. The Small
    Business Administration (SBA) administers the program to assist small
    disadvantaged business firms compete in the American economy.
        The SBA classifies the following ethnic groups as disadvantaged:
    Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific
    Americans, Subcontinent Asian Americans, and members of other groups
    designated on a case by case basis by the SBA.
        The Army does not give preference to a particular disadvantaged
    group. However, if SBA has not accepted a requirement into the 8(a)
    program, an 8(a) firm owned and controlled by an Indian tribe or Native
    Hawaiian or Alaska Corporation can receive that 8(a) contract directly,
    at any dollar value without competition.
        The Army 8(a) program is managed by a Partnership Agreement (PA)
    between SBA and the Department of Defense (DOD). The partnership
    agreement delegates SBA's contractual execution functions to DOD per
    the requirements of 13 C.F.R.  124.501. The SBA determines and
    quantifies the extent to which the 8(a) Business Development Program
    assist in the development of firms owned and controlled by socially and
    economically disadvantaged individuals.
        Question. Do the 8(a) firms have to compete to get an award? Or do
    they get directed awards?
        Answer. When contracting with certified 8(a) firms the Army is
    authorized to utilize either the competitive or sole source method of
    procurement. However, the preferred method is through the competitive
    acquisition process, especially if the anticipated award price will
    exceed $5.5 million for manufacturing and $3.5 million for services.
    Sole source awards made to Native American Tribal-Owned firms and
    Native Hawaiian or Alaska Corporations are exempt form the dollar
    thresholds.
        Question. How many contracts have been awarded under this program?
    What is the average value of these set-aside programs?
        Answer. Since fiscal year 2001, the Army has awarded over 8,000
    contract actions to 8(a) firms.
        The total value of contract actions awarded to 8(a) firms over the
    past six fiscal years, fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2006 was
    approximately $15.2 billion at an average of $2.5 billion per year.
        Question. Does the Army have a Mentor-Protege program for 8(a)
    companies?
        How does that work?
        How can an 8(a) company take advantaged of the mentor/protege
    program?
        What do the 8(a) companies get out of it?
        What does the Army get out of it?
        Answer. The Army supports fully the goals of the DOD Pilot Mentor-
    Protege Program (MPP) established under Section 831 of Public Law 101-
    510, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991. The
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 extended the
    MPP until September 30, 2010 for approval of new agreements. The
    Department of Defense delegated approval authority for mentor-protege
    agreements to the Services beginning in fiscal year 2004. Certified
    small disadvantaged business concerns (including 8(a) companies),
    woman-owned small business concerns, service disabled veteran-owned
    small business concerns, Indian-owned small business concerns, and Hub
    Zone certified small business concerns are all eligible to participate
    as proteges. Currently, 22 8(a) certified companies are participating
    in Army MPP agreements as proteges.
        The MPP program is designed to provide incentives to prime
    contractors to develop the technical and business capabilities of
    eligible proteges to increase their participation in both prime
    contracts and subcontracts. Under the DOD Pilot MPP, the Army is
    authorized to approve MP agreements for reimbursement of the mentor's
    costs for mentoring the protege. Appropriated funds are provided each
    year for this purpose and the agreement is effectuated and funded by
    modifying a contract the mentor already has with the Army.
        Since the DOD MPP stipulates that it is the sole responsibility of
    the mentor to select a protege, an 8(a) company can take advantage of
    the MPP by partnering with an Army prime contractor who is willing to
    serve as a mentor and has the ability to mentor the protege in the
    business and technical areas for which the protege needs to increase
    capabilities to be more competitive in the DOD market. Usually, the
    mentor is a firm that an 8(a) company already has a business
    relationship with. The 8(a) companies benefit under the MPP by gaining
    technology transfer, technical management skills, a long-term
    relationship with their mentor, enhanced competitiveness in the DOD
    market, increased subcontracting opportunities, and increased prime
    contracting opportunities.
        The Army goal is to engage industries to shape and expand the
    industrial base to support the war fighter. To that end, the MPP is a
    tool that promotes partnerships between 8(a) companies and large prime
    contractors to achieve that purpose.
        Question. A couple of recent Army contracts have changed the NAICS
    codes (codes are used to identify services or products that can be
    provided, with defined ceilings in both size and revenue of companies)
    merely to change the top limit of size of companies--usually to
    increase the size--so that larger companies can qualify under a small
    business set aside (in one case the NAICS code was changed so that
    small companies that have 500 employees can bid, from a prior NAICS
    code that required small companies to have a maximum of 100 employees).
        Is this a prevalent practice in the Army? If so why?
        Answer. Changing the NAICS codes merely to change the top limit of
    the size of companies so that larger companies can qualify under a
    solicitation set-aside for small business is not a prevalent practice
    within the Army procurement process. The Army policy as it relates to
    selecting a NAICS code for a particular requirement is in accordance
    with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 19.1. Specifically, the
    NAICS code selected for a particular solicitation is normally for a
    particular product or service whose definition best describes the
    principal nature of the product or service being acquired and the size
    standard for the industry accounting for the greatest percentage of the
    contract price.
        Question. What steps does the Army take to ensure that smaller
    sized companies also have a chance to compete?
        Answer. The Director, SADBU participates as a member on the Army
    Service Strategy Panel to ensure that the small business interest is
    not over looked. Army Commands' SADBUs regularly conduct outreach to
    the small business community and to targeted small business groups
    (e.g. SDB, woman-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned
    small businesses etc.). During the acquisition strategy development
    phase on major procurements, contracting activities often conduct
    industry briefings specifically targeted at the small business
    community to determine the feasibility of setting the requirement aside
    for SB and provide the SB community an opportunity to understand and
    comment on the requirement. Additionally, in those instances when
    consolidation of contract requirements is justified and SB
    participation is limited to subcontracts, the Director SADBU recommends
    the inclusion of strong SB subcontracting goals as a percent of the
    total contract value.
        Question. Does the Army hold large businesses accountable for
    meeting their small business goals?
        Answer. Yes. Performance against negotiated small and disadvantaged
    business subcontracting plans is monitored and is included as part of
    the prime contractor's performance evaluation.
        Question. Does the Army require larger companies to have small and
    disadvantaged (SDB and 8(a)) business goals?
        Answer. Yes. The Army supports fully the statutory requirement that
    government prime contractors must ensure that small business (SB)
    concerns, small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, women-owned
    small business (WOSB) concerns, historically underutilized business
    zone small business (HUBZone) concerns, and service-disabled veteran-
    owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns have the maximum practicable
    opportunity to participate as subcontractors in contract performance
    consistent with efficient performance. Public Law 95-507 established
    the requirement for all Federal prime contractors who were other than
    small business concerns that receive a prime contract of $500,000 or
    more ($1 million for construction) to negotiate a subcontracting plan
    that ensures that small business and SDB concerns are provided maximum
    practicable opportunity to compete for subcontracting opportunities.
    The Army adheres to the subcontracting plan requirements.
        Additionally, Section 834 of Public Law 101-189 required the
    Secretary of Defense to establish a test program to determine whether
    the negotiation and administration of comprehensive small business
    subcontracting plans on a corporate, division, or plant-wide basis will
    result in increased opportunities for small and small disadvantaged
    business concerns under DOD contracts. The test program began on
    October 1, 1990, and will run through September 30, 2010. Any Army
    contracts awarded to test participants are covered by the comprehensive
    small business subcontracting plan and are exempt from the requirement
    to negotiate an individual subcontracting plan. Currently, the
    comprehensive subcontracting plans are negotiated and monitored by the
    Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).
        Question. How are large businesses held accountable to meeting
    these goals? How does the Army track these goals? Are there any
    penalties for not meeting these goals?
        Answer. Large businesses are required to submit semi-annual reports
    regarding subcontract awards.
        Prime contractors are required to submit semi-annual reports to the
    administrative contracting officer that provides the status of their
    compliance with the approved subcontracting plan. Additionally, the
    DCMA monitors contract performance for many of the Army contracts.
        If the prime contractor does not meet the goals, liquidated damages
    may be assessed if it can be determined that the prime contractor did
    not make a good faith effort in administration of the plan. However,
    the Army has established various methods to enhance subcontracting
    opportunities including, providing incentives for small business
    subcontracting through source selection criteria and award fee
    provisions; continuing to emphasize participation in the Mentor-Protege
    program; counseling and encouraging small businesses to participate in
    subcontracting opportunities; and tracking proposed subcontracting plan
    goals versus actual accomplishments and taking corrective action where
    appropriate. Past performance is documented and utilized for future
    source selection decisions.
        Question. Are the penalties enough to ensure that big businesses
    meet those goals?
        Answer. Yes. The goal setting process requires the contractor and
    the Army to estimate the goal based on circumstances today, for
    contracts that may last for 5 years or longer. It must allow for the
    exercise of business judgment by the administrative contracting officer
    based on actual events that occur throughout the life of the contract
    to determine if the contractor made a good faith effort even if all
    goals are not achieved. The most effective penalty is the lower source
    selection evaluation rating given to a contractor with negative past
    performance information concerning subcontracting.
        Question. Please describe what positive steps the Army is taking or
    will take to ensure that small and disadvantaged companies and 8(a)
    companies have a chance to win business with the Army.
        Answer. The Director, SADBU participates as a member on the Army
    Service Strategy Panel to ensure that the small business interest is
    not over looked. The Army Commands' SADBUs regularly conducts outreach
    to the small business community and to targeted small business groups
    (e.g. SDB, woman-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned
    small businesses etc). During the acquisition strategy development
    phase on major procurements, contracting activities often conduct
    industry briefings specifically targeted at the small business
    community to determine the feasibility of setting the requirement aside
    for SB and provide the SB community an opportunity to understand and
    comment on the requirement. Additionally, in those instances when
    consolidation of contract requirements is justified and SB
    participation is limited to subcontracts, the Director SADBU recommends
    the inclusion of strong SB subcontracting goals as a percent of the
    total contract value.
               retaliation against soldiers for wramc complaints
        Question. As you know, soldiers were ignored when they complained
    to Army commanders about conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
    Revelations about deplorable living conditions at Building 18 and
    bureaucratic nightmares came to light through the press rather than the
    Army's chain of command. In your response to my question about soldiers
    being retaliated against for speaking out about problems at Walter Reed
    and elsewhere, you told me that the Army does not retaliate against
    soldiers for reporting problems to Army officials. What about soldiers
    who speak to journalists? Will the Army punish those soldiers?
        Answer. The Army does not have a policy against speaking with
    journalists. Consistent with long-standing Army Public Affairs
    policies, Soldiers may communicate with the media in an unofficial
    capacity, and may express personal opinions unless limited by law or
    regulation. We encourage Soldiers to candidly discuss matters about
    which they have personal knowledge, if the information is otherwise
    releasable or not classified.
        Recent events at Walter Reed Army Medical Center have revealed that
    the Army failed to provide adequate care to Soldiers. The Army
    leadership is fully committed to taking corrective action. Nothing is
    more critical to our Army today than maintaining the trust of the
    American people. Equally important is the trust of our Soldiers in our
    ability to correct problems that have been identified to us. This makes
    it imperative that leaders at every level take appropriate action to
    identify problems regarding Soldier care and ensure that corrective
    actions are taken.
        The first step in correcting these problems is to foster an
    environment in which Soldiers and their Family members are encouraged
    to bring these issues to the attention of responsible officials.
    Leaders must ensure that Soldiers are aware of available avenues of
    reporting. Within the Army, this includes the chain of command; the
    Inspector General; hospital ombudsman (if available); and the Wounded
    Soldier and Family Hotline. Soldiers and Families are not prohibited
    from reporting issues to other appropriate Federal or State officials.
    During the course of examining the reported problems, Army
    investigators may direct witnesses subject to their authority not to
    discuss their statement or testimony with other persons until the
    investigation is complete. Such orders may be necessary if
    investigators are concerned about possible influence upon witnesses yet
    to be heard, and remain in effect only so long as necessary to protect
    the integrity of the investigative process.
        Question. Since it is absolutely critical that this committee knows
    about the problems our soldiers face, I want your assurance that
    soldiers who blow the whistle on such problems will not be retaliated
    against by the Army.
        Answer. The Army adheres strictly to the prohibition, as set forth
    in 10 USC 1034, against restricting any Soldier's communications with
    Members of Congress. Further, we will not tolerate or condone reprisal
    against a Soldier for making or preparing a protected communication to
    the Committee.
        Question. Are there any circumstances in which a service member
    could be punished for speaking to the press? What are those
    circumstances and what is the justification for that?
        Answer. Because of a need for an effective and disciplined Army,
    the First Amendment right of speech is not absolute within the
    military, even when made to journalists. For example, the Uniform Code
    of Military Justice prohibits contemptuous speech toward certain
    Government officials in Article 88. Also, Soldiers can be ordered not
    to discuss classified information or other sensitive information, such
    as information related to operational security, with journalists. The
    violation of such an order could be punished under Article 92 of the
    Code. Similarly, limitations may be placed on Soldiers during the
    performance of their duties that could impact on their communications
    with a member of the press. For example, a Soldier who is performing
    critical or essential duties could be directed to continue to perform
    those duties rather than meet with a member of the press.
        Soldiers may also be directed not to discuss information with
    others during the course of an investigation or trial. For example, you
    may recall that the Army directed an investigation of the circumstances
    surrounding the ambush of then Private Jessica Lynch's convoy, early in
    the Iraq War. That event was the subject of extensive press interest.
    To preserve the investigation's credibility and independence, Soldiers
    involved in the incident were directed not to speak with the press
    during the pendency of the investigation. As soon as the investigation
    was completed, this limitation was lifted. In the case at hand, there
    are two investigations being conducted by the chain of command into the
    matters surrounding the inadequate administrative services and the
    facilities maintenance and repair. The appointing official and the
    investigating officers may deem it appropriate in certain circumstances
    to direct witnesses subject to their authority not to discuss their
    statement or testimony with other witnesses or with persons who have no
    official interest in the proceedings until the investigation is
    complete. Such orders may be necessary if investigators are concerned
    of possible influence upon witnesses yet to be heard. Such orders
    should remain in effect only to the extent required to ensure the
    integrity of the investigative process.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                     national guard equipment and readiness
        Question. Secretary Geren, I have been informed that operations in
    Iraq and Afghanistan have intensified equipment shortfalls in the
    National Guard and Reserves, as well as active forces. Of particular
    concern with the National Guard is the impact on its ability to sustain
    readiness through home-station training and to provide a timely
    response to natural disasters or domestic crisis situations. Can you
    share with the Committee what the plan is to properly resource Guard
    and Reserve units in order to ensure readiness for Federal and State
    missions?
        Answer. Equipment pressures in theater (OIF/OEF) are the continued
    evolution of the threat against our force protection vehicle and
    individual Soldier solutions. Timely reaction to these threats results
    in rapidly changing priorities in executing our funding. Even today,
    emerging solutions to protect Soldiers demand funding changes that will
    lessen procurement of equipment for Active and Reserve Component (RC)
    units. The primary impact of these changes will be filling the
    equipping requirements for non-deployed Soldiers and units, and in
    their preparation for other potential contingencies. The Army has been
    filling the original $56 billion in equipping shortfalls that existed
    at the start of the conflict. With the tremendous support of Congress,
    we have filled $47 billion of those shortfalls, leaving $9 billion
    remaining. However, the experiences of today's warfare necessitate
    changes in our modernization design, to include structuring the RCs to
    the same modern design as their active counterparts. To complete this
    equipping, an additional $43 billion is needed: $24 billion for the
    Army National Guard, $10 billion for the Army Reserve, and $9 billion
    for the Active Component support unit modernization. This total of $52
    billion in shortfalls ($9 billion original plus $43 billion
    modernization) is within the current program. An additional $10 billion
    per year for each year remaining in the program (fiscal year 2009-13)
    would be needed to complete fielding equipment to all components by
    fiscal year 2015.
                   fire scout unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs)
        Question. Secretary Geren, Commanders in Operation Iraqi Freedom
    cite Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as one of their most pressing
    needs. The Army procured eight Fire Scout UAVs and currently has five
    of these vehicles at Moss Point, MS with a sixth expected by June and
    the remaining two to be completed by the end of the year. Essentially,
    you have operational UAVs sitting in a warehouse and not scheduled to
    have sensors integrated until 2014. With the pressing need for
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance to help with force
    protection and other missions, why would the Army not load available
    sensors onto these UAVs and allow troops on the ground to benefit from
    these assets you already own instead of letting them sit in a warehouse
    until 2014?
        Answer. The eight Class IV Unmanned Aerial Systems you reference
    are pre-production air frames only, not capable of flight yet. The
    systems are being used to perform integration of Future Combat System
    (FCS)-specific avionics and computer systems and testing of flight
    software to meet the FCS requirements. The preliminary design review is
    July 2008, the critical design review is July 2009 and first flight is
    November 2010. These dates are synchronized with the overall FCS
    integrated schedule. Removing these prototypes from the development
    schedule and retrofitting them with current payloads, communications,
    and avionics would have a minimal operational impact, but would hamper
    the FCS integration schedule. Nonetheless, FCS has been working with
    Northrop Grumman, developer of the Fire Scout, to explore earlier
    flight opportunities.
                    simultaneous field radiation technology
        Question. Secretary Geren, I understand Diversified Technology, a
    Mississippi based company, has made significant gains in antenna
    development with the use of Simultaneous Field Radiation Technology.
    This technology, as I understand it, allows for the replacement of
    current large antenna with miniaturized antenna while increasing
    transmitting consistency and range by over 300 percent. Additional
    benefit is also realized by a measurable advancement in operating power
    efficiency which improves battery life.
        Given current electromagnetic and energy management challenges,
    would you agree such technology would be attractive to the Army? Would
    you look into this and let me know when the Army plans to take
    advantage of this technology?
        Answer. This technology appears promising. The U.S. Army
    Communications Electronics Command (CECOM), Research and Development
    Center and the Product Manager for Tactical Radio Systems will contact
    Diversified Technologies for additional information on this antenna in
    order to evaluate its applicability to the Army.
           medical technology in fiscal year 2008 army budget request
        Question. Secretary Geren, the survival rate for a service member
    wounded in the Global War on Terrorism is higher than at any point in
    our history. Medical professionals ranging from military medics to
    surgeons have performed great work ensuring Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
    and Marines are afforded an exceptional chance at survival from wounds.
    During the Vietnam conflict, it took an average of 45 days to evacuate
    wounded soldiers back to the United States for major surgery. In the
    1991 Persian Gulf War, evacuation of our wounded to the United States
    took 10 to 14 days. Today, wounded Soldiers are evacuated back to the
    United States within 3 days. While we have made substantial strides in
    medical technologies, I would like to hear how this request works to
    further improve survivability and care for our service members.
        Answer. In fiscal year 2008, the Army budget request includes $46
    million for combat casualty care research. This includes research to
    develop a new paradigm to resuscitate wounded casualties using
    resuscitation fluids that stops bleeding as well as replacing lost
    blood volume, neuroprotective drugs to reduce the effects of
    penetrating head trauma, freeze dried blood products that can be pushed
    far forward to our medics, more realistic training aids and simulators
    to better train our medics, and intensive care, life support equipment
    that can monitor severely injured patients without human intervention.
        Fiscal year 2008 will also mark the first year of a major effort in
    regenerative medicine. We plan to establish the Armed Forces Institute
    of Regenerative Medicine which will have the goal of regenerating
    damaged limbs and faces using the Soldier's own stem cells.
        Moreover, advanced development efforts continue to be provided to
    the Warfighter as part of the Tactical Combat Casualty Care concept
    implementation and have resulted in demonstrated improvement in
    Warfighter survivability. These items include the Combat Application
    Tourniquet (CAT), the Chitosan Hemostatic Dressing, and the Improved
    First Aid Kit (IFAK) (which includes both the chitosan dressing and
    CAT). Battlefield oxygen production and resuscitative fluids are
    continuing areas of concentration for advanced development.
                         joint high speed vessel (jhsv)
        Question. General Schoomaker, the Army's fiscal year 2008 budget
    requests supports the procurement of the first Joint High Speed Vessel.
    I understand these vessels are highly flexible, adaptable to a variety
    of payloads, much faster, and can operate in shallower ports than
    traditional larger vessels. Would you share with the subcommittee how
    you plan to use these vessels and how they may assist us in the Global
    War on Terrorism?
        Answer. The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) provides the Joint Force
    Commander (JFC) with an intra-theater mobility asset that enables
    rapid, flexible and agile maneuver of intact combat-ready units and
    transport of sustainment supplies between advance bases, austere and
    degraded port facilities or offload sites, austere littoral access
    points, and the sea base. The JHSV will be capable of self-deploying
    worldwide to the theater of operations. Combatant commands identify
    high speed intra-theater surface lift as a critical gap in their
    ability to support the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), their theater
    security cooperation program, and current operations.
        The GWOT counters a plethora of new asymmetric threats designed to
    erode, paralyze and marginalize U.S. power. To meet these
    unconventional challenges, U.S. Joint Forces Command must be prepared
    to rapidly plan and execute a broad range of joint, small scale
    contingency operations, while maintaining the capability to prevail in
    major combat operations. The keys to success in many operations remains
    the ability to quickly maneuver sufficient forces into critical
    positions, and to provide sustained logistics support until a decisive
    victory is achieved. Intra-theater lift will be especially crucial in
    future conflicts in which enemies may be able to obstruct or deny
    altogether the use of fixed entry points such as airfields and
    seaports. Shore infrastructure and support such as cranes, tugs, and
    other port services will not exist or be available in many of the
    austere ports where future JFCs will need to operate. Therefore the
    JHSV's ability to access non-traditional, shallow draft ports will be
    essential for the delivery of forces and logistics support.
                      manning the force--rc mobilizations
        Question. General Schoomaker, last month, Secretary Gates announced
    a change in Reserve component policy that changes the way reserve
    component forces are managed in order to support requirements for the
    Global War on Terrorism. Secretary Gates stated a policy objective for
    involuntary mobilization of National Guard and Reserve units will
    remain a ratio of one-year mobilized to five-years demobilized. Does
    this funding request adequately address the challenges of manning the
    force to achieve this goal?
        Answer. The current funding request does not address any changes in
    requirements regarding changes of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
    mobilization policy. Due to the timing of Secretary Gates' policy
    announcements on involuntary mobilization and submission of the
    President's fiscal year 2008 budget, we were unable to assess the
    funding impacts of these changes for inclusion into this funding
    request. The DOD is in the process of fully assessing these impacts and
    will make an appropriate determination on how best to handle any
    changes in funding requirements.
                        reducing threat from the air/ase
        Question. General Schoomaker, between January 20 and February 21
    this year, there were six U.S. military helicopters shot down by enemy
    fire. In all of 2006, there were five. Based on what you have learned
    from the recent downed helicopters, can you tell us if you believe your
    change in tactics has reduced this threat from the insurgents? And, is
    there anything that has been learned to suggest procurement of any
    specific countermeasures beyond what is in the fiscal year 2008 budget
    request or the supplemental appropriations request?
        Answer. Yes, the change in the tactics, techniques, and procedures
    we utilize in aviation operations has been successful in minimizing the
    air defense threat. The Army continues to adapt our tactics, techniques
    and procedures along with the fielding and developing of the most
    advanced aircraft survivability systems available. All considerations
    from current combat operations have been addressed in the current 2008
    budget and appropriate supplemental requests. The Army requests your
    continued support in resourcing these programs to protect our Soldiers
    engaged in the War on Terror.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                     national guard equipment and readiness
        Question. The GAO reported in January that the Guard equipment
    inventory is seriously low. Deputy Secretary England assured me that
    the Guard had the equipment it needed in theater, but I remain
    concerned about the levels of Guard equipment for missions at home. My
    home state Guard has the lowest equipment levels of any State, with
    less than 35 percent of authorized dual-use equipment. What is the Army
    doing to ensure that our National Guard is equipped for missions at
    home including Operation Jump Start and responding to Federal disasters
    like Hurricane Katrina?
        Answer. The Active and Reserve Components are vital to the Army's
    operational strength, and their readiness today is a result of under-
    funding and increased defense requirements. Army investment accounts
    were under funded by approximately $100 billion during the decade prior
    to September 2001, resulting in nearly $56 billion in equipment
    shortages across the Army at the start of the war. This condition
    forced the Army to pool equipment from across the force to equip
    Soldiers deploying into harm's way. As a result of this cross-leveling
    to deploying forces, non-deployed units in all components have between
    40 and 55 percent of their required equipment, and non-deployed Army
    National Guard units have about 51 percent of their dual-use equipment
    on-hand.
        The Army has identified 10 essential capabilities the Army National
    Guard (ARNG) must have to conduct the ``near full spectrum'' and ``be
    prepared'' missions identified by Congress. The President's budget,
    delivered to Congress on February 5, 2007, requests $3.7 billion in
    fiscal year 2008 equipment funding for the Army National Guard. For
    fiscal year 2005-13, the Army has budgeted $36.8 billion for the
    National Guard. In addition, we are distributing $10.6 billion in
    existing Army equipment to the Guard through the first quarter of
    fiscal year 2009. This level of investment in the National Guard is
    historic. These funds will enable the Army to transform units in all
    components to the same robust designs, and equip the Army National
    Guard to similar levels of modernization as Active component units. The
    on-hand Army National Guard equipment will increase to over 70 percent
    by fiscal year 2015, if the funds are received and executed as planned.
        In regard to Operation Jump Start, the Army continues to play a
    significant role in the Department of Defense's support to the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in that program. The Army
    provides personnel, systems, technology and infrastructure as an
    immediate, short-term measure to allow DHS to implement the Secure
    Border Initiative. This strategy enables DHS to increase deterrence and
    border security capabilities in the Border States with Army resources
    while they train additional border patrol agents for the long-term
    mission. Support provided for Operation Jump Start includes
    construction equipment, air and ground based multi-sensors, Stryker
    units, and ground-based air surveillance radar support, etc. Also, the
    Army provides training and intelligence analysis support.
        The Army is determining what equipment will be provided to the ARNG
    to meet critical needs identified by The Adjutants General for the 2007
    hurricane season. During the 2006 season, the Army fielded 11,000
    pieces of equipment to the Guard. The goal is to provide the equipment
    for hurricane preparedness needs in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Hawaii,
    Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands by June 1, 2007. The ARNG has
    determined that it will be able to meet equipment shortages in the
    remaining Atlantic States; however, the Army stands ready to provide
    equipment and other military assistance to civil authorities as needed.
        Question. How much of your fiscal year 2008 request for the
    National Guard will be used to address equipment shortages for the
    National Guard's efforts in the United States?
        Answer. The President's budget, delivered to Congress on February
    5, 2007, requests $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2008 equipment funding
    for the Army National Guard.
                           white sands missile range
        Question. I am proud that New Mexico is home to a top-notch test
    facility, White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). As you know, WSMR's air
    space and range facilities are unparalleled, and the range is being
    used by the Department of Defense for a variety of efforts, including
    testing and evaluating much Future Combat Systems technology.
        What work can we expect the Army Evaluation Task Force to perform
    at White Sands in fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. The Army established the Army Evaluation Task Force (AETF),
    known previously as the Evaluation Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bliss,
    Texas, in December 2006, to support test and evaluation of Future
    Combat Systems (FCS) technologies. For the remainder of 2007, the AETF
    continues to receive Soldiers and equipment, execute new equipment
    training, and train as a BCT. Once the AETF is trained and certified on
    current force systems, the unit begins training on FCS spin-out systems
    in preparation for FCS test and evaluation activities in 2008.
        Specifically, in fiscal year 2008, the AETF will participate in the
    Integrated Mission Test at the FCS Common Control Node located on White
    Sands Missile Range (WSMR). The Integrated Mission Test is a core
    program development test aimed at maturing the common operating system
    software and systems interfaces as well as exploring core program
    doctrine. AETF soldiers will train on the common control node computer
    wireframes and operate them during the test under direction of the test
    engineers. The AETF will also perform training and operations of
    systems for the Spin-out 1 Force Development Test and Evaluation,
    Technical Field Test and Limited User Test in fiscal year 2008. These
    test events will be conducted in the southern portion of WSMR and
    northern Fort Bliss in New Mexico. Successful conduct of these Spin-out
    activities will rely on the test capabilities of WSMR, the training
    capabilities of Fort Bliss and the combined integration of operations
    between the installations. Several other FCS program related activities
    will occur at WSMR in fiscal year 2008 including robotic convoy
    development testing, intelligent munitions system risk reduction, Non-
    Line of Sight Launch System and unmanned ground sensor development
    testing and various sub-system level integrated qualification tests, as
    well as information assurance development (Army Research Lab at WSMR)
    and systems analysis (Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center at
    WSMR) each of which the AETF may monitor, observe or participate in at
    various levels.
        Question. How will locating the Army Evaluation Task Force at Fort
    Bliss, TX impact White Sands Missile Range?
        Answer. The Army Evaluation Task Force (AETF), Fort Bliss, Texas,
    will have a positive impact on both Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile
    Range (WSMR) in terms of regional activities, economics and value to
    the Army. The AETF will perform and participate in test and training
    activities at WSMR as a critical element of the research, development,
    test, and evaluation activities of the Army. White Sands will realize
    an increase in required soldier support activities and workload
    associated with the activities of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) and
    AETF as a result of training and test activities involving WSMR assets,
    land and air space, instrumentation and expertise. The AETF will
    require seamless access and operations across the installations thus
    requiring both WSMR and Fort Bliss to elevate the coordination and
    cooperation of the past to a high level of activity and integration
    including garrison support, air space and land space operations,
    networks and frequency management. Additionally, the AETF will require
    WSMR to provide the ability to support sustained activities during
    training and test events occurring in southern WSMR and northern Fort
    Bliss which may include temporary billeting, ammunition supply,
    transportation, dining, maintenance, administrative support, and safe
    access to ranges on each installation. The Army, WSMR, and Fort Bliss
    see the impacts to the region, specifically WSMR, to be positive in
    presenting opportunities for the region and providing best value
    acquisition and Soldier support.
        Question. What does the Army need to coordinate work between Fort
    Bliss and WSMR?
        Answer. The Army has begun to establish operations at WSMR and Fort
    Bliss for the development, test and training of the Future Combat
    Systems (FCS). Additionally, the Army is basing the 1st Armored
    Division at Fort Bliss and continues Joint Research, Development, Test,
    and Evaluation (RDT&E) at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Though
    these installations have worked well together in the past, this overall
    increase in transformational activities at both WSMR and Fort Bliss
    will require increasing coordination and cooperation between the
    installations and the ability to leverage the assets and expertise of
    both. The Army selected Fort Bliss to host the Army Evaluation Task
    Force (AETF) for its vast training ranges, Soldier support capabilities
    and its proximity to the RDT&E activities, instrumentation, and
    expertise at WSMR. To facilitate the coordination of requirements and
    operations, the Army established a Program Manager FCS field office,
    Combined Test Organization field office and FCS Lead Systems Integrator
    Test field office at WSMR and the Future Force Integration Directorate
    and Army Evaluation Task Force at Fort Bliss among other existing
    organizations such as Army Research Lab--Survivability Lethality
    Analysis Directorate and Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center
    WSMR, that will play key roles in the FCS program as well as
    coordination between the installations.
        To date, there has been significant coordination between Fort Bliss
    and WSMR. Specifically, much work has been accomplished in integrating
    the Network architectures, establishing integrated air space management
    and control and garrison support operations for land operations. Recent
    planning activities have identified the need for billeting, dining,
    administrative, and maintenance facilities at WSMR in the form of a
    forward operating base to support AETF Soldiers, testing and training
    personnel, and One Team Partners operations at WSMR and northern Fort
    Bliss during test and training events. As this requirement is the
    result of evolving planning and analysis, it has not been projected
    within the program or Army budgets and is not achievable within the
    program schedule and budget cycle.
        Additionally, the need for improvements to the main supply and
    transportation route between Fort Bliss and WSMR has been identified as
    a concern. The main transportation route between Fort Bliss and WSMR,
    known as ``War Road'' is in a state of disrepair. Specifically, the
    portion of the road on Fort Bliss from Dona Ana Range Camp to the White
    Sands boundary has numerous potholes, no shoulder and in many areas,
    the edge of the road is extremely deteriorated. This road is critical
    to the FCS program and the Army for transporting Soldiers, civilians,
    and equipment between Fort Bliss and WSMR and from Fort Bliss to the
    primary training areas on Fort Bliss. As the Army increases FCS
    activities between Fort Bliss, WSMR, and the 1st Armored Division
    training activities on Fort Bliss, this road will incur an exponential
    growth in traffic load and a corresponding degradation in safety.
                high energy laser system test facility (helstf)
        Question. The High Energy Laser System Test Facility (HELSTF) has
    been our pre-eminent laser test facility since the first MIRACL test in
    1984. Facilities such as HELSTF ensure our Armed Forces have the most
    advanced technological advantage possible, yet the budget request for
    fiscal year 2008 cuts nearly $14 million from HELSTF's budget.
        What is the Army doing to ensure HELSTF continues its ability to
    serve as a cutting-edge test facility so we don't lose unique testing
    capabilities such as the MIRACL laser?
        Answer. HELSTF is an important test facility that will continue to
    support directed energy tests and evaluation needs of the Department of
    Defense (DOD). A capability to support solid-state laser development
    programs will still exist at HELSTF, and will be utilized by the Army.
    Specifically, a series of tests in support of the Army's High Energy
    Laser Technology Demonstrator (HEL-TD) are planned in 2008 thru 2013. A
    recent customer survey revealed that there are no identified test
    requirements for the Mid-IR Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) or the Sea
    Lite Beam Director (SLBD), therefore the MIRACL and SLBD will be placed
    in storage.
        HELSTF will continue to support the DOD's need for directed energy
    test and evaluation by standing up a Solid State Laser (SSL) testbed.
    The intent of the SSL testbed is to allow a laser weapon system
    developer to bring lasers to HELSTF at an early point in the weapon
    system's development program. The SSL testbed will allow investigation
    of the systems engineering and integration issues associated with
    weaponizing lasers without having to build a prototype of the complete
    weapon system. A fixed testbed, based on existing hardware in place at
    HELSTF, provides a near laboratory environment and allows field-testing
    of lasers at HELSTF test areas. A transportable testbed, based on the
    existing ex-THEL hardware, and complemented by transportable diagnostic
    sensors, data collection, data processing and range control equipment,
    is planned to support field-testing of more advanced prototypes. Army
    funding allows these systems, operated by government technical staff,
    to continue to support SSL weapon system development programs of the
    DOD. As with any complex program, there is some risk that if a major
    component fails, sufficient funds to affect a repair may not be
    immediately available.
        HELSTF will be positioned to support the Army's Counter-Rocket,
    Mortar, and Artillery (C-RAM) program, the Joint High Power Solid State
    Laser program, the Army's High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator in
    the C-RAM role, and other SSL programs. The present workforce is sized
    and trained to operate MIRACL and SLBD. This workforce will be released
    in December 2007.
        In the near term, the smaller workforce will reduce the capacity at
    HELSTF; tests previously conducted in parallel may now have to be
    sequential, but in time the all-government staff will acquire the
    training and experience to enable the facility to continue to provide
    the unique capabilities that HELSTF has traditionally provided to
    Directed Energy weapon system development efforts of the DOD. The staff
    will continue to help plan, design, and execute laser test and
    evaluation. Contract mechanisms are in place to supplement government
    personnel with contractor support, should the customer-funded workload
    require this.
        Funding does not allow for acquisition of ``adaptive optics'' for
    the SSL Testbed. Without these optics to compensate for the effects of
    the atmosphere on the laser beam the range at which targets can best
    tested will be reduced. Modernization of other test capabilities to
    support Directed Energy are ongoing in the DOD Directed Energy Test and
    Evaluation Capabilities (DETEC) program funded by the Central Test and
    Evaluation Investment Program. These capabilities are presently focused
    on providing improved instrumentation to support Directed Energy T&E.
    The majority of DETEC capabilities will be fielded at HELSTF.
        The DOD's Directed Energy test and evaluation needs will continue
    to be supported by capabilities at HELSTF. It will remain a cutting-
    edge facility for Directed Energy T&E.
        Question. Why, after years of funding HELSTF, has the Army decided
    to cut the program in fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. A recent customer survey revealed that there are no
    identified test requirements for the Mid-IR Advanced Chemical Laser
    (MIRACL) or the Sea Lite Beam Director (SLBD), therefore the MIRACL and
    SLBD will be placed in storage. The funds that previously supported
    MIRACL and SLBD have been realigned to higher priority Army programs.
    HELSTF is an important test facility that will continue to support
    directed energy tests and evaluation needs of the Department of
    Defense. A capability to support solid-state laser development programs
    will exist at HELSTF, and be utilized by the Army. Specifically, a
    series of tests in support of the Army's High Energy Laser Technology
    Demonstrator are planned in 2008 thru 2013.
                            recruiting and retention
        Question. Like all the members of this committee, I am concerned
    about the effects of prolonged overseas operations on our recruiting
    and retention efforts. The men and women of the U.S. Army have been
    nothing short of spectacular in defending our nation against a range of
    threats since the attacks of September 11th. They performed with valor
    as a maneuvering force in both Iraq and Afghanistan and have since then
    taken on the dangerous mission of operating in a hostile urban
    environment. I am concerned that the dangers of this latter mission may
    negatively impact recruiting for the active and reserve/guard
    components.
        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. Yes, the Army believes the enhanced enlistment bonuses,
    increased recruiters and other recruiting incentives (in combination
    with improvements to our business practices) in conjunction with new
    Army marketing efforts will be enough to ensure we overcome the
    recruiting market challenges of fiscal year 2007. The continued support
    of Congress in funding these efforts in a timely manner and enabling
    the Army to address new challenges is essential to maintaining the
    momentum of success we have achieved in recruiting.
        Question. Tell us a little about your budget request for recruiting
    and retention?
        Answer. To achieve mandated end strengths, the Army increased the
    accession and retention missions for all components. The current fiscal
    year 2008 base budget and supplemental requests reflect the
    Department's projected requirements by component. To maintain the
    continued success, the recruiting and retention programs require modest
    funding growth from fiscal year 2007 anticipated final execution. The
    Army will monitor its fiscal year 2008 recruiting results and make
    internal adjustments as necessary.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
                         fort knox brigade combat team
        Question. Please provide a detailed timetable for the fielding,
    equipping and funding of the brigade combat team that has been assigned
    to Fort Knox, Kentucky in the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure
    process.
        Answer. The 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division (3/1 ID) is the
    brigade combat team (BCT) designated for stationing at Fort Knox,
    Kentucky, and currently exists at Fort Knox as a cadre unit. In order
    to relieve stress on the force, the Army is accelerating the modular
    conversion of two BCTs, including 3/1 ID, to April 16, 2007. Due to
    availability of training support systems and facilities, 3/1 ID will
    build up at Fort Hood, Texas, to convert to an Infantry BCT and train
    for full spectrum operations. Modular equipment fielding is scheduled
    for completion by November 15, 2007, and the unit is currently
    scheduled for deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom in fiscal year
    2008. The unit will re-station to Fort Knox, Kentucky, after return
    from Iraq. The current Department of the Army order for 3/1 ID directs
    the unit to arrive at Fort Knox by September 16, 2009.
        Question. Please discuss the assets that Fort Knox, Kentucky has
    that would make it a favorable location for an additional brigade
    combat team.
        Answer. Fort Knox will be a premier training facility for the
    Infantry brigade combat team (BCT) to be assigned as a result of the
    BRAC 2005 legislation. In addition to existing excess facility capacity
    resulting from the restationing of the Armor Center, Fort Knox has
    available land for additional construction on the installation. Fort
    Knox also has adequate Family housing and the installation recently
    completed an environmental assessment, which allows for rapid
    stationing actions.
        Question. What improvements to Fort Knox would be necessary for the
    installation to become categorized as a Power Projection Platform?
        Answer. The Army defines a Power Projection Platform as ``an
    installation that strategically deploys one or more high priority
    active component brigades and/or mobilizes high priority reserve
    component brigades.'' Construction on a BCT complex at Fort Knox is
    underway and scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2009. Once the
    BCT re-stations to Fort Knox and occupies the complex, the installation
    could be categorized as a Power Projection Platform.
                                quality of care
        Question. In light of the grave problems uncovered at Walter Reed
    Army Medical Center, do Ireland Army Community Hospital at Fort Knox
    and Blanchfield Army Community Hospital at Fort Campbell have
    sufficient funding to provide a high quality of care for U.S. service
    men and women?
        Answer. Ireland Army Community Hospital and Blanchfield Army
    Community Hospital have adequate funding to perform their healthcare
    support missions. As the Army implements lessons learned from Walter
    Reed Army Medical Center and recommendations from several internal and
    external review groups, resource requirements at these hospitals may
    change. As new requirements are identified we will fund them. If the
    U.S. Army Medical Command determines additional funding is needed to
    improve our medical support processes, we will request additional funds
    from the Department of Defense and keep you informed of these
    requirements.
                                davis-bacon act
        Question. It has come to my attention that some operations at
    military installations are encumbered by the need for compliance with
    Davis-Bacon. Does Davis-Bacon hinder military readiness in the Army?
        Answer. The Davis-Bacon Act is a Federal labor law and the
    requirement that sets minimum wage rates and other administrative labor
    compliance requirements that must be paid and followed by construction
    contractors on military construction work throughout the United States.
    As such, it does not directly affect military readiness in the Army,
    but it does add to the overall cost of executing military construction
    work and adds other administrative burdens on military construction
    contractors that would not be required on commercial construction
    projects. Therefore, there is a direct result of higher construction
    costs for military construction projects as a result of the Davis-Bacon
    Act, which indirectly reduces the total military construction budgets
    for new and existing facilities construction.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
                            patriot configuration 3
        Question. Secretary Geren, regarding the Patriot Configuration 3,
    my understanding is that the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    approved the Army's request to include funds in the fiscal year 2007
    Supplemental to upgrade the remaining 12 Firing Units of the Patriot
    fleet to Configuration 3, thereby making every Patriot launcher in the
    U.S. Army capable of firing the advanced PAC-3 missile. However, OMB
    removed the Patriot upgrade funds from the Supplemental before sending
    it to Congress. I further understand that this Patriot Pure Fleet
    initiative is high on the Army's Unfunded Requirements List.
        What is the cost of these upgrades and how would this initiative
    increase the readiness of, and reduce the deployment burden on, the
    entire U.S. Army Patriot force?
        Answer. The cost to upgrade the remaining three Patriot
    Configuration 2 (PAC-2) battalions to PAC-3 configuration is $452.2
    million. Combatant commanders recognize the shortfalls of PAC-2 and
    require PAC-3 units to meet their operational plans. Currently 80
    percent of PAC-3 capable Patriot battalions are committed. Pure
    fleeting the Patriot force with PAC-3 will increase the size of the
    pool of deployers by 23 percent and increase our Nation's strategic
    flexibility against the Theater ballistic missile threat.
        Question. How important is the Army's need to fund the upgrades of
    these older configuration Patriots in the fiscal year 2007
    Supplemental?
        Answer. The Army recognized a global missile threat, including
    threats as part of the ongoing Long War, requiring all of the Patriot
    battalions in the Army to be PAC-3 configuration. Currently, the Army
    is accepting some risk in its ability to meet all requirements, to
    include emerging Global War on Terrorism threats. To minimize strategic
    risk, meet combatant commander capability-based requirements, and
    provide a sustainable rotation base for projected global presence
    missions, Patriot modernization needs to be accomplished as soon as
    possible.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                        unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs)
        Question. General Schoomaker, two years ago the Air Force made a
    major push to become the Executive Agent over all Department of Defense
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Eventually, the Executive Agency idea was
    abandoned and instead the Department of Defense established a joint UAV
    Center of Excellence as well as several Service-specific UAV Centers of
    Excellence.
        To me, the mere concept of Executive Agency for UAVs is, in itself,
    problematic. Having an Executive Agent for UAVs carries the inherent
    risk that the Service designated, in this case the Air Force, would not
    have the capability to effectively balance and manage both tactical and
    strategic platforms. In addition, setting up a single authority for all
    Service UAVs is the unmanned equivalent of establishing an Executive
    Agent for all manned aircraft--an impossible feat.
        Now, however, it is my understanding that the Air Force has
    recently made another move to try to establish themselves as Executive
    Agent over UAVs--this time over medium and high altitude UAVs. On March
    5, 2007, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Moseley, issued a
    memorandum outlining their interest in establishing Executive Agency
    for medium and high altitude UAVs with the Air Force as the lead
    agent--effectively giving themselves procurement authority and
    operational control over any UAV that flies above 3,500 feet.
        General Schoomaker, is it your belief that an Executive Agency
    designation for medium and high altitude UAV's, as well as all UAV's,
    is unnecessary?
        Answer. I do not believe Executive Agency designation is required
    for UAVs.
        As we move jointly forward on UAVs we should listen to the most
    informed voices, those of the ground commanders who state very clearly
    that their ability to task and control UAVs is non-negotiable.
    Consequently, while we all want more efficient and joint operations we
    shouldn't do so at the loss of combat capability necessary for each of
    our respective military Services to fight with overwhelming and
    decisive combat power. Since 2002, the Army has deployed hundreds of
    UAVs to OIF and OEF accumulating thousands of sorties and hundreds of
    thousands of flight hours. We've incorporated Unmanned Aircraft Systems
    (UASs) into every part of our operational environment, from squad
    through division, showing an unprecedented level of integration and
    interoperability.
        The Army, Navy, USMC, and Special Operations Forces (SOF) during
    the four years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have made
    manned-unmanned teaming of air to-air, air-to-ground, and ground-to-air
    operations a reality. Last month, the 25th Infantry Division linked the
    Warrior-A UAV and Apaches together in a series of four engagements with
    24 enemies killed in action. Our Hunter UASs, Apaches, and ground
    combat commanders are conducting real-time combat operations for
    Counter IED. We are standardizing the system, personnel, and training
    tasks to institutionalize inter-military Service cooperation and
    increasing joint combat capability at an ever increasing rate. We
    should be working toward a strategy of inclusion rather than exclusion
    of our UAS capability.
        Consolidating virtually all the Services and SOCOM UAS systems
    within one Service stifles competition, especially in light of the
    proposal to standardize three systems provided by two vendors. While
    quantity has a quality of its own, the $15.3 billion being offered by
    the USAF to saturate the market for strategic and theater UAS support
    does little for the integrated tactical operations within the division
    operational environment. The Army, in cooperation with the USMC, Navy,
    and SOCOM has conducted several successful, fully competed UAS systems
    acquisitions resulting in DOD 5000 compliant, full rate production
    decisions. Deciding at such an early state in the evolution of unmanned
    systems technology to limit the market to two vendors is premature. We
    need to maintain an industry base where innovation, competition, and
    economy are fully exploited.
        Unmanned systems proficiency is not Service unique. The Army has
    flown the majority of UAS flight hours in Iraq where many of our
    enlisted UAS operators are on their 2nd or 3rd combat tour. The USMC
    and Army have deployed over 4,000 unmanned (air and ground) systems to
    Iraq and Afghanistan used every day in counter-IED and mobility
    operations. We are integrating our unmanned air and ground systems
    toward common user training and interface. The Army, Navy, USMC, and
    SOF are interchanging our UAS training, logistics, and systems
    development in each formal program.
        The essence of increasing and improving the contribution of our
    unmanned systems is in the combination of combat capability, tactics,
    procedures, and training across the manned-unmanned assets available.
    We are showing the value and validity of this concept today in Iraq to
    unprecedented situational awareness and kinetic effects. I could not,
    in good conscience, take these UAS systems out of the hands of our
    Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and SOF forces that are using them to
    engage and defeat the enemy today.
        Question. What steps are you taking to ensure that the Army's needs
    and priorities will be taken into consideration regarding the future
    development and acquisition of UAVs?
        Answer. The U.S. Army continues to adhere to the integrated defense
    acquisition, technology, & logistics life cycle management framework
    knowing that effective interaction between the Joint Capabilities
    Integration and Development System (JCIDS), defense acquisition system,
    and Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPB&E) are
    essential. As you are aware, properly documenting needs and
    capabilities required for the Army and planning & budgeting for these
    capabilities fully supports the Army in the acquisition/development of
    our UASs for the future. The key has been in the process prior to
    Milestone B for a Program of Record (POR) by ensuring Army-endorsed
    Initial Capability Documents and Capability Development Documents is
    developed. By appropriately refining capability documents and receiving
    approval for such from the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, we are
    ensuring proper validation of our future needs by DOD. With the needs/
    requirements fully captured through the JCIDS process and our PORs
    approved, we will continue to develop and improve systems throughout
    their entire life-cycle, through sustainment, to final disposal. We
    have proven this since the inception of the RQ-7 Shadow, MQ-5 Hunter,
    RQ-11 Raven, and those programs currently in System Development and
    Demonstration--the Extended Range/Multi-Purpose and Firescout Unmanned
    Aircraft Systems (UAS). Additionally, the Army closely coordinates with
    the UAS Planning Task Force of OUSD (AT&L). The Army is aware of our
    tactical requirements/needs and such program in support of our units at
    the Division and below. Additionally, continuous collaborations as part
    of the Joint UAS Materiel Review Board, the Army and other Services
    leverage to inform the DOD on the requirements/needs and current status
    of systems and components concerning UASs.
                                army lift needs
        Question. The Air Force is in the process of purchasing the next
    generation tanker that will be part of the fleet for the next 50 years.
    This plane will be as important to the ``land forces'' as it is to the
    Air Force because it will be a major provider of lift, cargo, and
    medical evacuation. Since this platform will be equipped with defensive
    systems and can take your troops from home station straight into
    theater, how important is lift to you, Secretary Geren?
        Answer. Several recent DOD and JCS-led intra-theater airlift
    studies have clearly shown that DOD airlift requirements will only
    continue to outpace the Air Force's available platforms in future
    conflicts due to the non-linear and noncontiguous changes to the nature
    of warfare. The Air Force's acquisition of a next generation tanker
    that would possess the flexibility to also move personnel, cargo, and
    medical casualties throughout a theater is extremely important to the
    Army.
                               patriot pure fleet
        Question. Both the Department of Defense and our Combatant
    Commanders have previously testified that there is a critical need for
    the PAC-3 missile to protect our troops and coalition partners from
    weapons of mass destruction. However, more than a third of the planned
    Patriot force structure, three battalions worth of soldiers, are
    incapable of using that missile because the ground equipment has not
    been modified. Secretary Geren, why wasn't the necessary funding
    provided in the supplemental to modernize the Patriot fleet to use the
    PAC-3 interceptor missile?
        Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense approved the Army's
    request to include funds in the fiscal year 2007 Supplemental to
    upgrade the remaining 12 Firing Units of the Patriot fleet to
    Configuration 3, thereby making every Patriot battalion in the U.S.
    Army capable of firing the advanced PAC-3 missile. However, the Office
    of Management and Budget did not support the Patriot upgrade funds in
    the Supplemental before sending it to Congress.
        Question. What is the cost of these upgrades and how will this
    initiative increase the readiness of, and reduce the deployment burden
    on the entire U.S. Army Patriot force so it can meet the immediate
    needs of our Combatant Commanders?
        Answer. The cost to upgrade the remaining three Patriot
    Configuration 2 (PAC-2) battalions to PAC-3 configuration is $452.2
    million. Combatant commander's recognize the shortfalls of PAC-2 and
    require PAC-3 units to meet their operational plans. Currently, 80
    percent of PAC-3 capable Patriot battalions are committed. Pure
    fleeting the Patriot force will increase the size of the pool of
    deployers by 23 percent and increase our Nation's strategic flexibility
    against the Theater ballistic missile threat.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. We would like to thank you for your
    testimony this morning and your service to our Nation. The
    subcommittee will convene on Wednesday, March 21 at 10:30 and
    at that time, we will hear from the Department of the Air
    Force. We are now in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Wednesday, March 14, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    March 21.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:33 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Dorgan, Murray, Stevens,
    Cochran, Domenici, Bond, and Shelby.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                          DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE, SECRETARY

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Today we welcome the Honorable Michael
    Wynne, Secretary of the Air Force, and General Michael Moseley,
    the Air Force Chief of Staff.
        Gentlemen, the subcommittee thanks you for being here today
    as we review the budget request for fiscal year 2008.
        Your fiscal year 2008 base budget request is $137 billion,
    a modest increase of $8 billion over the last year.
        The subcommittee recognizes the priorities of the Air
    Force, of fighting and winning the long war on terror, taking
    good care of the airmen and their families, and beginning a
    significant effort to recapitalize and modernize the U.S. Air
    Force.
        We also recognize the challenges associated with
    recapitalizing, while trying to modernize the existing fleet,
    and maintain readiness at the same time.
        With the average age of the fleet being 26 years old, it is
    imperative to find the correct balance between recapitalization
    with new inventory, modernization for existing assets, and
    readiness in order for the Air Force to posture itself for the
    future.
        I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the
    great support the Air Force is providing for Operation Noble
    Eagle (ONE) here, and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
    Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) overseas.
        It is easy for the media and my colleagues to focus on the
    role played by the soldiers and marines on the ground. But,
    these men on the ground rely heavily on the support provided by
    airmen.
        As a matter of fact, there are 7,700 airmen who are
    performing what is called ``in-lieu of'' taskings, where they
    support the Army in areas where the Army is stressed in their
    abilities to engage in current operations.
        Since the Air Force is becoming more involved in
    nontraditional taskings, and with the Army and Marine Corps now
    both increasing end strength, it brings into question the
    decision to begin a drawdown of Air Force personnel.
        It may be time to revisit that issue, since the environment
    in which the decision was made has significantly changed.
        We look forward to working with you to ensure that our Air
    Force is appropriately resourced to meet each of your tasks,
    and gentlemen, we sincerely appreciate your service to our
    Nation, and the dedication and sacrifices made daily by the men
    and women of the U.S. Air Force. We could not be more grateful
    for what you do.
        And, gentlemen, your full statements will be made part of
    the record. I'd like to now turn to my co-chairman, Senator
    Stevens, for his remarks.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, I
    apologize for being slightly late. I do thank you for coming
    back again, and I know we all share the difficult task of
    trying to balance the competing requirements of modernization,
    readiness, and improving the quality of life. The demands on
    all of us for finding some way to meet your needs is great, and
    we want to work with you to achieve your goals. I thank you
    very much.
        Mr. Wynne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for having General
    Moseley and I here today to testify on behalf of American's
    airmen. We are extraordinarily grateful for your steadfast
    support of our Nation's airmen.

                              OUR NATION'S AIRMEN

        Leading the men and women of the United States Air Force is
    a high honor. They are responsive, whether answering calls for
    humanitarian relief, providing commanders and combatants real-
    time intelligence, or striking with lethal and precise effect.
    We recognize that they set the strategic and the tactical
    conditions for victory.
        They are agile, with the ability to provide America's
    strategic shield, or to form an air bridge from the continental
    United States, halfway around the world to southwest Asia--an
    air bridge our airmen have maintained now for 17 years--or keep
    steadfast watch in space, and in the skies. We want to retain
    the image of the Nation's strategic shield and sword, and ask
    your help to do that.
        They are superbly trained to do all sorts of assigned
    missions. They even superbly perform our assigned ground force
    mission, although all realize that the adage, ``Every airman a
    rifleman'' sacrifices strategic leverage the Nation wants and
    needs from its airmen. We look for the ground force reset to,
    perhaps, rectify this.
        Given the age of our air and space equipment, there is no
    doubt that our freedoms are balanced on the courage, skills,
    and ingenuity of our Total Force airmen. Today, our airmen are
    incredibly busy, fully engaged in the global war on terror, not
    just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the world. Plus, they
    have a strategic deterrent mission that they perform every day,
    out of sight, with over 200,000 dedicated daily to all the
    combatant commanders.
        Our airmen are providing global vigilance through the
    manned and unmanned aircraft and space systems. For example,
    Air Force assets and airmen surveil, identify, track, and kill
    enemies as a part of the joint forces' critical counter
    improvised explosive devices (IED) mission.

                                  GLOBAL REACH

        We are providing global reach. Our C-130s and C-17s execute
    precision air drop and conventional cargo missions, which are
    saving countless lives by taking dangerous convoys off the
    road. And our aero-medical evacuation personnel are giving
    soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the highest survival
    rate in the history of warfare.
        And, we provide global power--directing, conducting or
    threatening strikes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a
    year. For example, our battlefield airmen levy global power
    through technology like ROVER, the remotely operated video
    enhanced receiver, which gives a new level of connectivity and
    situation awareness to the ground commanders by linking users
    with a laptop computer, with full-motion video sensors on our
    predator unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as advanced
    targeting pods on our fighters.
        ROVER-equipped users get real-time, full-motion video from
    these ``eyes in the skies.'' And we are also the only service
    with a dedicated combat search and rescue force. As airmen, we
    consider combat search and rescue a moral imperative, to be
    able to retrieve the airmen we send deep into enemy territory.
    But these combat search and rescue forces are equally adept at
    rescuing other services and coalitions' isolated personnel,
    when required.

                            OPERATIONS IN CYBERSPACE

        As in the other domains, your Air Force is engaged daily in
    cyberspace. We have established within the 8th Air Force a new
    cyber-command, to address how we can better train and present
    our forces to the U.S. Strategic Command, the combatant
    commanders, and other governmental agencies, to prosecute
    engagements in these domains. It's these linkages where other
    services and agencies count on us to own our warfighting
    domain--and we count on them to own theirs--that makes our
    military truly interdependent today. So, we owe our ground
    force and maritime partners the very best in leveraging our air
    space and cyberspace assets.
        Today, we're doing just that--meeting our wartime
    requirements, but frankly, wear and tear and loss of buying
    power all translate into risk to our future readiness capacity
    and capability. Today's emerging threats also threaten our
    future dominance. Proliferation of advanced technologies and
    new threats, such as double-digit surface-to-air missiles,
    nuclear weapons in North Korea, and the recent Chinese
    antisatellite test that proves space is not a sanctuary, nor
    are some of the areas that we consider our operating areas. It
    makes it imperative that we adjust our inventories for this new
    century.
        We are responding by fielding a next-generation long-range
    strike bomber by 2018, as well as funding new satellites,
    tankers, fighters, and combat search and rescue helicopters.

              RECAPITALIZATION OF AGING AIR AND SPACE INVENTORIES

        Last year, I laid out a very difficult strategy to address
    this most pressing need, recapitalizing our aging air and space
    inventories. We have started that process, and are remaining
    inbounds by self-funding to the maximum extent possible. We've
    self-funded by essentially restructuring our force structure.
    This has reduced our force size, and reshaped the Total Force
    on a ``mission first'' basis, buying fewer, but more capable
    platforms, and implementing new initiatives to improve our
    productivity and efficiency.
        When I was a young officer, leaving the Air Force in 1973,
    the average age of our equipment, including our space assets,
    was 8 years old. Our inventory's age is now triple that,
    averaging 26 years of age. With this in mind, I've advised our
    airmen it is their duty, as well as my own, to ensure the
    airmen of tomorrow are as confident and as capable against the
    threat as we are today, and so I understand the reductions, and
    I understand the need.
        We can ensure this only by intensively husbanding every
    resource--people, flying hours, and expenses--and dedicating
    the freed resources to recapitalization.
        I'd like to thank the Congress for its continued help in
    allowing the Air Force to manage our flying inventory without
    legislative restrictions, and assisting us in this duty to our
    future. I want to thank the Congress, also, for its continued
    help in recapitalizing our space inventory.
        We are taking the necessary steps in our fiscal year 2008
    budget to ensure uninterrupted, continuous service in
    communications, early warning, position, navigation and timing,
    and environmental sensing satellites. We appreciate your
    support in the development, procurement, and fielding of these
    critical space capabilities, because our military, and the
    citizens of this great Nation depend upon their continuous
    service.
        In a minute, General Moseley will introduce five of our
    amazing airmen, and I won't steal his thunder. But, let me just
    say, that to keep our Total Force ready, we must care for these
    airmen and their families.
        In the Air Force, our tenet has long been, ``We recruit
    airmen, but we retain families,'' making quality of life on our
    bases a very key component of our strategy. We are providing
    our airmen access to safe, quality, affordable, well-maintained
    housing, in a community where they chose to live through
    housing privatization.
        In summary, your Air Force is in the fight, and not just in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, but globally. Your airmen are the
    Nation's strategic edge. They are expeditionary, highly trained
    warriors, and with your help, we'll provide them with the
    necessary training, equipment, and quality of life to keep the
    Nation's asymmetric advantage of global vigilance, reach and
    power. Recapitalizing our aging equipment inventories is the
    key.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Finally, I want to salute our airmen. They are amazing,
    they're eager to serve, and mindful of their mission all around
    the world. I'm very proud to be their Secretary, and look
    forward to your questions. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Michael W. Wynne
                           maintaining america's edge
        We are America's airmen. Our mission is to deliver sovereign
    options for the defense of the United States of America and its global
    interests--to fly and fight in air, space and cyberspace.
        Our Air Force core values of integrity first, service before self
    and excellence in all we do--embodied in every airman--guide our
    actions and ensure your Air Force remains committed and ready to deter,
    dissuade or defeat any adversary anywhere in the world.
        As airmen, we are the Nation's premier multi-dimension maneuver
    force, with the agility, reach, speed, stealth, payload, precision and
    persistence to achieve global effects. Control of the air, space and
    cyberspace domains provides the essential bedrock for effective Joint
    operations--securing freedom to attack and freedom from attack.
        In 2005, we revised the Air Force mission statement to include
    cyberspace. This inclusion of cyberspace reflects our recognition of
    cross-domain interdependence and emphasizes our nonnegotiable
    commitment to deliver sovereign options for the United States through
    not only air and space but also cyberspace.
        Our 2007 posture statement articulates the major elements required
    to fulfill our mission. It reaffirms our commitment to focus our
    energies on the global war on terror (GWOT); to develop and care for
    our airmen and their families; and to recapitalize and modernize our
    aging aircraft, spacecraft, and equipment.
        Our top acquisition priorities include: the KC-X tanker; the CSAR-X
    combat search and rescue helicopter; space communications, space
    situational awareness and early warning programs; the F35A Joint Strike
    Fighter (JSF); and Next Generation Long Range Strike--a new bomber.
        Our posture statement further reaffirms our commitment to be good
    stewards of the resources entrusted to us and our resolve to dominate
    air, space and cyberspace in defense of our Nation now and in the
    future.
    Challenges
        America's Air Force faces significant challenges. We have been
    engaged in combat for 16 years while transforming into a smaller,
    leaner and more capable force. Fiscal constraints combined with
    operational challenges and a dynamic international security environment
    translate into risks we continue to manage and mitigate in order to
    provide capabilities America needs. The Air Force continues to fight
    the GWOT and prepares to face and overcome threats and conflicts of the
    future. In order to remain dominant, we must maintain our air, space
    and cyberspace power advantages over potential adversaries.
        Modern warfare is changing. This is nothing new to America's
    airmen, whose heritage spans and embraces change and whose culture
    embodies courage and innovation for America. We are ensuring a lean,
    lethal, and agile Air Force for America. We are building and posturing
    our force structure to meet future threats emerging on the dynamic
    world stage, and we are strengthening the interdependent Joint team.
        We face a security environment that poses an array of dynamic
    challenges and threats. The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
    characterized this threat environment and mandated force structure
    goals for all of DOD. The Air Force and all of the Services must be
    able to operate and defend against traditional, irregular, disruptive
    and catastrophic threats. In the future, the Air Force and the entire
    Joint Team will operate within a strategic environment involving one or
    more of these challenges. We will prepare to defend against high-end
    conventional forces, asymmetric threats and irregular forces such as
    terrorists or insurgents. To mitigate potential for disruptive
    surprises, we will strive to stay ahead of adversaries' technology
    efforts. Most importantly, we will protect our homeland from hostile
    states' and non-state actors' use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
    and attacks in and through cyberspace. The threat array requires that
    we prepare the Air Force for a broad spectrum of future conflicts. At
    the same time, several factors have created a difficult and challenging
    fiscal environment in which to organize, train, and equip for the
    future.
        The 2005 QDR specified a force planning construct to shape the
    entire DOD force to protect our Nation, its ideals and interests now
    and in the future. Originally presented in the National Military
    Strategy (NMS), the force planning construct provides guidance for
    determining the capacity and capabilities needed to meet both steady
    State and surge demands for homeland defense, irregular warfare, and
    conventional campaigns. As a result of the NMS guidance and
    comprehensive analysis, the QDR determined America's Air Force needs to
    organize, train and equip 86 ``modern combat wings.''
                Emerging National Security Concerns and Threats
        While the GWOT is our immediate priority, America's airmen must
    also stay ahead of competitors preparing for conventional conflict and
    attempting to counter the asymmetric advantage our air, space and
    cyberspace power currently gives our Joint Team. Sustaining U.S.
    advantages in such conflicts will become increasingly more challenging
    as advanced air defense, aircraft, WMD, cyber and anti-satellite (ASAT)
    capabilities proliferate.
        Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) continue to evolve, placing
    current generation aircraft at increasing risk. Modern IADS incorporate
    more data sources, process and pass information faster, and are
    increasingly mobile. Man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS),
    shoulder-fired SAMs, also are an increasingly serious threat. Their
    availability, affordability, and proliferation increases the likelihood
    of modern MANPADS ending up in the hands of non-state actors, placing
    U.S. civil and military aircraft at risk around the world.
        The lethality and availability of fourth-generation combat aircraft
    is also increasing, and potential adversaries are already purchasing
    and fielding these complex and capable weapon systems. Many nations are
    enhancing the capabilities of their existing fighter and bomber
    aircraft through use of aerial refueling, signature reduction
    technology, and cyberspace weapons that inject confusion or mask
    operations. Ever greater numbers of states are not only acquiring
    advanced aircraft, but are developing indigenous production capability,
    increasing the likelihood of proliferation.
        Proliferation of WMD to countries and non-state actors remains a
    significant challenge to U.S. interests and a top priority in the QDR.
    While nuclear weapons and materials proliferation always pose grave
    dangers, chemical and biological weapons pose arguably greater
    detection challenges. Easier and less costly to make than nuclear
    weapons, chemical and biological weapons are easier to transport,
    produce and mask from detection because they can be camouflaged as
    dual-use civilian industrial products. Proliferation may also enable
    future adversaries, especially terrorist groups, to develop, use, or
    threaten to use WMD as an asymmetric response to American conventional
    warfighting dominance, which might otherwise deter them from directly
    challenging the United States.
        Perhaps less obvious, but all the more insidious, is the
    adversary's use of the cyberspace domain to support and carry out their
    attacks world-wide and on our shores. The adversary knows that they can
    contest our use of the electromagnetic spectrum and conduct their war
    of ideas from a supposed sanctuary in this domain.
        Finally, we see challenges to our current advantages in the space
    domain. Employment of Global Positioning System (GPS) jammers in an
    attempt to reduce U.S. and coalition air strike precision is an
    example. While we can currently overcome this threat through a variety
    of methods, such a challenge presents a warning and a valuable lesson
    as we posture our air, space and cyberspace forces for the future.
        Recent foreign testing of kinetic ASAT weapon capabilities further
    demonstrates an explicit willingness to challenge, disrupt, or destroy
    America's space assets and capabilities. This testing also demonstrates
    a disregard for both American and global concerns over space debris and
    the damage it may inflict upon any object stationed in or traversing
    through low Earth orbit.
        As technology matures and proliferates, and as access to space
    becomes available to more countries, organizations and individuals,
    threats to America's air, space, and cyberspace capabilities will
    continue to grow and evolve. America's airmen aim to be ready to meet
    these and all other threats to our Nation.
                Irregular Warfare
        Our Nation is now in its sixth year waging the GWOT while the Air
    Force is entering its 17th year of engagement in Southwest Asia.
    Current conditions portend this to remain a long war. The enemy chooses
    not to operate as a ``uniformed military,'' but rather uses criminal
    networks and terror tactics to attack from the shadows. They use
    indiscriminate violence against combatants and non-combatants alike.
    They extensively use propaganda to advance their radical ideology of
    tyranny and hatred. Iraq and Afghanistan are two current fronts in this
    war, but the struggle extends beyond these vital campaigns. The Air
    Force and the entire Joint Team must wage this war on a global scale,
    in multiple locations and domains at simultaneous times, and for a
    number of years.
        We are strengthening our ability to deter and defend against non-
    state threats and our ability to conduct globally distributed irregular
    operations of varying duration. We stand ready to conduct a large-
    scale, long-duration irregular warfare campaign as an integral part of
    the Joint Team, to include counterinsurgency, security, stability,
    transition and reconstruction operations.
                Adapting to Non-Traditional Roles
        Airmen are finding innovative new uses for our current systems
    while successfully executing irregular warfare operations in
    Afghanistan and Iraq. Airmen increasingly find themselves engaged in
    nontraditional roles requiring ingenuity and the use of Joint
    warfighting technology. Our missions and taskings range from standard
    close air support and armed reconnaissance to non-traditional taskings
    like convoy escort, infrastructure protection, provincial
    reconstruction, and host nation election support.
        Still other airmen have stepped in to fill Joint warfighter
    taskings in stressed skill areas in which other Services are
    shorthanded. The Air Force currently provides over 7,700 airmen to
    fulfill these ``In-Lieu Of'' (ILO) ground force taskings. These airmen
    fulfill ILO requirements in areas such as detainee operations, convoy
    operations and protection, explosive ordnance disposal, police training
    teams, provincial reconstruction teams, military transition teams,
    civil engineering, security, interrogation, communications, fuels,
    medical services, logistics, intelligence, and base operating support.
    The Air Force also fills another 1,200 Joint Individual Augmentee
    positions. Airmen began fulfilling these requirements in 2003 and will
    continue to do so through 2007 and beyond--until the ground force
    component recaptures these missions and our job is done.
        Finally, Air Force mission, training, and force structure
    requirements will necessarily increase correspondingly as Joint ground
    force, Army and Marine Corps requirements and end strength increase.
    The full range of Air Force air, space and cyberspace capabilities and
    personnel are interdependently woven into Joint ground forces
    operations.
        Recognizing there will be an impact of increased ground forces on
    our budget, we are assessing our programs. We forecast there may be
    increased requirements in the areas of inter- and intra-theater
    airlift; command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
    surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities; close air support
    (CAS); tactical air control party (TACP) personnel; and extended ILO
    personnel requirements. While the Army and Marine Corps reset and
    recapitalize, we are following through in every way with our Joint
    teammates.
                Defending Our Homeland
        Future threats to our homeland are constantly evolving. They
    present challenges to the established methods and structures of
    homeland defense. Development, fielding and proliferation of standoff
    weapons, such as long-range cruise missiles, provide potential
    adversaries with offensive capabilities of increasing accuracy and
    range. In addition, we can expect many of these future weapons to be of
    relatively small size, presenting an extremely difficult detection and
    tracking challenge.
        As we safeguard the aerial, maritime and cyber approaches to our
    Nation, the Air Force will continue to play a large role in providing
    the full spectrum of air sovereignty options, including air defense,
    missile defense and support to civil authorities for consequence
    management. Additionally, as illustrated by our response to Hurricane
    Katrina, the Air Force will surge and contribute to national responses
    in the event of natural disasters or catastrophic events, supplying
    airlift, communications, imagery from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
    and space assets, and combat search and rescue capabilities.
    Cyberspace
        America's Air Force is redefining air and space power for the 21st
    century.
        Our current and potential adversaries already operate in
    cyberspace, exploiting the low entry costs and minimal technological
    investment needed to inflict serious harm. We cannot allow them to
    expand their foothold. We seek to deny our adversaries cyberspace
    sanctuary while ensuring our access and operations in this domain. Our
    Nation's ability to deliver effects in air, in space, on land, and at
    sea depends on control of this domain.
        Cyberspace dominance goes beyond communications and information
    technology. It requires superiority across the entire electromagnetic
    spectrum--DC to daylight--radio waves, micro-waves, infra-red, x-rays,
    directed energy, and applications we have not even begun to think
    about--to ensure global command and control, global reach, and global
    power. We have a well-established capability to operate in cyberspace.
    We take advantage of physics, technology, and synergies to operate in
    and through it. Therefore, we are establishing a new cyberspace command
    to stand alongside Air Force Space Command and Air Combat Command.
    America's airmen are force providers the President, Combatant
    Commanders (COCOMs) and the American people can rely on to preserve
    freedom of access and operations in air, space and cyberspace.
        The newly designated Air Force Cyberspace Command will provide
    combat ready forces trained and equipped to conduct sustained combat
    operations through the electromagnetic spectrum and fully integrate
    these with air and space operations. In November 2006, we held a
    cyberspace summit and, in January 2007, we hosted the first-ever
    integrated cyber exercise, Cyber Vision 2007, at the U.S. Air Force
    Warfare Center (USAFWC). This exercise focused on dominating the
    cyberspace domain in a potential conflict. These events and future
    integration of cyber aggressor teams into red flag will build upon the
    significant cyberspace capabilities we already contribute to homeland
    defense and the Joint fight.
        Cyberspace command will leverage, consolidate and integrate unique
    Air Force cyber capabilities and functions across the spectrum of
    conflict from peace, to crisis and war: Command and control; electronic
    warfare; network warfare; and intelligence, surveillance and
    reconnaissance (ISR). Many Air Force programs, while contributing to
    air and space power, also directly contribute to our dominance of the
    cyberspace domain.
    Loss of Buying Power
        While the Air Force is postured to meet our Nation's near-term
    requirements, our ability to meet steady state and surge requirements
    over the long term hinges on our ability to organize, train and equip
    86 modern combat wings, as mandated in the QDR. Achieving these goals
    will be difficult, as we balance fighting the GWOT, maintaining our
    readiness, maintaining America's air, space and cyberspace advantages,
    modernizing our equipment and capabilities, and shaping our airmen,
    organizations and force structure for the future.
        Several factors have applied pressure to the Air Force budget: GWOT
    and operations costs; increasing costs of fuel, utilities, manpower,
    and health care; increased costs to own, operate and maintain our aging
    aircraft; unforeseen BRAC costs; and lost savings due to congressional
    restrictions on retirement and divestment of our least useful legacy
    aircraft. Although recent congressional support for planned legacy
    aircraft retirements has aided our divestment strategy, unnecessary
    restrictions draw critical resources away from our aircraft
    modernization programs and degrade our efforts to recapitalize our
    aircraft inventory.
        We are meeting our current wartime commitments. We are also
    operating within the resources entrusted to our service--we are staying
    in bounds. We are self-financing our modernization and recapitalization
    efforts to the maximum extent possible though initiatives such as force
    shaping, Air Force smart operations for the 21st century (AFSO21) and
    aircraft retirements, while focusing on a ``mission first'' basis.
    Furthermore, we are committed to operate, organize, train and equip to
    meet the projected demands of the future--they are many. The Future
    Years Defense Plan (FYDP) involves taking acceptable risk in lower
    priority areas in order to meet future readiness, capability, force
    structure and national security requirements.
    Next Generation Air Force
        Our loss of overall buying power means the Air Force must attempt
    to rebalance our available resources and force structure to achieve
    force planning construct goals. To reach our 2025 force structure
    objectives, we will synchronize our investments to maximize their
    effect.
        In 2005, we began divesting significant numbers of our oldest,
    least capable, and most costly and difficult to maintain aircraft. In
    2006, we also initiated a carefully calculated reduction in personnel
    end strength to match our declining force structure. As investments in
    research, development, and procurement grow, we will continue building
    our force structure towards 86 modern combat wings. Our personnel end
    strength must concurrently keep pace as we modernize our force
    structure. These two elements--force structure and personnel end
    strength--drive our resource requirements.
        The Air Force is committed--now and in the future--to not only
    defend our Nation but also provide good stewardship of the resources
    entrusted to us. We look forward to working closely with Congress to
    ensure our force structure and personnel investments are synchronized,
    and our efforts to posture, recapitalize and modernize America's Air
    Force fly together in close formation.
    Air Force Priorities
        As the Air Force strives to defend America's interests within a
    dynamic strategic environment, we remain committed to our top service
    priorities, as stated by Air Force leaders and outlined in our vision:
      --Fighting and winning the GWOT developing and caring for our airmen
            and their families recapitalizing and modernizing our aging
            aircraft and spacecraft inventories
        These priorities, together with our enduring core values of
    integrity, service and excellence, provide America's airmen a steady
    beacon, guiding how we organize, train and equip in defense of our
    Nation. Our national strategic requirements, global complexities and
    threats, and fiscal elements within the overall strategic environment
    will continue to shape how we execute these priorities. We remain
    focused on the GWOT, our people, and a modern, capable force.
        Your Air Force is dedicated to maintaining, evolving, and expanding
    America's capabilities in air, space and cyberspace. These capabilities
    are America's edge--the foundation of America's unparalleled global
    vigilance, reach and power.
                 fighting and winning the global war on terror
        Our Air Force has been engaged in over 16 years of continuous
    combat in Iraq, currently a central front in the GWOT. In addition to
    OIF, the Air Force is a critical player on the Joint and coalition team
    in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan. Airmen also
    vigilantly defend the skies of our homeland in Operation Noble Eagle
    (ONE). Our enemies are vile, unrelenting, adaptive and global. They are
    motivated by extremist ideologies and bent on subjugation and denial of
    basic freedoms of expression, government and religion. It will
    ultimately require all elements of national power to defeat them.
    Militarily, the Air Force remains committed to finding and destroying
    our Nation's enemies wherever they seek sanctuary, fighting side by
    side with friendly nations in this struggle against violent extremism.
        America's airmen operate on a global scale every day. The full,
    complete impact of Air Force engagement includes airmen deployed
    outside of the Continental United States (OCONUS) to contingencies,
    forward deployed in Europe and the Pacific, and employed from their
    home stations as they execute global missions. The Air Force has nearly
    30,000 airmen deployed in central command conducting theater
    operations. Similarly, 60,000 Pacific Air Forces and U.S. Air Forces
    Europe airmen are fully engaged in the full spectrum of dissuasion,
    deterrence, coalition training, and military-to-military activities.
        Furthermore, the inherent qualities of air, space and cyberspace--
    speed, range, and payload--allow the forward deployed Air Force
    footprint to be smaller, less vulnerable, and vastly more flexible.
    Airmen are also fully engaged in the GWOT from their home stations,
    controlling satellites, standing on alert with intercontinental
    ballistic missiles (ICBMs), providing intelligence assessments,
    operating UAVs, and launching airlift, tanker and other aircraft
    missions essential to Joint operations worldwide. Every day over
    200,000 Active, Guard, and Reserve airmen fulfill COCOM missions around
    the world.
    A Day in the Life of America's Airmen
        The Air Force delivers global vigilance, global reach and global
    power for our Nation. America's airmen provide vigilance that is
    persistent, focused and predictive; reach that is reliable, rapid and
    agile; and power that is flexible, precise, stealthy and decisive.
        A snapshot of current Air Force operations illustrates the myriad
    ways in which COCOMs employ air, space and cyberspace power to
    accomplish their missions.
                Global Vigilance
        Air Force global vigilance capabilities are critical elements of
    the GWOT, at home and abroad. For instance, the Air Force currently
    operates and maintains satellites directly serving central command and
    providing the communications, sensor, and navigation capabilities on
    which the lives and missions of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and
    coast guardsmen depend. From bases in the continental United States,
    our airmen also maintain space situational awareness (SSA) for the
    region, tracking over 500 daily orbital passes over Baghdad of
    satellites of all nations.
        Theater-based aircraft have become critical elements in the
    Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (Counter-IED) effort by ``scanning
    and jamming.'' On a daily basis U-2s, Global Hawk and Predator UAVs,
    and E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS)
    aircraft survey, track, identify--and sometimes destroy--insurgents and
    safe houses. In fact, the Air Force maintains over 10 24/7 UAV Combat
    Air Patrols (CAP) in central command, providing persistent ISR and--in
    the case of Predator--a lethal strike option. In addition to their
    global responsibilities, stateside Airborne Warning and Control System
    (AWACS) crews and airplanes fly and stand on alert as part of our
    homeland defense surveillance requirements.
                Global Reach
        Air Force airlifters and tankers provide the global reach that
    underwrites the Joint effort in the GWOT. An air mobility command
    aircraft departs a runway somewhere on the planet every 90 seconds, 24
    hours a day, 365 days a year. On a typical day, the Air Force flies
    over 250 airlift sorties, moves over 1,000 tons of cargo, and
    transports nearly 2,500 passengers. In central command, intra-theater
    airlift aircraft like the C-130 and C-17 have borne heavy loads, taking
    thousands of convoys off dangerous roads and reducing the threat of
    IEDs to about 8,500 people each month.
        Aeromedical evacuation (AE) has emerged as a critical capability
    for the Joint Force. In fact, Air Force AE is responsible for the
    transport and care of over 36,000 patients in the GWOT. Our airmen have
    achieved a record-setting average patient movement time of 72 hours, a
    dramatic reduction from the 10-14 days required during the 1991 Persian
    Gulf War. Such rapid global movement provides U.S. service men and
    women the highest survival rates in the history of warfare.
        Air Force tankers provide global mobility and reach for Air Force
    aircraft, the Joint Team and coalition forces. While the average tanker
    is over 40 years old, KC-135s and KC-10s nonetheless fly 30 tanker
    missions on a typical day in central command and stand on alert to
    provide additional endurance for our aircraft performing homeland
    defense missions.
                Global Power
        At the sharp end of Air Force capabilities, America's airmen
    deliver global power in the GWOT. Using UAVs, tight air-ground
    integration, and time sensitive targeting, we have eliminated several
    high-value terrorist and insurgent targets in Afghanistan, Somalia and
    Iraq. In a war where intelligence is fleeting, the Air Force has made
    constant innovations to shorten the time cycle it takes to deliver
    rapid, precise effects. Fighters originally designed for strike
    missions are now using their targeting pods as non-traditional ISR
    sensors over Iraq and Afghanistan, providing a unique extension of both
    vigilance and power for the Joint Force Commander (JFC). Battlefield
    airmen serve side by side with our Joint partners on the ground and use
    live streaming video from predators or targeting pods to orchestrate
    rapid air and ground attacks on insurgents. The successful June 2006
    strike against Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is only one
    illustration of how the Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force
    Reserve Command seamlessly integrate capabilities from around the globe
    into precise, dislocating, and decisive effect.
        Since the beginning of the GWOT, the typical strike mission has
    evolved from a pre-planned sortie against a fixed target to a flexible,
    on-call mission profile responsive to a rapidly changing battlefield.
    In central command, fighters typically fly nearly 80 strike, electronic
    warfare, or non-traditional ISR sorties each day. Back in the United
    States, fighters stand guard over our homeland, ready to launch at a
    moment's notice. Worldwide, Air Force fighters and bombers, coupled
    with the strength of America's space and cyberspace capabilities, are
    the tools of reassurance, deterrence and dissuasion. America's airmen
    are the global, strategic muscle behind U.S. diplomacy, providing a
    lethal over-the-horizon capability to directly influence events on the
    ground--whether based in Japan, Guam, or Whiteman AFB, Missouri.
    Fostering Joint Interdependence
        Air Force dedication to Joint interdependence is illustrated in the
    GWOT. Around the world, we are committed to providing COCOMs an
    increased ability to integrate air, space and cyberspace capabilities
    and gain cross-dimensional synergies in pursuit of National Security
    Joint Force objectives.
                Fifth-Generation Fighters
        Currently in production and fully operational at Langley AFB,
    Virginia, the F-22A is the newest member of the Air and Space
    Expeditionary Force--our airmen are putting the world's first fifth-
    generation fighter into action. Its attributes of speed, stealth,
    maneuverability, advanced sensors and adaptable, integrated avionics
    will meet our Nation's enduring national security requirement to gain
    and maintain Joint air dominance, as well as enable precise engagement
    against a broad range of surface targets.
        America's airmen are understandably proud of their contributions to
    the Joint fight. They have prevented enemy aircraft from inflicting any
    U.S. ground force casualties for over 50 years. We dedicate our efforts
    and risk our lives to sustain this record. Production in sufficient
    numbers of fifth-generation fighters--both the F-22A Raptor and the F-
    35A Lightning II--remains the best guarantee of homeland air
    sovereignty and Joint air dominance.
                Numbered Air Forces
        The Air Force has established component Numbered Air Forces (NAFs)
    dedicated to supporting each COCOM across the full range of military
    operations. Each component NAF provides an integrated and
    technologically advanced command and control capability, adaptable to
    contingencies across the spectrum of conflict. Over the next several
    years, we will continue to refine this command and control structure
    through the development of centralized ``reach back'' capabilities,
    integration of Guardsmen and Reservists, and more advanced cyber
    technologies.
                Air and Space Expeditionary Force
        The Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF) organizational
    construct is a modern design for the modern world.
        Since the end of the Cold War, the Air Force has evolved from a
    force based at large, permanent United States and overseas bases to an
    expeditionary force, requiring fewer permanent bases and using an
    expanded network of temporary forward bases. As we adapted to this new
    operating environment, we quickly recognized the deployment construct
    for our force also had to change. Since 1999, we have organized our Air
    Force combat forces into 10 AEFs that present capability to COCOMs,
    provide trained and ready forces for emerging threats and
    contingencies, and help manage high deployment tempo through a stable
    and predictable rotation schedule. When demand for American air power
    skyrocketed after 9/11, the Air Force extended the deployment period
    from 90 to 120 days to accommodate the COCOMs' demands.
        We continue to adapt our people and organizational constructs to
    ensure airmen are highly motivated, exceptionally well trained, and
    equipped with the right skill sets to present the Joint warfighter with
    a broad set of capabilities. We realigned the AEF Center under the Air
    Force Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, to leverage
    similar functions and merge permanent authorizations, wartime
    requirements, and assignments under a single commander. The Air Force
    is also moving forward with fielding of Contingency Response Groups
    (CRGs), organized, trained and equipped to provide an initial ``Open
    the Base'' capability to COCOMs. The CRG provides a rapid response team
    to assess the location-specific support requirements necessary to open
    an expeditionary airfield, as well as provide a rapid projection of
    America's vigilance, reach and power.
                Joint Warfighting Integration
        Due to the dynamic demands of the GWOT, airmen fly strike, ISR,
    combat search and rescue (CSAR), AE, electronic warfare and airlift
    sorties everyday over Afghanistan and Iraq. They also augment ground
    forces to provide security and stability in both countries. Airmen are
    working hand-in-hand with ground and naval forces training and
    augmenting both Iraqi and Afghan security forces, rebuilding critical
    infrastructure, and providing medical services to these war-torn
    countries.
        Air Force CSAR helicopters remain on alert in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    providing commanders with the capability to rescue isolated military
    and civilian personnel. Air Force CSAR crews answer the moral
    obligation to safely secure and return any and every member of our
    Joint team.
        The effectiveness CAS provides soldiers and marines is another
    example of interdependence. Tactical training at the National Training
    Center provides soldiers and airmen the opportunity to see how they
    will deploy and fight together on future battlefields. The Army's
    Stryker Brigade combat teams now in service and the future combat
    system under development both rely heavily on Air Force strike
    capabilities to remain effective. Therefore, we are adding 700 TACP
    airmen to serve with ground components to ensure the Air Force's timely
    and precise effects are always available.
                Building Global Partnerships
        Fighting and winning the GWOT requires commitment, capability, and
    cooperation from allies and partners around the world. We depend on our
    international partners to secure their territory, support regional
    stability, provide base access and overflight rights, and contribute a
    host of air, space and cyber power capabilities as interoperable
    coalition partners. As the pace of economic, political and cultural
    globalization increases, the importance of strong global partnerships--
    both now and in the future--is abundantly clear.
        The Air Force leads the way in developing enduring Air Force-to-Air
    Force relationships around the world. To strengthen these
    relationships, we are expanding Red Flag access to our allies and
    partners. We are also working to establish the Gulf Air Warfare Center
    as a tactical center of excellence. In addition to integrating
    coalition partners into our most robust combat training scenarios, we
    have established the Coalition and Irregular Warfare Center of
    Excellence to facilitate development of relevant airpower capabilities,
    capacities, and relationships in partner nations in the GWOT, and to
    facilitate development of innovative Air Force irregular warfare
    applications. We are also expanding the 6th Special Operations Squadron
    to bolster our ability to train foreign air forces and expand our
    repertoire of non-kinetic capabilities in the GWOT. Furthermore, our
    aircrews, especially airmen executing global mobility and airlift
    missions, interact daily with host nation personnel, representatives
    and citizenry, enhancing America's image of strength, freedom, and
    hope.
        Through the Air Force Security Cooperation Strategy, we continue
    working with allies and friends to help them attain capabilities that
    complement our own air, space and cyberspace capabilities. This
    document uses the OSD Security Cooperation Guidance as a foundation and
    aligns with COCOM Theater Security Cooperation strategies. This
    comprehensive, coordinated effort builds capability in potential
    partner air forces using the six U.S. Air Force distinctive
    capabilities as driving tenets.
        Recent commitments, such as procurement of C-17 airlifters by
    Australia and the NATO Alliance, and broad international participation
    in the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, will further reinforce
    our current and future interoperability with global partners. Finally,
    we have infused expeditionary, regional, cultural and linguistic
    education throughout our training programs at every level. The Air
    Force executes a global mission. Our approaches to operations,
    interoperability and training exemplify our global, international
    perspective.
                Air Staff Intelligence Directorate
        Intelligence is becoming more critical in today's rapidly changing
    security environment. Collection, analysis, and timely distribution of
    information are essential to kinetic and non-kinetic approaches to our
    Nation's security challenges. Accordingly, we moved Intelligence
    directly under the Chief of Staff, creating the position of Deputy
    Chief of Staff for Intelligence (A2) and elevating the position to a
    three-star billet from its former two-star billet.
                Partnership with the National Reconnaissance Office
        The Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office achieved a
    groundbreaking agreement on June 7, 2006, to share expertise and best
    practices. The agreement focuses specifically on sharing lessons
    learned in developing, acquiring, fielding and operating modern space
    systems. Both organizations recognize the need to enhance their
    respective capabilities, as well as to work collaboratively to respond
    to future challenges.
                Combat Search and Rescue Realignment
        The transfer of the CSAR mission from Air Force Special Operations
    Command to Air Combat Command provides a clearer presentation of forces
    to Joint commanders and ensures a direct CSAR link to the Combat Air
    Forces and the personnel they serve. In addition, the Air Force's Next
    Generation Combat Search and Rescue aircraft (CSAR-X) will modernize an
    aging CSAR fleet, provide greatly improved all-weather combat search
    and rescue worldwide--an essential component of our commitment to the
    Joint Team and our allies.
                Air and Space Operations Centers
        In June 2005, we achieved an initial operational capability with
    our Air and Space Operations Center (AOC) Weapon System and are well on
    our way to a full operational capability for the entire AOC inventory.
    The Air Force leads the way in delivering sovereign options to defend
    our homeland and our global interests by providing a global command and
    control (C2) capability to COCOMs, enabling them to orchestrate air,
    space and cyberspace effects in pursuit of national military
    objectives. AOCs are the central operational nodes in this capability,
    and the combined AOC in operation at Al Udeid, Qatar, exemplifies the
    most advanced and robust AOC system in the Air Force today.
                Aeromedical Evacuation
        Air Force AE contributes a unique, nationally vital capability to
    the Joint fight. Air Force AE innovations include use of ``designated
    vs. dedicated'' aircraft, ``universally-qualified'' AE crewmembers,
    able to fly on any AE-configured aircraft, and the extensive use of
    critical care air transport teams to transport stabilized patients.
        Air Force AE is combat proven. Since late 2001, we have
    orchestrated the care and transfer of more than 36,000 overseas
    patients to CONUS facilities. We continue to refine this remarkable
    capability and the ``en route care'' system built upon our
    expeditionary medical system.
        Air Force AE is a total force system, and both AE and en route care
    are built on teamwork, synergy and Joint execution. Technological
    advances such as the single integrated patient data system, high-flow
    ventilators, high deck patient loading system, and the Joint patient
    isolation unit are under development and will further enable safe
    patient movement regardless of transportation mode.
        America's Air Force has provided soldiers, sailors, marines, coast
    guardsmen and airmen the highest casualty survival rates in the history
    of warfare. By leveraging AE and en route care, we will continue to
    improve our ability to save and sustain lives.
    Space Capabilities in Joint Operations
        The entire Joint force depends on Air Force space-based
    capabilities to meet not only the needs of military operations, but
    also the full spectrum of civil, economic, and diplomatic activities.
    Moreover, rescue and recovery operations in 2005 following Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita clearly demonstrated the humanitarian mission utility
    of space-based communications, positioning and navigation services, and
    environmental monitoring. America's airmen safeguard the high ground of
    space and ensure America's unimpeded access to vital space
    capabilities.
                Space Applications in Afghanistan and Iraq
        Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the importance of
    space-based capabilities to the United States and coalition forces. An
    example of Air Force response to warfighter needs is the successful
    deployment of the Satellite Interference Response System (SIRS), a
    defensive counterspace prototype. It aids in the identification,
    geolocation and reduction of interference sources for critical
    satellite communications. SIRS has improved the response time to
    unknown interference sources within the CENTCOM AOR and reduced
    friendly interference sources from impacting operations.
        Blue Force Tracking capability is another success story. Joint Blue
    Force Tracking has fundamentally changed ground warfare. The ability to
    accurately locate friendly forces with GPS timing and positioning
    information, and then share that information, dramatically improves
    understanding on the battlefield and reduces the risk of friendly fire.
    The unprecedented real-time knowledge of friendly force locations
    renders all operations--especially night and urban operations--less
    dangerous and more effective.
                Joint Space Operations Center
        The 14th Air Force Air and Space Operations Center (Space AOC) at
    Vandenberg AFB, California, serves as the core of the United States
    Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC).
    The Space AOC/JSpOC is the primary command and control node for
    integrating the full resources of space-based sensor and command-
    control systems. The Space AOC/JSpOC proactively reaches forward to
    COCOMs, ensuring accomplishment of theater and global space objectives,
    while providing a continually updated space common operating picture
    for integration into current wartime and peacetime missions.
        The Space AOC/JSpOC consists of personnel, facilities, and
    resources providing long-term strategy development, short-term crisis
    and contingency planning, real-time execution, space asset
    reallocation, and space forces assessment. The Space AOC/JSpOC provides
    tailored space effects to Joint forces worldwide.
        The Space AOC/JSpOC maintains SSA through the fusion of
    intelligence, space- and ground-based sensor readings, and operational
    indications to allow the United States and allied forces unfettered
    access to space. The Space AOC/JSpOC also provides predictive analysis
    of adversary space activity and supports the protection of National
    Security Space assets.
                Counterspace
        Air, space and cyberspace superiority are the foundational elements
    of Joint success in any action. Counterspace and countercyber
    technologies and operations provide America with the tools to achieve
    space and cyber superiority, allowing America freedom of action while
    denying freedom of action to an adversary or enemy. SSA, Defensive
    Counterspace (DCS) and Offensive Counterspace (OCS) capabilities
    comprise the main elements of Air Force counterspace efforts.
        SSA provides airmen with detailed knowledge of the space
    environment, enabling responsive, effective execution of DCS and OCS
    actions. Enhanced ground-based and new space-based SSA assets would
    provide the needed information. In the near-term, the Rapid Attack
    Identification Detection and Reporting System (RAIDRS), along with
    SIRS, will test detection and geo-location technologies. The Space
    Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) and Space Fence programs will deliver
    transformational capabilities to improve responsiveness, surveillance
    coverage, and small object detection. We expect to field these improved
    capabilities in the fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013 timeframes,
    respectively.
        Air Force defensive counterspace efforts will protect National
    Security Space capabilities vital to Joint success. Some defensive
    strategies comprise technical solutions integrated into satellite
    designs. We will design other systems specifically to counter
    adversarial threats. Additionally, our airmen are continuously
    developing new tactics to mitigate potential threats to our space
    systems.
        Offensive counterspace technologies and operations seek to disrupt,
    deny or degrade an adversary's ability to leverage space capabilities.
    The Counter Communications System (CCS) provides COCOMs a method to
    deny an adversary's access to satellite communications through
    temporary, reversible and non-destructive means. CCS expands the
    options available for the COCOM to address the proliferation of
    advanced space technologies and their availability to potential
    adversaries.
                      developing and caring for our airmen
        Your Air Force today is a seamless total force, with over 690,000
    airmen serving on Active Duty, in the Air National Guard (ANG), in the
    Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and as Air Force civilians. While
    modern equipment, technology and capability are essential to success,
    your airmen are the bedrock of America's ability to succeed in an era
    of challenge and uncertainty.
        While emphasizing our global expeditionary culture, organization
    and mission, we remain committed to providing and maintaining the
    highest possible standards of education, training, health care and
    installation services for America's airmen.
    Force Shaping
        When the Air Force began to develop a long-term force structure
    plan, we started with divestment of legacy aircraft. While we have
    achieved some success, significant investment gaps remain. Moreover,
    the costs of personnel continue to rise. Personnel costs have increased
    57 percent in the past decade. In early 2006, Program Budget Decision
    720 directed additional end strength reductions over the FYDP. As we
    manage this downsizing, we remain committed to a balanced force. We
    will increase manning in stressed career fields, and expand
    opportunities for career development and training. Our goal is a lean,
    more capable, more lethal Air Force, organized, trained and equipped
    for our global, expeditionary mission.
        To tailor our personnel mix to the new security environment, we
    authorized implementation of annual Force Shaping Boards (FSBs). The
    purpose of the fiscal year 2006 FSB was to reduce officer overages by
    identifying eligible officers for separation, while balancing career
    fields and officer commissioned year groups. Prior to the board,
    eligible officers were offered voluntary options to transition to other
    forms of service in and out of the Air Force. The Air Force also waived
    most Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) to allow officers to
    separate early. In addition, the Air Force is offering voluntary
    separation pay to officers in overage career fields, and we will
    convene a selective early retirement board to identify retirement-
    eligible officers for early retirement if necessary.
        To achieve the required reductions of enlisted airmen, the Air
    Force instituted a date of separation rollback for personnel with
    limitations on their assignment or enlistment eligibility. We also
    offered a limited number of ADSC waivers for eligible members in
    overage career fields. These initiatives to shape the enlisted force
    join the tools already in place: Career job reservations, reduction in
    accessions, and the Non-Commissioned Officer retraining program.
        Overall, the Air Force aims for a reduction of over 4,000 officers
    and 10,000 enlisted members by the end of fiscal year 2007. These
    reductions are difficult but necessary to ensure the Air Force
    maintains the right size and mix of forces to meet the fiscal and
    global challenges of today and tomorrow.
    Total Force Integration
        A distinguishing hallmark of the Air Force is the ease with which
    airmen from Active Duty, ANG, and AFRC work together at home and
    abroad. From the build-up of the ANG after World War II, the first
    Reserve Associate unit in 1968 and the full integration of Guard and
    Reserve units into the Air & Space Expeditionary Force in the 1990s,
    the Air Force has a history of employing airmen from all components in
    innovative and effective ways.
        One of the Air Force's significant commitments to long-term
    transformation is Total Force Integration (TFI). The Total Force
    construct seeks to maximize the Air Force's overall Joint combat
    capability with Active Duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve
    airmen working together cohesively. TFI is critical to meeting the
    challenges of competing resource demands, an aging aircraft inventory,
    and emerging missions.
                New and Emerging Missions
        As the Air Force transforms to a smaller, more agile and lethal
    force, we will retain the strengths of the Guard and Reserve and use
    them in new ways to reflect a changing mission set. Increased
    integration allows Air Force personnel to capitalize on experience
    levels inherent in the Guard and Reserve, while building vital
    relationships necessary to sustain successful combat operations.
        Ongoing Total Force initiatives integrate Air Force components into
    missions critical to future warfighting, and include ISR, UAVs, space
    and cyberspace operations. Given the ease of employing these
    capabilities from home station, these missions are ideally suited for
    the Guard and Reserve. In a time of increasing demand for these
    capabilities, it only makes sense to use reachback technologies to tap
    into our Air Reserve Component. Using this approach improves our
    operational effectiveness, reduces reliance on involuntary
    mobilization, and provides more stability for our airmen and their
    civilian employers. It also allows the Air Force to capitalize on the
    state-of-the-industry advanced skills and best practices residing in
    the ranks of the ANG and AFRC.
                Way Ahead
        The Air Force continues to make significant progress on our Total
    Force initiatives. We have identified 136, secured funding for 98
    opportunities and are executing 19. We have established associate units
    at several locations including F-22As in Virginia and Alaska, C-17s in
    Hawaii, F-16s in Utah, and C-130s in Wyoming. Additionally, guardsmen
    are analyzing GWOT intelligence in Kansas, and Reservists are flying
    operational GWOT UAV missions from Nevada. With over 100 initiatives in
    the planning phase and many more in the development phase, Total Force
    Integration is paving the way for a smaller, more capable, more
    affordable Air Force.
    Improving Training Opportunities
        Spanning six decades of Air Force history, particularly over the
    past 16 years, our airmen have proven themselves as the global first
    responders in times of crisis--taking action anytime, anywhere. The
    foundation for this well-deserved reputation is the quality and
    frequency of the training and education we provide. Our Air Force
    training initiatives continue to evolve, improving our ability to
    develop and retain the world's best air, space and cyberspace
    warriors--expeditionary, knowledge-enabled, ethical, and prepared for
    the interdependent fight.
                Air Force Basic Military Training
        We changed Air Force Basic Military Training (BMT) curriculum to
    stress an expeditionary mindset in all phases of training, providing
    airmen with more expeditionary capability from day one. These changes
    are the most significant in BMT history. The Air Force basic training
    experience now mirrors the AEF cycle with a pre-deployment, deployment
    and reconstitution phases. We emphasize basic war skills and practical
    application throughout BMT. Beginning first quarter fiscal year 2009,
    BMT will incorporate 2 additional weeks of instruction--lasting 8.5
    weeks total--to provide more opportunities for practical application
    and field exercises. Finally, we have added ``Airman's Time,''
    mentoring sessions in which our veteran instructors share their real
    world experiences, relate daily training events to warrior and
    airmanship qualities, and reinforce the core values expected of all
    airmen.
                Space Professional Development
        Space capabilities have become vital in the defense of our Nation
    and the continued growth of the United States and world economies.
    Developing, fielding, operating, and maintaining the Air Force's broad
    array of space systems demands a highly trained, expertly managed
    workforce of space professionals. As we begin to field even more
    capable and complex systems, the demands on our space professionals
    will only increase. We have brought these personnel together within the
    Space Professional Development Program, ensuring our operations,
    acquisition and support personnel receive the training, education and
    experience necessary to accomplish our mission in space--now and in the
    future.
                U.S. Air Force Warfare Center
        The U.S. Air Force Warfare Center (USAFWC) integrates initiatives
    across the Air Force. USAFWC sets the standard for executing Joint and
    coalition air, space and cyberspace operations. The USAFWC provides
    advanced training designed to ensure our Air Force warfighting
    capability remains unrivaled. USAFWC provides performance assessment
    and Joint integrated exercise venues for units from the USAF, USN, USMC
    and USA--as well as our allies. They provide adversary analysis through
    a unified and coordinated ``Red Force'' ready to ``combat'' the United
    States' and their coalition partners during all phases of testing,
    tactics development, training programs, and integrated exercises.
                Red Flag
        In addition to its original location at Nellis AFB, Nevada, the Air
    Force now conducts Red Flag exercises in Alaska using Eielson AFB,
    Elmendorf AFB, and the Pacific Alaska Range Complex. The two exercises
    are designated Red Flag--Nellis and Red Flag--Alaska, respectively.
        Red Flag is expanding aggressor capabilities to provide enhanced
    training at both locations. The Air Force added an F-15 aggressor unit
    in Nevada and, starting in October 2007, we will establish an F-16
    aggressor squadron at Eielson AFB ready to participate in Red Flag-
    Alaska exercises in 2008. Aggressor functions have expanded to include
    air defense, space, and cyber operations. This integrated aggressor
    force provides all Red Flag exercises with a consistent, world-class
    training capability. Bolstering the dissimilar combat experience, the
    Air Force also has taken steps to expand the participation of coalition
    partners and allies in Red Flag.
        Overall, enhanced aggressor operations and common training concepts
    will increase the quality of Red Flag training, and two locations will
    increase the quantity of training opportunities. When complete, these
    changes will make a great program even better--saving lives in the next
    fight.
                Military Personnel Exchange Program
        Through the Military Personnel Exchange Program, the Air Force
    builds, sustains, and expands international relationships that are
    critical enablers for our Expeditionary Air and Space Force. Long-term
    success in the GWOT calls for broad international partnership and
    integration. Expanding our exchange programs to Eastern Europe, the
    Middle East, and Southeast Asia is critical to the conduct of the GWOT
    and in building lasting partnerships with our Allies.
    Quality of Life
        Your Air Force has been at war for nearly 17 consecutive years.
    These challenging times underscore the importance of properly
    maintaining the capabilities of the primary weapons in our Air Force
    arsenal--our airmen. Our focus on their quality of life ensures these
    vital ``weapon systems'' remain ready when called upon.
                Expeditionary Support
        We ensure the best possible facilities and programs at all our
    expeditionary locations. Our dining facilities are unequalled--
    currently serving over 36,000 meals daily to deployed forces. We also
    provide fitness and recreation support to help maintain the health and
    morale of our airmen. Additionally, our learning resource centers
    provide the necessary means for distance learning, continued
    professional development, and connectivity with friends and family.
        Our Airman and Family Readiness Program is an aggressive effort to
    prepare airmen and their families for deployment challenges. Mandatory
    pre-deployment briefings provide information on personal planning and
    stressors related to extended duty away from home, while mandatory
    post-deployment briefings prepare airmen for the dynamics of reuniting
    with their families.
                Language and Cultural Education Opportunities
        We are moving beyond traditional Air Force and Joint warfighting
    skills development. Our educational programs provide increased
    opportunities for airmen to receive focused cultural and language
    training, facilitating greater professional interaction, deeper
    understanding, and more effective operations.
        The expanded instruction includes cultural awareness, regional
    affairs, and foreign language proficiency. All Air Force Academy cadets
    and Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) nontechnical scholarship
    cadets will be required to take language courses. Additionally, both
    Academy and ROTC cadets have increased opportunities for foreign
    language and area studies degrees and have expanded cultural immersion
    and foreign exchange programs. Our enlisted basic military training
    also will provide instruction on cultural sensitivity.
        Once in the Air Force, each level of officer and enlisted
    professional military education (PME) provides additional cultural,
    regional and foreign language instruction, developing leaders who can
    articulate United States policy and operate effectively in foreign
    settings. Furthermore, we will increase developmental educational
    opportunities for global skills, including overseas professional
    military education and the Olmstead Scholars Program. We will then
    vector these airmen into Political-Military Affairs or Regional Affairs
    Strategist career tracks, maximizing America's return-on-investment.
                Housing and Military Construction
        Air Force investments in housing underscore our emphasis on
    developing and caring for airmen. Through Military Construction
    (MILCON) and housing privatization, we are providing quality homes
    faster than ever before. Over the next 2 years, the Air Force will
    renovate or replace more than 4,200 homes through military
    construction. We are on track to meet our fiscal year 2009 goal of
    eliminating inadequate housing at overseas locations.
        Investment in dormitories continues to provide superior housing to
    our unaccompanied members. We have over 3,000 dormitory rooms
    programmed for funding over the next 6 years. Approximately 75 percent
    of these initiatives rectify inadequate dormitory conditions for
    permanent party members. Our new ``Dorms-4-Airmen'' standard is a
    concept designed to increase camaraderie, social interaction and
    accountability. The remaining dormitory program modernizes inadequate
    ``pipeline'' dormitories that house young enlisted students during
    their initial technical training.
        MILCON is an essential enabler of Air Force missions; however, we
    are accepting risk in facilities and infrastructure funding in order to
    bolster our efforts to recapitalize and modernize our aging aircraft
    and equipment. We have prioritized the most critical requirements to
    support the Air Force and DOD requirements. Our MILCON strategy
    supports these priorities by focusing on new mission beddowns,
    dormitories, fitness centers, childcare centers, and depot
    transformation.
                Joint Basing
        The Air Force has a long and successful history of working toward
    common goals in a Joint environment, without compromising Air Force
    principles and the well-being of our people. Joint basing initiatives
    are no exception. We want Joint basing to be a raging success.
    Therefore, each Joint base should be required to provide an attractive
    setting to all of its assigned personnel.
        To accomplish this end, we advocate the establishment of the
    highest quality of life standards of individual bases as the Joint base
    quality of life standards. Joint basing is an opportunity to improve
    efficiency, quality of life standards and common delivery of
    installation support services. Joint basing will consider best business
    practices to ensure enhancement of Joint warfighting capabilities,
    eliminate duplication, and ultimately achieve synergy for base support
    services. These actions will optimize Joint use of limited resources
    and result in more efficient installations from which all Services will
    project combat power for our Nation.
        Through the establishment of the highest level of quality of life
    standards at each Joint base, our airmen, soldiers, sailors, marines,
    DOD civilians and their families will benefit from efficient,
    consistent installation support services. These standards will ensure
    the Air Force and our sister Services continue to provide all personnel
    with the level of installation support services they deserve.
        As we work with OSD and our sister Services, we will ensure all
    Joint basing initiatives guard against any interference with the DOD's
    ability to perform its mission. Joint basing allows us to build closer
    relationships and forge stronger ties among the Services. We will not
    only train as we fight, we will live as we fight.
                    recapitalizing and modernizing the force
        To meet the needs of our Nation at war and successfully build the
    86 modern combat wings necessary to maintain a credible defense posture
    in the future, we are committed to aggressively recapitalizing and
    modernizing our inventories of aircraft, space systems, equipment and
    operational infrastructure. Executing a successful recapitalization
    plan is a balancing act. We will continue to meet today's operational
    needs while striving to ensure America and our future airmen inherit an
    Air Force that is ready, capable and sustainable. We are committed to
    maintaining air, space and cyberspace advantages and America's
    unparalleled global vigilance, reach and power--America's Edge.
    Comprehensive Plan
        Our recapitalization and modernization plan follows an integrated
    strategy of retirement, procurement, selective Service Life Extension
    Programs (SLEPs) and modifications--coupled with the broadest, most
    innovative science and technology program in DOD. We will progressively
    shed our oldest, most costly, and least capable legacy aircraft, while
    reinvesting in a smaller--but more capable--expeditionary force,
    emphasizing global and Joint capabilities. While these strategies will
    sustain selected legacy systems for near term, we will avoid billions
    of dollars on further SLEPs by working our stewardship of funds today.
    It has become far more expensive to continuously extend the life of
    older aircraft. We are fast approaching the point where it is cheaper
    to buy new aircraft.
        Our plan will allow effective, efficient modernization and
    replacement of our air superiority, strike, space, ISR, mobility,
    special operations, and combat support systems. Fully recapitalized,
    America's Air Force will remain dominant in the conduct of modern,
    networked, cross-dimensional 21st century warfare.
                An Aging Inventory
        The Air Force is meeting today's combat requirements--but not
    without increasing risks and costs. We have an aging and increasingly
    unfit inventory of aircraft, space systems and equipment. Of our
    inventory of approximately 6,000 aircraft, a significant number operate
    under flight restrictions. Many transport aircraft and aerial refueling
    tankers are more than 40 years old. The average age of the bomber force
    exceeds 30 years. The fighter force is the oldest it has ever been, at
    an average age of more than 18 years. Additionally, our airmen operate
    and maintain many satellites well in excess of their originally
    designed mission durations. Across every mission, the Air Force is
    experiencing detrimental effects of high tempo operations and age,
    including engine and structural fatigue, deterioration, corrosion and
    increased rates of component failure.
        As a result, the Air Force's ability to meet the combat
    requirements of tomorrow is in question. The increased tempo of current
    operations delays routine maintenance and we find our systems becoming
    progressively less effective and more costly to own and operate.
    Aircraft and equipment modifications currently absorb 20 percent of the
    Air Force's procurement budget. This is the highest percentage in the
    history of the Air Force. In fact, 14 percent of our Air Force fleet is
    either grounded or operating under mission-limiting flight
    restrictions. Our comprehensive plan for modernization and
    recapitalization outlines the prudent investments necessary today to
    avoid the future capability risks and spiraling maintenance and
    modernization costs we currently experience with our legacy systems.
                Inventory Management
        Fiscal responsibility is a critical element of our plan. The Air
    Force is committed to planning and operating within our allocated
    resources. However, we face fiscal constraints that introduce risk into
    our efforts to successfully posture America's Air Force for the future.
    We appreciate congressional language in the 2007 National Defense
    Authorization Act supporting our efforts to retire older aircraft and
    manage our inventory of aging equipment. However, remaining legislative
    restrictions on aircraft retirements remain the biggest obstacle to
    efficient divestiture of our oldest, least capable, and most costly to
    maintain platforms and equipment. Keeping these legacy aircraft on the
    flightline levies additional operations and maintenance costs at the
    expense of modernization programs and funding. These costs cascade into
    procurement delays for future platforms and divert resources away from
    expanded Joint capabilities. We welcome the opportunity to work with
    Congress to overcome these fiscal challenges, reduce risks to meeting
    our National Security and Joint requirements, and successfully prepare
    our Air Force for the future.
                Procurement Priorities
        We design and structure every Air Force program throughout our
    diverse, comprehensive recapitalization and modernization plan to meet
    critical Air Force, Joint, and National requirements. Several programs
    currently receive our highest attention and represent our top
    priorities within the plan.
        Our top acquisition priorities include: the KC-X tanker; the CSAR-X
    combat search and rescue helicopter; space communications, space
    situational awareness and early warning programs; the F-35A Joint
    Strike Fighter (JSF); and Next Generation Long Range Strike--a new
    bomber. We will continue to advocate and advance these and many other
    modern elements of air, space and cyberspace capability. Collectively
    they will strengthen America's advantages in global vigilance, reach
    and power for years to come.
    Global Vigilance
        The Air Force acts as the global eyes and ears of the Joint Team
    and our Nation. Using a vast array of terrestrial, airborne and
    spaceborne sensors, we monitor and characterize the Earth's sea, air,
    space, land, and cyber domains around the clock and around the world.
    Our command, control, communications and computers (C4) networks link
    the Joint Team together and speed information to users at the point of
    action, from commanders in AOCs, to ground units engaged with the
    enemy, to a pilot dropping a precision-guided munition.
        The future vision of all the U.S. military services is information-
    driven. Success will hinge on America's cyberspace advantages. Air
    Force assets like Joint STARS, AWACS, Rivet Joint, Global Hawk,
    Predator and our constellations of satellites, contribute vital
    networking and C4ISR products and services to every aspect of every
    Joint operation. Our recapitalization and modernization plan aims to
    increase dramatically the quantity and quality of C4ISR capabilities,
    products and services available to the Joint Team and the Nation. Our
    plan especially focuses on ensuring Air Force space communications, SSA
    and early warning missions provide uninterrupted continuity of service
    for America and our allies.
                Transformational Satellite Communications System
        The Air Force continues to pursue next-generation satellite
    communications technology with the Transformational Satellite
    Communications System (TSAT). The TSAT program will employ internet
    protocol networks, on-board routing and high-bandwidth laser
    communication relays in space, dramatically increasing warfighter
    connectivity. TSAT capabilities will enable the realization and success
    of all DOD and Joint visions of future network-centric operations, such
    as the Army's Battle Command-on-the-Move and the Navy's Sea Power 21
    vision and Fleet FORCEnet/FORCEview concepts. In 2007, we expect the
    TSAT program to complete system design milestones.
                Advanced Extremely High Frequency System
        The Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite
    communications system reaches assembly integration and test in 2007,
    preparing for first launch in spring 2008. When deployed, AEHF will
    provide the secure, survivable, anti-jam communications that MILSTAR
    currently provides. AEHF will, however, also provide greater bandwidth,
    larger throughput, faster dissemination, and better service quality to
    the United States and Allied users.
                Wideband Global SATCOM System
        In 2007, the Air Force will take the first major step in the
    modernization of its satellite communications architecture with launch
    of the first satellite in the Wideband Global Satellite Communications
    (SATCOM) System (WGS), a program formerly known as Wideband Gapfiller
    Satellite. A single WGS satellite has more communications capacity than
    the entire Defense Satellite Communications System it replaces,
    enabling direct broadcast of digital multimedia, high-bandwidth imagery
    and digital video information directly from global and theater sites to
    deployed warfighters.
                Terminal Programs
        Air- and ground-based satellite communications terminals provide
    warfighters with critical links to America's space assets from anywhere
    in the world. Our terminal modernization programs are maintaining pace
    with the high performance satellites they support. Through programs
    like the Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Terminals (FAB-T) and
    the Ground Multi-band Terminal, the Air Force will transform its air-
    and ground-based space capabilities with terminals that consolidate
    logistics support, provide increased communications throughput, and
    ensure seamless command and control.
                Space Based Missile Warning Capabilities
        The Air Force is America's only provider of space-based missile
    warning. Providing a robust missile warning capability to the Nation
    through enhanced space-based ISR systems remains a priority in 2007. We
    expect to launch the final Defense Support Program launch (DSP-23) in
    spring 2007, continuing 36 years of the DSP constellation's outstanding
    service.
        The Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) represents the next
    generation of Early Warning satellites. The first SIBRS Highly
    Elliptical Orbit (HEO) payload is currently deployed on-orbit and
    undergoing operational testing. The HEO-2 payload has been delivered
    for integration. Launch of the SBIRS Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO)-1
    satellite is scheduled for late 2008. Once fielded, SBIRS will provide
    a transformational leap in capability over our current DSP system.
                Space Radar
        Space Radar (SR), another key transformational space-based ISR
    program, will have the ability to look into denied areas and to cue
    additional sensors, such as those on Predator and Global Hawk. The SR
    will provide COCOMs unprecedented surface wide-area surveillance
    capabilities, updating its AOR coverage report several times per hour.
    SR will characterize objects and activities of interest for target
    development in conjunction with other assets to meet critical Joint
    warfighter requirements. In 2007, the program will focus on building
    engineering development hardware while emphasizing risk reduction,
    integration, and systems engineering.
                National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
                        System
        The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
    System (NPOESS) is a tri-agency program sponsored by DOD, the
    Department of Commerce, and NASA. NPOESS will support DOD forces
    worldwide as well as homeland security agencies. The system will
    provide assured, timely and high-quality environmental data to our
    warfighters for weather forecasting, mission planning and weapons
    employment. NPOESS environmental data will also enhance our domestic
    preparedness when dealing with natural disasters.
                Rapid Attack Identification Detection and Reporting System
        Meeting the requirement to assist in the protection of our space
    assets, the Rapid Attack Identification Detection and Reporting System
    (RAIDRS) will provide a capability to detect and locate satellite
    communications interference using fixed and deployable ground systems.
    A fully operational RAIDRS Spiral 1 will be delivered in fiscal year
    2008 and provide detection and location of SATCOM interference. Future
    developments will automate data analysis and fusion, as well as provide
    decision support tools for near-real-time actions.
                Global Hawk
        The RQ-4A Global Hawk is a high altitude, long endurance UAV
    providing the Joint warfighter with persistent vigilance and
    observation of targets in day, night and adverse weather. Global Hawk
    entered development in 2001 after completing a successful advanced
    concept technology demonstration. We plan to develop and field the
    aircraft in blocks of increasing capability, allowing accelerated
    delivery to the warfighter, while the system evolves and expands to its
    full potential.
        We have already employed block 10, the first of four production
    variants, in support of GWOT. It provides an effective, persistent
    imagery capability using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and electro-
    optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors. The larger Block 20 aircraft, which
    will begin development test in early 2007, will provide 50 percent more
    payload capacity carrying enhanced SAR and EO/IR sensors for even
    clearer images at greater ranges.
        In 2012, Block 30 will field a more versatile, multi-intelligence
    capability by integrating Block 20 imagery sensors with a robust
    signals intelligence (SIGINT) suite. The fourth Global Hawk variant,
    Block 40, will be available for operations in 2011. It will carry a
    single payload--a Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program
    sensor--to provide the warfighter a highly advanced radar imagery and
    moving target indicator capability. Global Hawk has demonstrated its
    combat value in GWOT and the Air Force will continue to mature and
    enhance its capabilities in the coming years.
                MQ-1 Predator
        Leading the way in armed reconnaissance, the Air Force is currently
    flying MQ-1 Predator missions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The MQ-1
    Predator is a medium-altitude, multi-role, long endurance UAV,
    providing persistent ISR and strike capabilities to COCOMs. Predator
    aircraft are able to transmit live, full motion digital video to
    ground-based and airborne targeting teams equipped with the Remote
    Operations Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) system.
        The Predator is operational, and by 2010, we will expand its
    capability from 10 to 21 total CAPs to meet increased COCOM and
    warfighter demands. We also plan to incorporate target location
    accuracy improvements to rapidly provide targeting data for GPS-guided
    munitions.
        Total Force airmen in Nevada and California control Predator
    aircraft operating in numerous locations around the world, including
    Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2010, this capability will spread to Air
    National Guard units in Arizona, North Dakota and Texas. The Predator
    has transformed the way we fight, providing persistent ISR, reliable
    target acquisition and lethal strike capability for COCOMs and our
    Joint warfighters.
                RC-135 Rivet Joint
        The RC-135 Rivet Joint continues its four decades of success in
    providing SIGINT capabilities across the full spectrum of Joint
    operations and national information needs. Most missions directly
    support OEF and OIF tactical operations, adding to Rivet Joint's
    outstanding record of accomplishment and continuous presence in CENTCOM
    since 1990.
        In addition to mission equipment upgrades, we have completed re-
    engining and cockpit modernization, keeping the force viable until
    2040. In 2007, the Air Force will procure Rivet Joint 17, a GWOT
    acquisition for additional medium-altitude SIGINT capacity.
        Rivet Joint has become the cornerstone of an airborne targeting
    modernization effort known as Net-Centric Collaborative Targeting.
    Rivet Joint has demonstrated the capability to horizontally integrate
    C4ISR assets across the entire Joint Force and dramatically improve
    target location accuracy, timeliness and identification.
                Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
        The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint
    STARS) is an airborne battle management, command and control,
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platform. Its primary
    mission is to provide theater ground and air commanders with surface
    moving target indications (SMTI) and tailored surveillance in support
    of operations and targeting. Joint STARS has been a significant
    contributor to U.S. Air Force fighting effectiveness in Operations
    Desert Storm, Joint Endeavor, Allied Force, OEF, and OIF. Continuing
    modifications and enhancements will sustain Joint STARS viability
    beyond 2034.
                E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System
        The E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) is the premier
    airborne command and control platform in the DOD and a key element of
    all airborne operations. AWACS supports decentralized execution of the
    Joint air component missions and provides theater commanders with the
    ability to find, fix, track and target airborne or maritime threats,
    and to detect, locate and identify radars. AWACS has been the key
    airborne asset in all operations since its fielding in 1983. Our
    ongoing modernization of the platform will position AWACS to remain a
    viable airborne command and control platform beyond 2035.
                Air and Space Operations Center
        The Air and Space Operations Center (AOC) weapon system is the
    Combined/Joint Force Air Component Commander's (C/JFACC's) tool for
    employing air, space and cyberspace power. The AOC enables decision-
    makers to focus and synchronize our air, space and cyber superiority,
    global attack, precision engagement, information superiority, and rapid
    global mobility capabilities across the full range of military
    operations in multiple, geographically separated arenas.
        The AOC weapon system, with its Theater Battle Management Core
    System (TBMCS), has evolved significantly since its designation as a
    weapon system in 2001. We used the Al Udeid Combined AOC model to
    establish the AOC Weapon System Block 10.1 baseline. Creating this
    baseline enabled us to standardize our development, procurement and
    presentation of C2 capabilities to Joint and combined commanders
    worldwide. Increment 10.1 standardizes configuration among the five
    deployed FALCONER systems, providing operators with greater and faster
    access to air battle management information. The program team efforts
    continue to generate greater system performance for warfighters, with
    major improvements planned for delivery over the next 2 years.
        The Air Force has committed to continue evolving and modernizing
    our AOC weapon system through the FYDP, building toward a fully
    operational, cross-dimensional C2 enterprise by fiscal year 2014.
                Battle Control System--Fixed
        The Battle Control System--Fixed (BCS-F) system is a cooperative
    program with Canada. The system provides air defense and surveillance
    capability for the entire North American continent. BCSF supports ONE
    and serves as the Air Force's homeland defense battle management,
    command, and control system. The BCS-F system integrates data from
    multiple radar sensors providing tactical communications and data link
    capabilities with other military and civil systems responsible for air
    surveillance, air defense and control of sovereign U.S. air space.
                Battle Control System--Mobile
        The Battle Control System--Mobile (BCS-M) is the next generation of
    Low Density/High Demand (LD/HD) ground-based tactical C2 nodes
    supporting the warfighter with theater air defense, airspace
    management, aircraft identification, wide-area surveillance and
    tactical data link management. These are the same missions the current
    legacy system, the Control and Reporting Center, performs in support of
    OIF, OEF, and ONE, as well as homeland defense activities such as
    counter-drug operations and special security events.
                Air Force Distributed Common Ground System
        The Air Force Distributed Common Ground System (AF-DCGS) is the Air
    Force's premier ISR Tasking, Collection, Processing, Exploitation and
    Dissemination (TCPED) weapon system. From reach back locations, AF-DCGS
    operators collect raw sensor data from the Global Hawk, Predator, and
    other platforms around the world, turn it into decision-quality
    intelligence in near-real-time, and send it directly to those in need
    at the Joint Task Force level and below. Its proven capabilities in
    sharing and correlating multi-source SIGINT, imagery intelligence, and
    signature intelligence data will be enhanced with the fielding of the
    AF-DCGS Block 10.2, which is leading the way in DOD's net-centric ISR
    enterprise transformation.
    Global Reach
        America's airmen provide not only the long legs and heavy lifting
    for Joint warfighters' rapid global mobility, but also the long arms
    for global strike and high endurance for global persistence and
    presence. On a daily basis, Air Force mobility forces support all DOD
    branches as well as other government agency operations all over the
    world. Increased demand and decreased availability underscore the
    critical need for tanker recapitalization and investment to ensure the
    long-term viability of this national capability. Without prudent,
    timely investment, our national defense, global vigilance, reach,
    presence and power are put in serious peril.
                Tanker Recapitalization
        Aerial refueling capability is essential to the expeditionary
    nature of America's armed forces. Aerial refueling serves as a Joint
    force multiplier, providing American and coalition air forces with
    increased range, persistence, and endurance. We are committed to
    maintaining an inventory of tankers that guarantees the projection of
    U.S. combat power.
        For the past 50 years, the Air Force's primary tanker platform has
    been the KC-135, and it has served with distinction. However, we are
    carrying great risk operating this aircraft beyond expected service
    life. Some of the oldest models already operate well beyond the point
    of cost-effective repair. Tanker recapitalization is not a new idea. In
    1999, a thorough GAO report presaged the declining operational utility
    of our aging tankers and underscored the need for immediate investments
    in recapitalization. Given the increased operational requirements of
    the GWOT, procurement of a new tanker aircraft--the KC-X--has become
    both an operational necessity and the most fiscally prudent option to
    maintain America's global presence and expeditionary capabilities.
        The KC-X is our number one procurement priority. KC-X tankers will
    provide increased aircraft availability, more adaptable technology, and
    greater overall capability than the current inventory of KC-135E and
    KC-135R tankers they will replace. Enhancements in every aspect of
    aircraft operation will provide the Joint warfighter with more flexible
    employment options. It is imperative we begin a program of smart,
    steady reinvestment in a new tanker--coupled with measured, timely
    retirements of the oldest, least capable tankers. Recapitalizing our
    tankers will ensure the viability of the vital national capability they
    provide.
                Intra-Theater Airlift
        The Air Force has a two-pronged approach to modernize America's
    intra-theater airlift capabilities. First, we are striving to replace
    our oldest aircraft with a mixture of new C-130Js and Joint Cargo
    Aircraft (JCA). The JCA offers the potential for additional solutions
    to the Air Force's intra-theater airlift recapitalization strategy. JCA
    will provide a modern mobility platform suited to accessing an array of
    demanding and remote worldwide locations, including short, unimproved
    and austere airfields.
        Second, we will standardize remaining C-130s via the C-130 Avionics
    Modernization Program (AMP) and center-wing box replacement programs.
    C-130 modernization extends operational lifetime, reduces operation and
    sustainment costs, and increases the combat effectiveness of our intra-
    theater airlift capability.
        For decades, C-130s have been the workhorses for intra-theater
    airlift during numerous contingencies. Additionally, the C-17 has done
    a superb job augmenting the C-130s in the intra-theater airlift role.
    Similarly, the new C-130Js, which are far more capable than legacy C-
    130s, have proved their worth supporting GWOT and humanitarian
    operations since December 2004.
                Inter-Theater Airlift
        The C-17 continues its outstanding support for Joint operations
    across the spectrum of conflict. During the past year, C-17s flew over
    44,000 sorties, bringing the total number of OEF and OIF missions to
    over 123,000. Additionally, the C-17 flew 900 humanitarian and disaster
    relief sorties following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, as well as
    the Southeast Asian tsunami, Pakistani earthquake, and the Lebanon non-
    combatant evacuation operations. Given this high operational tempo, the
    Air Force appreciates congressional action to procure additional C-17s
    to sustain a fleet of 190.
        During 2006, the Air Force's other heavy lifter, the C-5 Galaxy,
    flew 5,500 sorties in support of the GWOT. Since September 11, 2001, C-
    5 have flown over 50,000 sorties in support of the Joint warfighter and
    provided humanitarian aid around the world. To keep the C-5 mission
    capable and maximize capability, the Air Force is continuing the C-5
    Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) and the Reliability Enhancement
    and Re-engining Program (RERP). The AMP and RERP efforts ensure
    compliance with emerging airspace requirements, upgrade aircraft
    propulsion, and improve over 70 other unreliable C-5 systems, enabling
    this large airlifter to remain viable through 2040.
        Together, the C-17 and C-5 weapons systems provide complementary
    capabilities and are critical to meeting our U.S. inter-theater airlift
    requirements today and in the future--for the entire Joint force.
                Space Launch Operations
        The Air Force continues to fulfill its role as the guardian of the
    world's premier gateways to space and America's vital national space
    launch capabilities. Space launch is another element of Air Force space
    capability that is vital to American global military, political and
    economic success.
        With 14 operational launch successes, the Evolved Expendable Launch
    Vehicle (EELV) program provides assured access to space in support of
    operational requirements. In fiscal year 2007, we expect to continue
    building upon our DOD launch successes with seven EELV and three Delta
    II launches.
                    Launch and Test Range System
        The Eastern and Western Ranges, located at Cape Canaveral Air Force
    Station, Florida and Vandenberg AFB, California, respectively, comprise
    the Launch and Test Range System (LTRS). The LTRS, part of the DOD's
    Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) infrastructure, provides
    tracking, telemetry, communications, command and control to support the
    testing of ballistic missiles, precision weapons, national missile
    defense and advanced aeronautical systems. The LTRS also provides the
    vital infrastructure necessary to support manned and unmanned space
    launches for DOD, national, civil and commercial space missions. We
    will continue LRTS modernization and further reinforce our capabilities
    to ensure space launch safety and mission success.
    Global Power
        The U.S. Air Force provides the Joint Team a historically
    unprecedented ability to deliver a precise, tailored effects whenever,
    and wherever and however needed--kinetic and non-kinetic, lethal and
    nonlethal, at the speed of sound and at the speed of light. It is an
    integrated cross-dimensional capability that rests on our ability to
    control air, space and cyber. We exploit these domains to hold at risk
    any target on the surface of the Earth. As we continue to transform
    this capability, we will focus on expanding our effectiveness in
    multiple dimensions. We will continue to refine our abilities to
    deliver lethal and non-lethal effects at the time and place of our
    choosing, shortening the sensor-to-shooter ``kill chain.''
                Combat Search and Rescue
        Uniquely within DOD the Air Force organizes, trains and equips
    dedicated forces for Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) mission. Air Force
    CSAR crews fulfill our absolute moral imperative to safely secure and
    return all of our airmen and any member of our Joint Team.
        We are recapitalizing this vital combat capability with the CSAR-X
    aircraft. This effort represents one of our top Air Force acquisition
    priorities. These modern aircraft will enable COCOMs to recover
    isolated Joint or coalition personnel engaged across the spectrum of
    military operations as well as perform non-combatant evacuation and
    disaster relief operations. CSAR-X aircraft will relieve the high
    OPSTEMPO strain placed on the current LD/HD inventory of HH-60G Pave
    Hawk helicopters, and they will present COCOMs with key combat and non-
    combat mission options.
        This new aircraft will dramatically improve Air Force CSAR mission
    capabilities. It will provide our personnel recovery forces with an
    aircraft that is quickly deployable and capable of operations from
    austere locations. It will operate day or night, during adverse weather
    conditions, and in all environments including nuclear, biological and
    chemical conditions. On-board defensive capabilities will permit the
    CSAR-X aircraft to operate in an increased threat environment, and in-
    flight refueling will provide an airborne alert capability and extend
    its combat mission range.
        These increased capabilities are crucial to meeting current and
    future Joint operational needs, while providing greater capability to
    Air Force CSAR forces, ``that others may live.''
                F-35A Lightning II
        The F-35A Lightning II JSF is a fifth-generation multi-role strike
    fighter aircraft optimized for air-to-ground attack. The F-35A is the
    Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL) variant, and it will
    recapitalize F-117, F-16 and A-10 combat capabilities. The F-35A will
    complement the capabilities of the F-22A. Like the Raptor, the F-35A
    reaps the benefits of decades of advanced research, development and
    field experience.
        The F-35A will provide affordable precision engagement and global
    attack capabilities for the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and our
    international partners. In 2006, the JSF program delivered the first
    CTOL variant test aircraft and completed its first flight on December
    15, 2006.
                Next Generation Long Range Strike
        Range and payload are the soul of an Air Force. These elements form
    the foundation of strategic military deterrence. The LRS mission, a
    primary reason the Air Force became a separate Service in 1947,
    continues as a vital and unique Air Force contribution to national
    defense. The Air Force has a three-phased strategy to help ensure the
    United States meets its enduring LRS capability requirements. Phase one
    includes near-term maintenance and modernization of current bombers and
    air-to surface weapons.
        By 2018 and in accordance with QDR goals, phase two will deliver a
    new LRS bomber incorporating highly advanced technologies. This next
    generation bomber will combine speed, stealth, payload, and improved
    avionics/sensors suites. This new bomber will bring America's bomber
    forces up to the same high standard we are setting with our F-22A and
    F-35A fifth-generation fighters. It will ensure our bomber force will
    continue to be effective in meeting COCOMs' global needs across the
    full range of military operations. The analysis of alternatives will be
    complete in the spring of 2007.
        In phase three, the Air Force plans to field a revolutionary LRS
    capability in the 2035 time frame using an advanced system-of-systems
    approach. We expect technology maturation to yield advancements in
    several areas, including hypersonic propulsion, advanced materials and
    non-kinetic weapons.
                F-22A Raptor
        The F-22A Raptor is the Air Force's primary air superiority
    fighter, providing unmatched capabilities for operational access,
    homeland defense, cruise missile defense and force protection for the
    Joint Team. The F-22A's combination of speed, stealth, maneuverability
    and integrated avionics gives this remarkable aircraft the ability to
    penetrate denied, anti-access environments. The F-22A's unparalleled
    ability to find, fix, track, and target enemy air- and surface-based
    threats ensures air dominance and freedom of maneuver for all Joint
    forces. In addition, the F-22A is the only airborne system in the U.S.
    military that can conduct network-centric warfare and provide ISR
    capability from inside adversary battlespace in the opening moments of
    any contingency.
        Until the F-22A became operational in 2005, America's Air Force had
    not fielded a new fighter since the 1970s. Today, combat-capable
    Raptors are in full-rate production on the world's only fifth-
    generation fighter production line. As of January 1, 2007, 84 aircraft
    have been delivered, including 44 combat coded aircraft, and another 25
    are in production. The first operational F-22A unit declared initial
    operational capability at Langley AFB, Virginia in December 2005. The
    second operational F-22A unit will pick up the AEF rotation in May
    2007. Meanwhile, the third operational unit is standing up at Elmendorf
    AFB, Alaska with a projected AEF rotation of May 2008. We will also
    station a fourth unit at Elmendorf, followed by fifth and sixth units
    at Holloman AFB, New Mexico and the seventh unit at Hickam AFB, Hawaii.
        The F-22A flew its first operational mission in support of ONE in
    January 2006, participated in the Alaskan Northern Edge exercise in
    July 2006, and is preparing for upcoming AEF deployments.
                MQ-9 Reaper
        Similar to its smaller MQ-1 Predator sibling, the MQ-9 Reaper is a
    medium-altitude, multi-role, long endurance UAV that will provide
    persistent ISR and improved strike capabilities to COCOMs. MQ-9
    incorporates MQ-1 operational design improvements, a larger airframe,
    battle-proven sensors, full motion digital video, Rover connectivity
    and expanded munitions capability.
        Initial mission capability will begin at Nellis AFB Nevada, with
    future expansion to New York ANG. In 2007, we expect to continue
    rigorous MQ-9 development and demonstration, as well as operational
    employment with pre-production aircraft to meet urgent Joint warfighter
    needs.
        The MQ-9, like the MQ-1, will also incorporate target location
    accuracy improvements to support GPS-guided munitions. Ultimately, the
    MQ-9 will provide theater commanders with expanded employment options
    in a vastly improved hunter-killer UAV, incorporating a larger payload,
    automatic cueing, and self-contained capabilities to strike time
    sensitive and hard targets.
                CV-22 Osprey
        The Air Force will procure 50 CV-22s, with an initial operational
    capability scheduled for fiscal year 2009. The CV-22 is a V-22 tilt-
    rotor aircraft designed to meet a U.S. Special Operations Command
    (USSOCOM) requirement for long-range infiltration, exfiltration, and
    re-supply of Special Operations Forces. The CV-22's advanced systems
    include terrain following/terrain avoidance radar, integrated RF
    countermeasures, directional infrared countermeasures, the multi-
    mission advanced tactical terminal, and additional fuel tanks and
    tactical communications gear.
                Global Positioning System
        The Global Positioning System (GPS) constellation serves as a
    global utility for precision navigation and timing. GPS is yet another
    Air Force mission that has become vital to American military and global
    economic activity. As with all elements of the Air Force space mission,
    we are dedicated to ensuring uninterrupted continuity of GPS services.
        GPS modernization continues in 2007 with additional launches of GPS
    IIR-M satellites. The GPS IIR-M satellites will provide a new military
    signal more resistant to jamming and a new civil signal for improved
    position accuracy for civil, commercial, and recreational GPS users.
    The follow-on system, GPS IIF, will provide IIR-M capabilities plus an
    additional civil signal for aviation safety-of-flight services. The
    development of the next-generation GPS-III will further enhance
    navigation and precision-engagement capabilities and improve resistance
    to jamming, as well as add a third civil signal compatible with the
    European Galileo System.
                Counter Communications System
        As part of the broader counterspace mission, the ground-based,
    theater-deployable CCS provides COCOMs with a non-destructive,
    reversible capability to deny space-based communication services to our
    adversaries. CCS enhances our capability to ensure air, space and
    cyberspace superiority for the Nation.
        We plan to procure three additional operational CCS and one
    training system. This comprises the full complement of systems for two
    space control squadrons. We will continue block upgrades to the CCS to
    enhance our offensive counterspace capabilities and begin pre-
    acquisition work for the next generation CCS.
                Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
        America's ICBM force remains the foundation of our Nation's nuclear
    deterrent capability. Modernization programs are crucial to the
    Minuteman ICBM, which, when initially deployed in the 1960s, were
    designed to last 10 years. Service life extension programs are underway
    to ensure the Minuteman III remains mission capable through 2020. These
    programs replace obsolete, failing, and environmentally unsound
    materials, while maintaining missile reliability, survivability,
    security and sustainability. These efforts are critical to sustaining
    the ICBM force and are vital to America's nuclear deterrent posture.
                Operationally Responsive Space
        The Air Force intends to continue its demonstration, acquisition,
    and deployment of an effective Operationally Responsive Space (ORS)
    capability in support of the DOD's focus on meeting the urgent needs of
    the COCOM.
        ORS includes the ability to launch, activate and employ low-cost,
    militarily useful satellites to provide surge capability, reconstitute
    damaged or incapacitated satellites, or provide timely availability of
    tailored or new capabilities. ORS capabilities can lead to long-term
    benefits by advancing technology, improving space acquisitions,
    enhancing the skills of the technical workforce, and broadening the
    space industrial base.
                    Space Development and Test Wing
        In 2006, the Air Force established the Space Development and Test
    Wing (SDTW), headquartered at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, to focus on the
    development and testing of orbital assets with the goal of encouraging
    innovation in the space mission area.
        One of the wing's responsibilities is ORS. Working with other
    services and agencies, it will perform concept development, design,
    manufacturing, and operation of small satellites, as well as other
    activities required to support the fielding of ORS capabilities. As
    capabilities are developed and fielded, the wing will directly
    interface with user organizations responsible for employing ORS
    capabilities in Joint and coalition operations.
        During fiscal year 2007, we will develop a plan further refining
    ORS. This plan will fully define ORS roles and missions, along with the
    organization and reporting structure. In addition, we plan to develop
    specific acquisition policies, implementation schedules, funding, and
    personnel requirements to support deployment of ORS capabilities.
    Science and Technology
        True to our history over the past century of powered flight, the
    Air Force continues to maintain the most complex, diverse and ambitious
    Science and Technology (S&T) portfolio of all the Services. History
    clearly demonstrates the broad benefits to America of our S&T efforts,
    in terms of military power, industrial capability, economic growth,
    educational richness, cultural wealth, and national prestige. Examples
    include aerospace technology and propulsion, materials science,
    advanced computing and communications, atmospheric science, remote
    sensing and satellite navigation. What has been good for the Air Force
    has been great for America. We are committed to building upon this
    heritage.
        The Air Force S&T program develops, demonstrates and tests
    technologies and advanced warfighting capabilities against the spectrum
    of 21st century threats. As we continue to adapt to a volatile and
    uncertain world, today's focused investment in our S&T program will
    strive to produce the future warfighting capabilities needed to ensure
    America's continued technological pre-eminence and military
    flexibility. Additionally, Air Force S&T organizations work closely
    with the other Services, Defense Agencies, Intelligence Community, and
    other Federal agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration, as well as partner nations. Through these partnerships,
    we leverage efforts, share information, and advance state-of-the-art
    technologies.
        The Air Force S&T program provides the foundation for future Joint
    warfighting capabilities, focusing on dominance of the air, space and
    cyberspace domains for America.
                Improving Energy Efficiency
        The Air Force is taking the lead in reducing the DOD's dependence
    on foreign oil. As the DOD's leading consumer of jet fuel, we are
    currently engaged in evaluating alternative fuels and engine
    technologies leading to greater fuel efficiency. Air Force efforts
    focus on high-efficiency aerodynamic concepts, advanced gas turbines
    and variable cycle engines providing higher performance and greater
    efficiency.
        As a part of this effort, the Air Force is performing flight tests
    on a B-52 using a blend of MILSPEC JP-8 fuel and a synthetic fuel
    derived from natural gas. We plan to continue airworthiness
    certification testing of synthetic fuel.
                Cyber Technology
        Fulfilling its role as a leader in the information age, the Air
    Force is exploring technologies and concepts of operations within the
    cyberspace domain. Air Force cyberspace initiatives will provide tools
    for offensive and defensive cyberspace operations as well as bolster
    our information assurance capabilities. The Air Force is investing in
    technology concepts to ensure reliable, operational links between
    individuals and systems--in addition to machine-to-machine interfaces--
    to ensure cyberspace dominance, information delivery, situational
    awareness, and rich connectivity across the Joint Team.
                Small Satellites
        The Air Force is pursuing development of small satellite
    technologies, including modular buses with ``plug-n-play'' payloads,
    along with the development of low-cost launch systems. We aim to
    provide a greater range of responsive space applications for the
    tactical warfighter. Small satellite technology demonstrations have
    achieved lighter payloads and reduced development and integration
    timelines. Additionally, these achievements serve to mitigate
    technology risks for larger, more complex satellite programs in
    development. Small satellites with operationally responsive payloads
    could potentially provide either specifically tailored, stand-alone
    capabilities, or rapid augmentation capability for a satellite or
    constellation of satellites that suffer failure or attack.
                Directed Energy
        Directed energy weapons will profoundly transform how we fly,
    fight, and defend ourselves, and we are integrating them into our
    broader cyber operations effort. As lasers and radio frequency weapons
    find applications in the battlespace, their ability to operate at the
    speed of light will change both offensive and defensive capabilities
    and tactics. New designs and technology may be necessary to offer
    adequate protection for our people and capabilities.
        Weapons in development include the Airborne Laser (ABL), a large
    aircraft carrying the high energy laser for missile defense.
    Additionally, the Active Denial System has demonstrated the viability
    for a long-range, non-lethal, anti-personnel weapon.
        These systems benefit from many years of technology development.
    Revolutionary technologies continue to be developed. These include
    versatile high power solid-state lasers; devices for aircraft self-
    protection; higher power active denial components for airborne
    applications; relay mirrors to extend the range of systems like ABL;
    and high power microwave devices to disable electronics covertly
    without affecting structures or people.
                Hypersonics
        The Air Force is a world leader in the development of practical
    hypersonic air-breathing propulsion. Hypersonic research, relating to
    flight speeds greater than five times the speed of sound, offers
    dramatically reduced time-to-target for conventional weapons and, in
    the future, may provide ``airplane-like'' on-demand access to space.
    Our effort involving supersonic-combustion-ramjets (Scramjets)--
    specifically our planned flight tests of the X-51 Scramjet Engine
    Demonstrator--highlights our commitment to maintaining America's
    leading role in this field.
        We also expect advanced hypersonic munitions technologies to
    improve penetration capabilities and decrease collateral damage. These
    characteristics will allow us to expand our target attack ability,
    particularly in urban environments and against time critical, hardened,
    and buried targets.
                Composites
        Air Force S&T is exploring advancements in composite structures and
    manufacturing technologies for lightweight unconventional aircraft
    shapes. Example applications include short take-off and landing
    capabilities, high-lift aircraft wing systems, integrated propulsion
    inlet/diffuser geometries, and integrated flight control surfaces. We
    expect these efforts to shorten development times for next generation
    aircraft with lighter, stronger airframes offering far greater mission
    utility than legacy aircraft.
        Simultaneously, we are addressing sustainment of composite
    structures, in order to ensure future aircraft built with these
    materials will be readily maintainable and serviceable.
                Nanotechnology
        Investment in nanotechnologies could provide stronger and lighter
    air vehicle structures including potential applications in unmanned
    vehicles. Other nano-materials show promise as high-performance water-
    repellant coatings. These coatings may protect Air Force systems
    against corrosion and chemical/biological contaminants, providing
    significant savings in maintenance costs and extending the lifetime of
    aircraft and other military equipment.
                             delivering excellence
        Fighting the GWOT, developing and caring for our airmen and their
    families, and recapitalizing and modernizing the Air Force all require
    substantial national resources.
        Throughout 2006, the Air Force embarked on several forward-leaning
    initiatives to improve our organization, efficiency, agility and
    lethality. We are committed to good stewardship of America's resources,
    while strengthening America's current and future air, space and
    cyberspace capabilities.
        The Air Force is making strides in a range of activities and
    through multiple, overlapping initiatives to improve what the QDR
    refers to as ``reshaping the defense enterprise.'' The Air Force is
    moving toward financial transparency and reinforcing our culture of
    efficiency and process improvement through the AFSO21 initiative. We
    are also transforming our approach to infrastructure and maintenance,
    executing an aggressive energy strategy, and reforming our acquisition
    practices--emphasizing a ``Back to Basics'' approach to space
    acquisitions, in particular.
        All of these efforts will lead to greater efficiency, lower
    operating costs, and greater availability of resources for
    recapitalization and modernization of critical Air Force capabilities.
    In short, our airmen are striving to provide an even higher return on
    America's national security investments.
    Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century
        To meet the challenges of this environment and the road ahead, we
    have embarked on an Air Force-wide effort embracing efficiency and
    process improvement. AFSO21 applies many concepts developed and proven
    in industry--Lean, Business Process Reengineering, Six Sigma, and
    Theory of Constraints methodologies. We expect significant savings from
    this initiative.
        The AFSO21 vision is to increase combat capability by integrating
    process improvement into the culture of all of the Active Duty, Air
    National Guard and Reserve airmen, as well as our civilians and
    contractors. All airmen must understand their role in improving daily
    processes. AFSO21 identifies and eliminates activities, actions and
    policies that do not contribute to efficient and effective operations.
        We seek several outcomes from AFSO21. First, we want all airmen to
    be fully aware of the importance of their work--how they contribute
    directly to the Air Force mission and national defense. Second, we will
    strive to improve safety and maintain quality of life for all Air Force
    personnel. Third, we push to decrease process cycle times, thereby
    increasing our ability to respond to rapidly changing demands. Fourth,
    we aim to cut costs and free up funds for modernization. Finally, we
    seek to eliminate waste.
        Process changes have occurred at every level of the Air Force,
    resulting in significant savings. We have more work to do, but
    institutionalizing AFSO21 concepts into daily operations allows us to
    meet the enormous challenges of the next decade and ultimately sustain
    and modernize the world's premier air, space and cyberspace force.
    Business Transformation
        The Air Force vision of business transformation creates rapid and
    predictive operational support and leads to greater situational
    awareness for commanders. Our high-level business transformation goals
    include improving warfighter effectiveness through fast, flexible,
    agile, horizontally integrated processes and systems; establishing a
    culture of continuous process improvement; achieving efficiencies
    allowing us to return resources for the recapitalization of aging
    weapons systems and infrastructure; and creating an acquisition process
    unparalleled in the Federal Government.
    National Defense Authorization Act Certification and Portfolio
            Management
        The Air Force fully leverages DOD enterprise transition planning
    and DOD-mandated certification reviews. We ensure business systems
    development supports the effects and capabilities articulated in the
    agile combat support concept of operations. These certification reviews
    have resulted in the shutdown and elimination of hundreds of legacy
    systems and allowed us to redirect additional resources to critical
    warfighting requirements.
    Transparency
        The Air Force is accelerating efforts to deliver authoritative
    information to decision-makers at all levels, improving information
    availability and quality, realizing warfighter cross-service
    information requirements, and implementing DOD-wide information
    priorities. We will achieve transparency by using correct information
    at all echelons--trustworthy, traceable, auditable, and valuable. We
    will support cross-domain or cross-mission efforts by defining
    architecture and information standards necessary for easy discovery,
    use and reuse of data.
    Clean Audit Quick Look
        Warfighters perform their missions with increasingly limited
    resources and manpower. Decision-makers at every level need the best
    information when allocating these scarce resources. To achieve greater
    levels of information fidelity, the Air Force is committed to improving
    transparency in its business processes, to include financial
    management. A clean audit opinion defines a major objective of this
    commitment. Financial transparency requires the Air Force to have
    processes and procedures in place ensuring data is accurately collected
    at the source, flows efficiently through to reporting systems and
    analytical tools, and is error-free.
        The Air Force Information Reliability and Integration (AFIR&I) plan
    is our road map toward financial transparency. It is a key component of
    the DOD Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Plan aimed at
    improving DOD financial health. The AFIR&I Action Plan reinforces our
    ongoing commitment to ensuring the absolute highest level of
    stewardship of our Nation's investments in the Air Force.
    Energy Conservation
        We are pursuing an aggressive energy strategy and are committed to
    meeting and surpassing the energy goals mandated by the Energy Policy
    Act of 2005 (EPAct 05) and other national policies. We successfully
    reduced our energy consumption in accordance with past legislation and
    continue to use a variety of programs aimed at reducing our use of
    fossil fuels and controlling cost growth. Our vision creates a culture
    where airmen make energy considerations in all their actions. We aim to
    implement our vision with solutions that include alternate sources of
    domestic energy as well as an aggressive drive for greater efficiency
    in our facilities and vehicles.
        The Air Force remains the largest renewable energy purchaser in the
    United States. Our commitment to install 18 megawatts of solar
    photovoltaic energy at Nellis AFB is one example of our pursuit of on-
    base renewable power generation. Currently 37 bases meet some portion
    of their base-wide electrical requirements from commercial sources of
    wind, solar, geothermal or biomass. We have several projects planned,
    in design, or under construction to expand this capability. With our
    combined purchase and production strategy, the Air Force is poised to
    surpass the renewable goals set by the Energy Policy Act.
        The Air Force applies sustainable development concepts in the
    planning, design, construction and operation of facilities using the
    Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification
    process. Our long-term goal is to ensure 100 percent of eligible new
    facilities are LEED certifiable by fiscal year 2009. This complements
    our use of facilities construction and infrastructure improvement
    programs designed to create cost effective energy efficiencies in new
    and existing facilities.
        We have also taken an aggressive stance on replacing our existing
    general-purpose vehicles with low speed vehicles (LSVs) without
    adversely affecting peacetime or wartime mission requirements. This
    measure will reduce vehicle acquisition cost, fuel expenditures and
    ozone-depleting exhaust emissions and free up funds for use in other
    critical areas. Our goal is to replace 30 percent of general-purpose
    vehicles with LSVs by fiscal year 2010. Coupled with the goal to
    replace 100 percent our general-purpose vehicles with alternative fuel
    vehicles, the Air Force is taking the lead in the use of alternative
    energy technologies.
    Acquisition Excellence
        The Air Force continues its goal of streamlining the acquisition
    process to providing efficient and responsive services to the
    warfighter. A number of completed and ongoing projects have contributed
    to the improvement of acquisition, and fiscal year 2008 promises more
    progress.
        We have revitalized the acquisition strategy panel, providing a
    systematic and disciplined approach to develop an effective acquisition
    program roadmap. The newly developed Air Force Review Board process
    provides a structured and repeatable system that aids decision-making
    on critical aspects of selected acquisition programs. We have also
    streamlined periodic review processes by combining several independent
    reviews into a single event, saving preparation and travel time.
        In 2006, the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) made
    a number of recommendations for improving the acquisition system. The
    Air Force is in the process of evaluating and implementing key
    recommendations of the DAPA report. For example, the Air Force is
    exploring the concept of Time Certain Development (TCD) as the next
    step in evolutionary acquisition. TCD involves structuring a program to
    deliver its initial capability to the warfighter at an explicitly
    specified (and much shorter) interval. Such a policy helps improve the
    responsiveness of the acquisition system and keeps our warfighting
    capabilities aligned to current threat conditions.
        To enhance the credibility of the acquisition system, the Air Force
    is strengthening its efforts to analyze risks prior to initiation and
    execution of a program. The Air Force is prototyping the probability of
    program success model, a framework for identifying and reporting risk
    issues that threaten a developer's ability to deliver on time and
    budget. Use of this model has the potential to highlight risk areas
    requiring the program manager's attention.
        The Air Force is improving the source selection process, ensuring
    appropriate use of incentives, assessing current contracting
    organizational alignments, and implementing strategic sourcing
    strategies. We are committed to providing support of contingencies and
    to the warfighter by acquiring commodities and services by the most
    effective means possible. We continue to maintain the majority of the
    deployed contingency contracting assets in the Iraq/Afghanistan AOR,
    and we remain dedicated to supporting the COCOMs through Joint and Air
    Force taskings.
    Space Acquisition
        The Air Force is committed to revitalizing and restructuring its
    overall space acquisition strategy. We will build upon our heritage of
    providing unmatched space capabilities to meet national, COCOM, and
    Joint force objectives by developing and executing more deliberate
    plans focused on cost and schedule containment.
        The Air Force ``Back to Basics'' initiative is part of our plan to
    improve space acquisitions. The initiative promotes a renewed emphasis
    on management techniques and engineering practices that lead to better
    definition of requirements as well as deliberate acquisition strategy
    planning. Clear and achievable requirements, appropriate resources,
    disciplined systems engineering, and effective management are the basic
    elements--the foundation upon which successful acquisition depends.
        The ``Back to Basics'' initiative promotes a block approach
    strategy focused on delivering capability through value-added
    increments. This concept is consistent with current policy specifying
    ``evolutionary acquisition as the preferred strategy'' for DOD
    acquisition. Specific capability increments are based on a balance of
    capability, delivery timeline, technology maturity, risk, and budget.
    Well-defined increments reduce many of the instabilities plaguing our
    past efforts. We will deliberately apportion cost, schedule, and
    technical risk across these increments to meet the primary objective--
    delivering combat capability on a predictable timeline and at a
    predictable cost.
        In 2006, the Air Force restructured two major programs to comply
    with the ``Back to Basics'' strategy initiative. We have restructured
    the GPS III and TSAT programs to reduce risk and define executable
    block strategies. We expect these changes to deliver warfighting
    capabilities in the least amount of time.
        In 2007, the Air Force will expand the implementation of its ``Back
    to Basics'' initiative by deliberately and establishing block
    development strategies for a greater number of programs within the Air
    Force space portfolio. We will continue our conscientious efforts to
    stabilize requirements, funding, and workforce within program blocks.
    This strategy will place increased emphasis on cost estimating, systems
    engineering, and risk management to provide capability to our
    warfighters.
    Small Business Programs
        The Air Force employs over 129 small business professionals across
    the country. They strengthen our Nation's industrial base through their
    advocacy for the small business community. They also identify future
    procurement opportunities for small businesses and refer these
    companies to potential Air Force customers. We surpassed our small
    business goals for the third consecutive year across all Air Force
    primary small business programs. Small business prime contract awards,
    in both dollars awarded and percentage of total procurement, increased
    in every category. We awarded a record $8 billion in Air Force
    contracts to small businesses, accounting for 16.9 percent of all
    awarded contract dollars. Additionally, we awarded $86 million to
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and other minority
    institutions, accounting for 9.1 percent of all awarded contract and
    grant dollars to institutions of higher education.
    Operations and Maintenance Facility Projects
        The Air Force will continue to prioritize investments in facilities
    and infrastructure critical to mission operations. Maintenance and
    repair of runways, weapons system facilities, utility systems, and
    training facilities represent the Air Force's top projects. We will
    invest O&M funds to maximize the economic life and value of this
    critical infrastructure, minimizing mission disruptions. The Air Force
    continues to face significant challenges in preserving an aging
    inventory of utility systems, airfield pavements, and essential support
    facilities.
    Depot Maintenance Transformation
        Throughout Air Force history, our depots have been vital to
    success. Our commitment to retain technically relevant depot-level
    maintenance and repair capability will ensure sustainment of the
    world's dominant air, space and cyberspace capabilities beyond the next
    decade. We programmed investments in depot infrastructure, equipment,
    and personnel throughout fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009 in order to
    implement the Air Force depot maintenance strategy and master plan. The
    Air Force strategy benchmarks industry standards to improve depot
    maintenance infrastructure, implement re-engineering initiatives, and
    transform depot processes to maintain ``world-class'' status.
    Repair Enterprise
        As an expeditionary air, space and cyberspace force, we challenged
    our logisticians to develop agile combat support concepts that enhance
    our current and future warfighting capabilities. Repair Enterprise
    (RE21) is a lean logistics initiative and an integral part of the
    Global Logistics Support Center (GLSC) concept of providing global
    logistics support to the Air Force. RE21 leverages global visibility of
    all repair assets, centralized funds management, strategic sourcing,
    and partnerships with industry to provide the Air Force highly
    technical logistical support. The main RE21 goal is to establish an
    enterprise-wide single repair network supporting the entire Air Force
    supply chain and to optimize support to the warfighter through the
    GLSC.
                               minding the future
        September 18, 2007, will mark the 60th anniversary of the creation
    of our independent United States Air Force. This year, we commemorate
    this anniversary of our proud service--a service born of revolutionary
    ideas, forged in combat, and proven through decades of progress and
    achievement. The mission of the Air Force remains to fly, fight and
    win--in, through and from air, space and cyberspace.
        While remembering our history and reaffirming our commitments to
    the current fight, we are ever mindful of the need for investment in
    future capabilities. We will remain focused on our top priorities:
    Fighting and winning the GWOT; developing and caring for our airmen;
    and recapitalizing and modernizing the Force. Meeting these priorities
    has become more challenging in light of current fiscal constraints.
    Nonetheless, we will move forward, striving to maintain the global
    vigilance, reach and power advantages America has come to expect. Our
    allies respect us, and our enemies fear us.
        The Air Force has faced challenging times in its past and is
    meeting the stress of today's operating environment. It is our heritage
    and mission to fly, fight and win. Our legacy inspires us. Our mission
    propels us. Our core values guide us. We have inherited and will build
    upon a rich heritage--a heritage shaped through the ingenuity, courage
    and resolve of great airmen who preceded us. Our proud heritage,
    focused priorities, and enduring core values will serve to guide our
    actions and reaffirm our commitments today, over the next 60 years, and
    beyond.

        Senator Inouye. Now may I call upon General Moseley.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, CHIEF OF STAFF
        General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
    subcommittee and staff, thank you all for your continued
    support for your airmen, your Air Force and the joint team out
    there today, defending this country--soldiers, sailors, airmen,
    marines, coast guardsmen altogether.

                               OUTSTANDING AIRMEN

        Sir, if you'd allow me, instead of an oral statement, I'd
    like to introduce five great Americans that wear the uniform of
    the United States Air Force. I'd ask them to stand up as I
    introduce them.
        Let me start with Lieutenant Colonel Marty McBride. He is
    currently the 81st Fighter Squadron Commander in Spangdahlem
    Air Base, Germany. He's a graduate of Texas A&M University,
    he's a weapons officer, graduate of the Fighter Weapons School.
    He's recently returned from Afghanistan where he led a Total
    Force--Guard, Reserve and Active--group of airmen through 24
    hours a day, 7 days a week combat operations from May through
    September 2006. His squadron flew over 2,000 missions, 7,000
    combat hours. He accomplished over 520 troops-in-contact close
    air support missions. His squadron delivered 102,000 rounds of
    30 millimeter and delivered over 300 bombs against hostiles, in
    support of activities in Afghanistan.
        Next, Major Toby Doran, he's currently Chief of Tactics at
    Headquarters Air Force Space Command. He's a graduate of Oregon
    State University, and he was prior enlisted as an airborne
    crypto-logic linguist. He served in that capacity aboard our
    rivet joint aircraft, for Operations Desert Shield, Desert
    Storm, and Provide Comfort. He's most recently returned from Al
    Anbar Province, where he served alongside or embedded in the
    First Marine Expeditionary Force Forward from February to July
    2006, and where he was responsible for ensuring seamless
    connectivity from our space assets and our other airborne
    assets, to provide accurate targeting and navigation for the
    marines' activity in western Iraq.
        Next is Captain Andi McElvaine. She's a graduate of
    Syracuse University, she's also a weapons officer, graduate of
    the Weapons School, B-52 combat pilot. She's been an aircraft
    commander, a unit deployment manager out of Barksdale Air Force
    Base, Louisiana, and she's a weapons and tactics officer now at
    Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. She was deployed multiple
    times on combat deployments, and on force presence deployments,
    in the Arabian Gulf, or Operation Southern Watch, two times for
    Operation Enduring Freedom, two times to Anderson Air Force
    Base on Guam as part of U.S. Pacific Command's continual bomber
    presence in the western Pacific.
        Next, is Tech Sergeant Jason Marfell. Mr. Chairman and
    subcommittee members, as a fighter pilot and an aviator, this
    is the guy that we have a moral and ethical obligation to,
    because he is a pararescueman, he is a PJ. If you dismount from
    your airplane, this is the guy that will come get you, 24 hours
    a day, 7 days a week, day or night, anywhere on the surface of
    the Earth. He's in the 38th Rescue Squadron at Moody Air Force
    Base, Georgia. He's the noncommissioned officer in charge of
    standardization and evaluation. He entered the Air Force in
    February 1993, and he's been a PJ since September 1995. He's
    earned two Sikorsky Awards for skill and courage during two
    actual life-saving missions. During one of those, he flew 200
    nautical miles out to save a Russian sailor who was having
    abdominal problems. He saved, also, an Icelandic fisherman who
    suffered abdominal traumas out over the water.
        He's also won the U.S. Air Forces in Europe Pitsenbarger
    Award for performing the top life-saving rescue of the year.
    He's also deployed multiple times for a wide range of
    contingency and combat ops: Operation Southern Watch, Operation
    Northern Watch, Operation Enduring Freedom. Three times he's
    deployed to the gulf coast for space shuttle transoceanic
    landing activities, he's deployed to Southern Africa for
    Operation Atlas Response, he's deployed to provide humanitarian
    disaster relief after flooding in Mozambique and in South
    Africa in February 2000. Sir, this is the guy who will come get
    you. That's why combat search and rescue for us is the number
    two procurement priority; to make sure he has a platform that
    he can dismount from.
        Last is Staff Sergeant Christine Chavez. She's a refueling
    boom operator, she's at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas in the
    refueling wing. She entered the Air Force in 2001. Out of
    Airmen Leadership School she graduated as a top graduate with
    the Levitow Award. Other assignments include flight supervisor,
    refueling instructor at McConnell, in-flight refueling systems
    operator at McConnell. She's had numerous combat deployments
    also--Operation Southern Watch, Operation Enduring Freedom,
    Operation Iraqi Freedom. She's operated out of Diego Garcia;
    Sheikh Isa, Bahrain; Al Udeid, Qatar; and Al Dhafra, the U.A.E.
    She's got about 1,000 hours of combat flying time, and 163
    combat missions. Sir, this is a face on why the tanker is the
    number one priority for us, so we can be able to transfer fuel
    to be able to maintain the Air Force's asymmetric advantage in
    global reach, global ISR, and global strike.
        So, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee and staff, what a pleasure and an honor it is to
    serve alongside these people, and thank you for letting me
    introduce them to you this morning.
        Senator Inouye. On behalf of the subcommittee, I'd like to
    thank you ladies and gentlemen for service to our Nation. For
    your courage, your patriotism. Without you, our Nation would
    not have survived. Thank you very much.
        Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. I join you, Mr. Chairman in commending the
    Secretary and the General, and also in welcoming these fine
    representatives of the Air Force here today. I do congratulate
    you all, and thank you for what you do.

                  CHALLENGES OF MAINTAINING AIRCRAFT INVENTORY

        Secretary Wynne, what do you think the challenges are now
    for maintaining our inventory, given some of the legislative
    provisions about retirement of aircraft? It seems to me that
    you're at the juncture now that if we don't make the right
    decisions, the Air Force is going to go downhill. Do you share
    that opinion?
        Mr. Wynne. Sir, it does concern me. What really concerns me
    here as we present this opportunity for you is the minimal rate
    of replacement that we're doing--and in every one of our
    product areas, it is a minimal rate. If you remember back in
    the 1960s when we replaced tankers, or even when we bought
    bombers, they were at a rate approaching 50, 60 even sometimes
    100 a year. Now, we replace things at a rate of 12 or 14 a
    year. This, really, is why everybody's now enthusiastic about
    stretching out, service life-extending, or in fact, pursuing
    re-engine work on some of our aircraft.
        On the MC-130s, for example, we still have to inspect the
    wings, because we're afraid they'll crack and fall off. So,
    every 70 hours, we perform a 24-36 hour inspection. Sir, I
    would offer to you that the replacement rate of C-130s is
    probably inadequate, because we still have this kind of a
    problem.
        When I mentioned in my oral testimony that we rely on these
    superb airmen to maintain these older aircraft, I go back and
    think, in March 1937 is when we took delivery in our units of
    the first B-17. It is now 70 years later from when we took
    them. Some of the aircraft that we're refurbishing now are
    forecast to be in our inventory for 70 years, and I would say,
    we have never had airplanes, frankly, as old as those, and so
    we're into what I call ``geriatric maintenance'' and the
    attendant difficulties that comes with that.
        Right now, we've had an incident where Argentina refused to
    have C-5s land in their territory, because the last time we
    landed C-5s there, they all broke and they could not leave. So,
    they have now refused us. And, sir, this is really a slap in
    the face to America's Air Force. There is no one else that
    provides strategic lift for us, or for our allies.
        Our F-15s are now on flight restrictions. The flight
    restrictions are such that we have airplanes that, essentially,
    are like Indy racers where we restrict their racing speed to
    100 miles per hour during training knowing full well they race
    at 180 miles an hour. I think that training needs to be
    improved.
        We have, right now, U-2s where the wire bundles are
    beginning to arc, and we have pinhole leaks in the fuel tank.
    Those of you who have ever experienced very old cars recognize
    pinhole leaks are very difficult to find. In the U-2 it is only
    the pilot, the fuel tank, a sensor, and the engine, so there
    isn't anything else in the U-2. As a pilot in a space suit, if
    somebody told me that my airplane had a tendency to arc and
    have those small, but persistent, fuel leaks, it would bother
    me.
        So, I'm now talking about ISR, I'm talking about refuelers,
    I'm talking about strategic lift, I'm talking about our
    tactical fighters, and I'm talking about our tactical life.
    Sir, that is about the extent of our inventory, and in every
    one of them, I would love--as you know--to have an increased
    rate of replacement. Most of my problems are, in fact, because
    somebody's worried that we won't have the replacement fleet,
    and, therefore, their people on their bases will go without
    work. This all has to do with the rate of replacement.

                       RESTRICTIONS ON RETIRING AIRCRAFT

        Senator Stevens. Well, what about the restrictions we've
    provided in legislation that prevents you from retiring some of
    those?
        Mr. Wynne. Sir, if we could manage our own fleet, we could
    then husband those resources, and dedicate them to replacement.
    We know that we have to work with every individual base to make
    sure that we can do it, but I would say to you that we cannot
    continue this way, to husband these old units. At some point in
    time, having 70- to 75-year-old airplanes is going to catch up
    to us.
        Senator Stevens. And what about the C-17? We're going to
    close the C-17 line, don't we need more, rather than closing
    the line?
        Mr. Wynne. It bothers me greatly to see the C-17 line
    closed. Husbanding the C-5s have--and asking us to service life
    extend the C-5s--has added to the burden of our MCS, our
    Mobility Capability Study, and has made almost certain that we
    will not get the line extension that we're looking for over the
    long term.
        I would love to have the option in 10 years to have a C-17
    available. We may really need it in 10 years, but there will be
    no line within the 10-year span. I look at the F-22 and we may
    really need it within 10 years, and right now, we're looking at
    the potential for line closure in 11 and 12 years. All of these
    things, I think, add to our burden of strategic risk, and I
    really greatly appreciate the opportunity to comment on it.
        Senator Stevens. General, we're looking to an increase now
    in the numbers of people in the Army and the Marine Corps, will
    your lift be adequate to meet those increased numbers?
        General Moseley. Senator, that's a great question. We've
    asked that the Mobility Capability Study that was conducted
    before 2005 be updated to reflect that growth in the land
    component. We don't know exactly what that growth will entail
    yet, because we haven't seen the numbers in the Army or the
    Marine Corps, but we understand there's a significant growth in
    the number of regimental or brigade combat teams.
        Sir, I don't know what the mobility requirement looks like,
    but I suspect we're operating at the very minimum levels right
    now. Not knowing what that growth is, I suspect the strategic
    airlift inventory should probably go up. But, sir, we don't
    have those numbers yet.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that you're
    restricting and reducing the growth of your own personnel in
    order to have funds available in this period right now. Isn't
    that also going to put a squeeze on you, as we face these
    increased requirements from the Marine Corps and the Army?
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir, I would tell you that, as you heard in
    the introductions, we have airmen who are directly assigned to
    ground combat units, whether they are Marine Corps or they are
    Army. So, we actually have a direct increase when you increase
    the number of brigade combat teams, or the number of marine
    divisions.
        We also have an indirect increase, because we have
    logistics support, we have your liaison officers, and we have
    actual supply missions that go with those missions. These
    concern us. So, one thing we are doing, is we don't understand
    the Army's future footprint, we know they're going to get
    increased by 67,000 over the course of 5 years, we know the
    marines are going up by about 25,000 over the course of the
    next few years. So, we're looking at, what is that impact? And
    we intend to do a reassessment, not during this budget cycle,
    but to impact the fiscal year 2009, and to assert to the
    Secretary of Defense and the various Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) that maybe we cannot stay with the target we have.
        For right now, sir, we don't have enough money to
    essentially pay for any alteration in this budget we have
    crafted. And that is a concern to us.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I'd have further questions,
    but I've taken too much already.
        I really am worried about the Air Force in terms of its
    ability to meet the future needs, both manpower and aircraft,
    but we'll pursue it later. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm
    pleased to join you and Senator Stevens in welcoming our
    distinguished panel before us today to talk about the budget
    for the Air Force.
        We appreciate the strong leadership you all are providing,
    and I am particularly impressed with reports that we've had
    about the performance of Air Force and Air National Guard units
    in our State. We are pleased to be the host for several
    training facilities, as well as Air National Guard facilities.
        And, we've known about the fact that the C-130s and the C-
    17s have performed a very important role in the war on terror,
    and the Iraqi area. Can you tell us whether or not you think
    this budget request provides the funding that you need to have
    the resources to fully fund the C-17 requirement, and other
    needs of the airlift wings in Mississippi?

                                 C-130 AIRCRAFT

        Mr. Wynne. I would say it this way, sir. That, right now
    our C-130Es are not allowed in theater. We have worn them out.
    There is one grounded C-130 and four restricted C-130s at
    Ramstein Air Base, Germany. We do not carry cargo but use the
    restricted aircraft for aircrew familiarization and proficiency
    rides. So, in the combat theater, we are performing airlift
    with C-130Hs.
        The C-130Hs are performing magnificently. I will tell you
    that one of the problems that the Air Force has is that our
    airmen perform so well that everybody says, ``Oh well, the Air
    Force has performed well again,'' and can't understand that it
    is on the backs of those magnificent airmen that it's being
    performed.
        The Special Operations Command has asked for 12 C-130Hs to
    be transferred to them. We are taking convoys off the road,
    every day, all of the marine cargo convoys are off the road,
    and 9,000 airmen and Navy and soldiers are off the roads each
    month, not having to drive cargo convoys. These are all
    performed by the C-130Hs and the C-17s that are in place.
        We've developed a precision airdrop system that essentially
    puts a global positioning system (GPS) on a pallet, and can
    deliver it now within 150 feet, or within one helicopter
    landing zone of an Army unit. They, actually, revel in this,
    especially in the high mountains of Afghanistan, where we can
    drop from 35,000 feet now, to right where they are, and no
    longer have to--if you will--do a 300-yard march to find their
    supplies.
        This has all put pressure on the airlift and the tactical
    airlift system. For right now, we are asking in the fiscal year
    2007 supplemental for five C-130Js. We also, on the unfunded
    list, have two C-17s. Through the graciousness of Congress last
    year, we got 10 C-17s marked in the supplemental. Right now
    we're concerned to make sure that the C-130Js remain in the
    supplemental.
        When the Office of the Secretary of Defense took its
    priority list and readjusted it for the growth in soldiers
    above 21,000, they removed the C-130Js, although we would
    advise that they are absolutely essential to making sure that
    the Air Force is going to succeed in this long war.
        We see the Air Force being in Iraq for some time to come.
    And we see maintaining a supply route, and maintaining support
    to our soldiers as dramatically important, and the C-130Js are
    going to be that backbone in 5 or 6 years.
        General Moseley. Senator, could I reinforce----
        Senator Cochran. General Moseley.
        General Moseley. The Secretary mentioned the inspection
    rates on the C-130s in theater. The ones that are broken, even
    with the center wing boxes that we've got fixed, the
    attachments to outer wings are still broken.
        On the older versions, which are the special operations
    airplanes we have in theater, every 70 hours--70 to 90 hours--
    you have to pull the outboard engines, the props, take the skin
    off the wing--and do an inspection which takes somewhere
    between 24 and 36 hours. Every 70 to 90 hours of flying time,
    and you know how much we're flying these special operations
    airplanes in theater.
        So, imagine being the deployed commander forward, and every
    ``x'' number of days you have to break the airplanes down, pull
    the engines out of them, the props off of them, and take the
    skin off of them to check the outer wing, so we don't lose a
    wing. So, that's the story on the C-130s.
        The Hs are great airplanes, but now, to take the troops off
    the roads and to supply the airfields, we're burning those up
    at high rates. And so that's why the J is very important to us.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.

                          JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ENGINE

        I understand the budget does not propose an alternative
    engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). As Congress provided
    additional funding last year for the alternative engine, I
    understand funding has been invested in the program, the
    program is on track--I would like to know what your comments
    are about your preference, having the benefit of competition
    for the propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter.
        Mr. Wynne. Well, sir, let me start with that. It has been
    fairly well-known that while I was in AT&L I, in fact,
    sponsored the second engine, so you have a very poor source,
    and you have me at somewhat of a disadvantage.
        Let me say it this way, though: the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense's argument revolves around economics. And it
    revolves around the fact that they don't see a payback for
    this, for the investment in the second engine, and they have a
    couple of studies undergoing from RAND, and I think they, the
    program analysis and evaluation is doing one.
        I don't know, because I don't know the length of time this
    airplane will actually be in service. Many of our models do not
    contemplate this fighter being in service for 50 years, and
    yet, I think the F-15 is going to be in service for 50 years,
    and I think the F-16 is going to be in service for 50 years.
    So, I will leave it there. There is something to additional
    reliability.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Moseley, I will direct this first to you. Thank
    you.
        At a time when the Nation is at war with Iraq and
    Afghanistan, the Air Force is also battling the common enemy
    that the Secretary mentioned--age.

                                  KC-X PROGRAM

        The current fleet of refueling tankers is aging quickly and
    we cannot, I believe, wait 35 more years to replace them. And,
    I'm pleased that the Air Force has moved forward with acquiring
    a new generation of tankers, and I look forward to the award
    announcement later this year.
        But, I believe, General Moseley, that more than just being
    new, the new tankers should be modern, you know, the modern
    age. I think you would not replace a car you've been driving
    the past 35 years with the same one, although it might be new.
    You would upgrade, you would modernize.
        The new tanker, the KC-X needs to meet the challenges that
    we face today, that the Secretary alluded to. But, it also
    needs to confront the challenges that we will face 25, 30 years
    from now.
        General Moseley, how will the requirements that the Air
    Force has set forth through the KC address this need? And,
    before you answer that, I want to mention that several senior
    leaders in the Air Force have stated on the record that the
    next generation tanker must do more than just air refueling,
    although that is very important. It needs to have greater
    capabilities with operational features that the current tanker
    fleet does not have. Certainly--certainly, sir--refueling is
    important.
        Do you also view the airlift transport capability for
    passengers, cargo and aero-medical evacuation to be important?
    Would you like to address that?
        General Moseley. Sir, I would. Thank you for that question.
        Senator, you know the tanker, the KC-X Program is our
    number one procurement priority. Those airplanes that we're
    flying are 45 years old. As the guy that was blessed to command
    central command air forces (CENTAF) during Afghanistan and the
    early phases of Iraq, I don't know what I would have done with
    a B-17. We would have tried to make it work. But to think about
    flying a 70- to 80-year-old airplane in combat, is something
    that an airman is not warmed up to.
        Senator Shelby. Scary, to say the least, isn't it?
        General Moseley. Sir, there are other options, I believe.
    And for a Chief of Staff to look at her (Staff Sergeant
    Chavez), and ask her to fly a 70-, 80-year-old airplane in
    combat, I'm not sure that's the right thing to be doing. So,
    this tanker is a big deal for us.
        Senator, I think we would all agree that there's nothing
    that this country does in the sense of global reach, or global
    mobility that does not include a tanker--whether it's Navy,
    whether it's Army, marines, or even a coalition setting--to be
    able to range those distances and to be able to cover things on
    the surface of the Earth, requires a jet tanker.
        The single point of failure in all of those activities is
    the jet tanker. I don't know what will break on the KC-135
    next, because we're beyond the service life expectations of the
    designers of the Boeing 707. And so, to be able to move into a
    competition--and we are so happy that it is open, and we're so
    happy that we have a pair of teams looking to do exactly what
    you've described--this will take us to a better airplane.
        Senator, I believe the first requirement for the airplane
    is to be able to transfer fuel, and to be a reliable jet
    tanker.
        Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
        General Moseley. I think alongside that, though, are some
    inherent opportunities that we have with new technology and new
    capabilities to do other things. We would always want the
    airplane to be capable of aero-medical evacuation. We would
    always want the airplane to be capable of other mission areas,
    and so your question is a good one. And we welcome that
    competition, and we welcome those folks coming back and telling
    us what they've got, so we can look at getting us a new
    airplane, so she and her successors won't have to fly a 70- or
    80-year-old airplane.

                      EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR AIRMEN

        Senator Shelby. General, educational opportunities. I know
    how important educational opportunities are in the recruitment
    and retention of a high-quality Air Force.
        I understand that the current language in the National
    Defense Authorization Act hinders your ability to offer some of
    the educational programs that you would like to see at the Air
    University at Maxwell. What changes would you recommend to this
    language, and why is it important?
        General Moseley. Sir, education for the Air Force is the
    cornerstone of everything we do. And when I say Air Force, I
    mean Guard, Reserve and Active.
        Senator Shelby. The whole ball of wax.
        General Moseley. Sir, absolutely.
        You understand very well, Maxwell Air Force Base and Air
    University hold the intellectual throw-weight of the United
    States Air Force. We don't have separate schools in a variety
    of locations. Everything we have is at that one base. The
    Commander of Air University has been on a quest, because I've
    asked him to increase the capabilities and distance learning,
    to increase the capabilities so that every enlisted person in
    the Air Force can have an opportunity for an Associates and
    Bachelors Degree. Every officer can have an opportunity for
    Master Degrees, and now Ph.D.s, because we believe that those
    educational opportunities provide better NCOs and better
    officers across the board.
        Senator, there are some opportunities to make this better,
    with some proposals on accreditation, and to allow Air
    University--which is an accredited university--to go a bit
    further to be able to wrap its arm around the bigger population
    of the Air Force and do exactly what you're saying. And I would
    ask you to help us with that.

                              ACCESS TO CYBERSPACE

        Senator Shelby. Okay, thank you.
        And my last question deals with cyberspace command. I was
    pleased to see last fall that the Air Force stood up a
    cyberspace command with the mission of providing freedom of
    access to cyberspace.
        Within this command, I'm interested in the work the Air
    Force is doing in the area of network security. How does both
    network and application security fit into the construct of the
    mission of the new cyberspace command, and do you feel as
    though you have adequate resources to address the threat to our
    networks and applications and how important is this?
        General Moseley. Sir, those are all the operative
    questions. We believe we're just entering this domain and
    beginning to understand the challenges and the issues relative
    to jointness, to be able to operate inside the inter-agencies,
    to be able to operate with authorities under title X, versus
    the rest of the authorities that perhaps will be needed
    somewhere down the road.
        Sir, we have the 8th Air Force, the mighty 8th, which is
    now the cyber-command, and we are looking at, sometime soon,
    moving that into a major command status, the same as Air
    Mobility Command, or Air Force Space Command, to be able to
    address these issues.
        We're still a bit in the baby steps, all of us, on this--
    whether it is our brothers that are doing this in the Army or
    the Navy or the NSC, or the National Security Agency--NSA, I'm
    sorry--on how to orchestrate this, and how to derive the
    desired understanding of what's going on in that domain, plus
    understand the authorities that will be required in the future.
        So, this is an interesting challenge, and it goes on at the
    speed of light, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is a big
    issue for us.
        Senator Shelby. NSA can be very helpful to you.
        General Moseley. Very helpful, sir.
        Mr. Wynne. Let me tell you where we are, sir. This is
    really a two-part issue. First, we found that presentation of
    forces to Strategic Command is not as clear-cut as with other
    combatant commands, due to USSTRATCOM's unique functional
    component construct. Second, as we look to expand our
    capabilities in cyberspace, we also need to find efficiencies
    in organizing, training, and equipping those cyber forces that
    we present to all combatant commanders.
        So, the first steps, I asked General Elder, through General
    Moseley to do is to organize first, and just make sure we
    understand how those forces get presented, then begin to
    establish a training regimen to make sure we presented them in
    the best possible manner. And just as you've asked, I've said,
    ``Okay, now in 2009, let's construct what resources we can
    do.'' Now, I will tell you through the benefit of working with
    the National Security Agency, they have funded a tremendous
    amount of research for us, and by the way, one of our
    laboratories up in New York is one of their premier
    laboratories to supply them this information.
        So, right now, we are looking to our agency partners and
    sometimes our Strategic Command partners, to provide us the
    resources. But, I think the time will come when we need to
    scale, we need to scale because 80 percent of the commerce of
    America now goes through the Internet. And we need to scale
    ourselves up to make sure that we are adequate to protect that.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Moseley. And, Senator, we----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        General Moseley [continuing]. We will probably have the
    major commands stood up to--we're on a path to do that, maybe
    to announce something about that, by late summer, early fall,
    to get at what you're talking about with a major command, and a
    major command staff.
        Senator Shelby. Well, this is imperative for you, is it
    not?
        General Moseley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan.

                       RESTRICTIONS ON RETIRING AIRCRAFT

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Let me say I've enjoyed working with both of you, I think
    you do an excellent job, give us straight talk when we need it,
    and I appreciate that.
        I do understand that you might chafe at the fact that
    Congress tells you you have to keep certain airplanes. I
    understand that, fully. I might say, some of the airplanes
    you've described today, the 117, C-5s, 130Es all have
    replacements, and some are flying with restrictions.
        One difference is the B-52. The B-52 bomber has no
    replacement at this point, the earliest we might have one is
    2018, it's more likely to be 2025, and it's flying under no
    restrictions.
        And, I just want to mention to you, I know both of you
    would expect me to, the B-52 is an older airplane, that's true,
    but we're funding the F-22 to kick down the door, and the B-52
    is your least cost bomb truck. It flies at less cost than any
    other bomber in the fleet. You used over 80 of them in the
    initial 30 days of the Iraq combat, in order to forward-deploy
    42, you had to use 80 B-52s. You obviously couldn't do that if
    we accept your recommendation to go from 94 down to 56 B-52s.
        Now, the authorizing committee told you that you could
    remove 18 attrition reserves, which would take us down to 76 B-
    52s, but even before you do that, you have to provide a study
    to the Congress. Some of us think that study will show there is
    a bomber gap, if you boneyard those additional reserve
    airplanes.
        But my hope is that we will not take the bomb truck out
    there that's the least cost. Incidentally, in Iraq, during this
    initial phase, the B-52 dropped nearly 30 percent of the
    ordnance, with only 3 percent of the sorties. It has the
    longest reach, the greatest loiter time, at the least cost.
    And, you're telling us you want to go to 56 bombers in the
    President's budget, I do not understand that.
        I'm not asking you a question, because I've asked you those
    questions in meetings, many, many, many times. But what I--let
    me go to something else that I wanted to ask you about. I hope
    you will consider that, however. I just think that's a--and
    Congress, the House of Representatives has addressed this, the
    Senate has previously addressed it, as well.
        Let me ask you a question that I asked General Schoomaker,
    the Chief of Staff of the Army. You know, I was--when I came to
    Congress a long, long time ago, I joined the Defense Reform
    Caucus that former Senator Gary Hart was involved in, and we
    were talking about duplication of things in the various
    services, every service wants to do exactly the same thing. And
    so, you duplicate all of this spending.

                            UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

        I asked General Schoomaker about why the Department of the
    Army wants to buy a bunch of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to
    fly at 20,000 feet over the battlefield. My understanding is
    that the Air Force wants to buy 241 medium and high-altitude
    unmanned aerial vehicles, the Army wants to spend $1.2 billion
    to buy 108 extended-range UAVs. So, the Army wants to fly its
    own Air Force up there in unmanned aerial vehicles at 20,000,
    25,000 feet, and I said, ``Why would you want to duplicate?'' I
    understand why you might want to do it at low-level, over the
    battlefield, that's a different issue, 2,000 feet, some UAV,
    but at 20,000 feet?
        General Moseley, let me ask you about this. I understand
    that you have done some writing and thinking about this, but
    tell me about it. Because, it seems to me to be duplication
    with respect to the Warrior that the Army wants to build, and
    the Predator that the Air Force is building.
        General Moseley. Senator, first can I respond to the
    bomber. We solicit the subcommittee's help and partnership on
    building that new bomber. We have a little over $4 billion in
    sustainment of the existing bombers, and we have a program in
    work for the next generation bomber, with a proposed initial
    operational capability (IOC) of 2018. And so we will be looking
    for the subcommittee's oversight, and the subcommittee's help
    and partnership to be able to field that bomber. So, this
    bomber pilot (Captain McElvaine) won't have to be flying an 80-
    year-old airplane in combat, either. That's why the bomber's in
    our top five procurement priorities, is to be able to do
    exactly what you've said.
        Sir, the UAVs--I do have some experience in this--and
    General Schoomaker and I are dear friends, in fact, we're
    neighbors, we live on the same street, and we've had this talk.
        My desire is to be able to meet requirements, whether they
    are Army requirements, Marine Corps, Navy, Special Operations,
    or other Government agency requirements, and to be able to do
    this with a standardized set of languages, ground stations,
    understanding of bandwidth, and to be able to avoid
    duplication, while meeting the requirements. The requirements,
    to me, not only as a guy who was able to command central
    command air forces in two campaigns--in which we used these
    UAVs extensively--but also to look to the future and how we
    meet an almost insatiable appetite for these things.
        Right now, in theater, there are over 1,000 UAVs. A variety
    of systems--all good--all operated by well-meaning people. But,
    the ability to capitalize on billions of dollars of future
    investment, and to avoid duplication, has been my concern all
    along. We've worked this hard, we've stood up the Centers of
    Excellence to look at this, and they have been very helpful.
    They've worked tactics, techniques, procedures, and they've
    been very helpful.
        But down the road, these airplanes are going to begin to
    cost real money. The Air Force has $13 billion in this program,
    and we're looking to build close to 200 systems. My fear is we
    will hit a wall, and we will have a crisis in duplication of
    effort, and acquisition and money--which we don't have a lot
    of--and we will have issues with command and control, and we
    will have issues with meeting global requirements.
        Senator, right now, your Air Force attempts to meet the
    requirements for all combatant commanders in this area. Right
    now, everything we've got is deployed into U.S. Central
    Command's area of responsibility (AOR) and the requirements
    just in the special operations world alone, have gone from four
    combat air patrols (CAPs) to over 30, in the period of a couple
    of years.
        So, my desire is to be able to look at this from the top
    down, understanding the requirements and meeting those
    requirements, and see if there's not some way to reduce
    duplication and streamline this thing, because it is a big
    capability for all of us, and a joint capability.
        Senator Dorgan. Well, General, and Mr. Secretary, I'm
    just--I'm concerned about duplication, we have limited
    resources for nearly unlimited wants. People have talked about
    the need to recapitalize and so on, but if we've got two
    services doing essentially the same thing--and in this case, it
    seems to me the Air Force ought to be the executive agent for
    medium-level and high-level UAV operations. And I just--I hope
    we can resolve that. It just, it makes no sense to have a
    duplication of effort, duplication of development, duplication
    of research. I understand, perhaps, the Army has used some of
    the research that has been done, but I still think that that
    duplication is something we ought to take a hard look at.
        Mr. Wynne. Senator, one of the things that is not widely
    known is we fly those Predators in high altitudes from places
    in the United States. We actually are establishing squadrons in
    California, New Mexico, New York, and Arizona, to essentially
    fly Predators and Global Hawks from the Conus, so we have
    reached back into Conus, and all of our operating squadrons are
    actually forming up here.
        I will tell you that our, it's our ability to service them
    at airfields in the theater, but our tactics, techniques,
    procedures, and even the design of the flight, all take place
    here in Conus. It's not well-known.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I want to
    follow this up, I know Senator Domenici also raised these
    questions at a previous hearing, and I just think our
    subcommittee wants to make sure that we're making the right
    investments, and not duplicating investments on research and
    development, especially between services.
        General Moseley. Senator, there are bodies of work out
    there that are outstanding. There are groups of people out
    there in industry that do this, that are outstanding. My desire
    is to harness all of that, and be able to leverage all of the
    things that industry can bring to bear against this problem, to
    meet these requirements.
        And, if you would allow me, I would ask you to include the
    letter that I've written into the record, which explains, I
    think, a lot of this.
        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask consent that the letter be a
    part of the record.
        Senator Inouye. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    Chief of Staff of the Air Force
    1670 Air Force Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20330-1750

    Commander, Air Force Reserve Command
    1150 Air Force Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20330-1150

    Secretary of the Air Force
    1670 Air Force Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20330-1670

    Chief, National Guard Bureau
    2500 Army Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20310-2500

    Director, Air National Guard
    1000 Air Force Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20330

    MEMORANDUM FOR NATIONAL GUARD ADJUTANTS GENERAL AFRC/CV
    SUBJECT: Total Force Integration Phase IV Initiatives List

        Thank you for your hard work these last several months developing
    the comprehensive list of Total Force Integration initiatives which are
    attached. It is more than a list of missions. It represents positive
    movement toward fundamental Air Force integration of our Regular, Guard
    and Reserve forces so we can move into the future--together. Your
    efforts have succeeded in laying the foundations for far-reaching
    changes that include developing the conceptual framework, securing the
    necessary resources, and implementing such activities as CONOPS
    development. SATAFs and other important tasks.
        The attached list officially presents the results of your
    unprecedented, coordinated effort. The 138 initiatives listed are in
    various stages of development and implementation. We realize there may
    be changes to this plan; however, it accomplishes our intent to combine
    the earlier phase lists with the new initiatives into one, all-
    inclusive list. We believe the key elements for normalizing Total Force
    Integration concepts are firmly in place--MAJCOM and component
    coordination is now standard procedure--from conceptualization through
    execution. We look forward to more outstanding Total Force successes.
        Again, we applaud your progress to date and your leadership in
    effecting these changes.
                                            T. Michael Moseley,
                                         General, USAF, Chief of Staff.
                                               John A. Bradley,
        Lieutenant General, USAF, Commander, Air Force Reserve Command.
                                             Craig R. McKinley,
                Lieutenant General, USAF, Director, Air National Guard.
                                              Michael W. Wynne,
                                            Secretary of the Air Force.
                                                H. Steven Blum,
                  Lieutenant General, USA Chief, National Guard Bureau.

        Senator Dorgan. Let me just finally say thanks to the five
    members of the Air Force you've brought. They are inspiring,
    and all of us thank them for their service.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Bond.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank
    you, and welcome, Secretary Wynne, General Moseley, I join with
    you in welcoming and commending the five Air Force personnel
    that you have with you.
        The subcommittee wants to help you, but we need your
    assistance, and you've stated your top priority--your tankers,
    and General Moseley, we welcome your expression and recognition
    that competition is essential, a point I'm going to get back to
    later. No one will argue with the assessment that we need
    tankers. But, I think what we talked about today indicates that
    the warfighter needs strategic lift, and the improvement
    program for the C-5 may invoke Nunn-McCurdy, I understand and
    the Air Force is reluctant to move forward with the RERP
    because of the high cost and low return--we're told for a 50-
    percent increase in cost, the warfighter only gets 10 percent
    increase in reliability, but you've mentioned that there's
    authorizing language that prohibits retiring it. It appears
    that you're going to need more lift, and right now, as has been
    said, the Boeing long-lead suppliers have been notified to shut
    down when we're going to need much more airlift.
        What do you propose? Do you propose that we eliminate the
    restriction on retirement?

                               STRATEGIC AIRLIFT

        Mr. Wynne. Well, sir, we are asking we get more freedom to
    manage our own inventory. We still see that we will probably
    need C-5s for some time to come.
        Senator Bond. Well, there are many C-5s that are----
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir, there are. We would actually
    appreciate the opportunity to line them up worst to best, and
    we actually see that there are somewhere between 20 and 30 that
    may be good candidates for standing down. We think we can work
    with the folks that have these, and actually backfill them.
        We do see that we are at an absolute minimum when it comes
    to the MCS and the definition of 292. As you know, even on the
    C-5s, we're restricted from retiring 112, and we crashed one at
    Dover, so we really only have 111.
        So, I would tell you that we are up against it when it
    comes to strategic lift. On the other hand--and I've told my
    colleagues within the contracting community--I can't afford to
    buy at the rate that they are proposing that we consume them. I
    would dearly love to figure out how to entertain a low rate,
    because sir, it bothers me that our strategic lift line may go
    quiet in the time we are looking forward to. I would love to
    have, in 10 or 15 years, the ability to call on additional C-
    17s at a moment's notice. I just don't see my way forward to
    that level.
        Senator Bond. Well, Mr. Secretary, I think this is a
    management question, this is a broader management question. And
    I have some real concerns about management mistakes that were
    made before you and General Moseley got there. I think that
    the--some of these mistakes need to be revisited, number,
    there's been excessive focus on high technology to meet threats
    that are years away without having planned and prepared for--
    it's not a threat, but it's the actual challenge, the war that
    we're fighting today. And, we you know, we have--we'll have
    some F-22s for a decade-away threat, but right now, we need
    airplanes that work in the environment that we have, to
    transport the troops, and refuel the planes, that carry the
    munitions we need.

                     AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION IN TACTICAL ARENA

        The second major problem was that in the tactical arena,
    the platforms are without competition. One prime contractor
    owns the Air Force lock, stock, and barrel, and the results are
    apparent. Because of the single-sourcing of the JSF, which I
    said at the time was a tremendous mistake and I believe has
    been demonstrated to be a mistake, you see cost overruns in the
    F-22, the F-35, and I hope that you will be able to rethink and
    take a broader management view, a review of where you are, and
    say, ``We have to look at this entire strategy, we have to have
    competition, we have to be able to meet the needs we face right
    now, as the hundreds of F-15s and F-16s are going to be
    retired.'' How best can you meet that with limited dollars?
        Right now, no F-22 is going to be able to fight terrorists
    and deliver munitions on target, like the F-15 Strike Eagle
    can. That is a capable, fully affordable, existing aircraft
    that can be produced. You're going to have to take a look from
    the beginning, with only, with a number of legacy aircrafts
    being retired, and the fact that the F-22 has been cut way
    back--you're going to have to come up with plans on how you
    husband your resources, focus your threats, not forgetting
    about the long-term threat. But also recognizing that we've got
    some short-term threats.
        Are you willing to take a broad management review and look
    at the mistakes that have been made in the past, and try to
    give us a plan that will go forward? And, I'd like both the
    Secretary and the General's comments on that.
        Mr. Wynne. I would start with the fact that when we put
    together the supplemental we were really concerned about how we
    work on the attrited aircraft. We've lost 50 fighters, and over
    130 airplanes since 2001.
        In 2003, when we first went down into Baghdad, we only took
    stealth aircraft with us. We took 117s, and we took the B-2. We
    need to make sure we have the same kind of capabilities,
    because the Russians have been selling Tehran a brand new,
    surface-to-air missile. The North Koreans have taken upon
    themselves to buy a pretty good integrated air defense system
    to protect themselves. The Chinese have fortified the entire
    strait of Taiwan.
        Now, I would say that--just like Curtis LeMay, ``Peace is
    our profession.'' And I would propose to you that I would not
    like at all to engage. But I would say, when diplomacy fails,
    you need your Air Force to be at the ready position. And when
    diplomacy fails, we need to be responsive.
        I would say, therefore, we decided that we would submit the
    F-35, and got criticized in the supplemental, and we did that
    because fourth generation airplanes are obsolete in the face of
    modern threats. We are moving to fifth generation. And we know
    this is hard, but change is hard, and we believe that if we
    don't do this, we simply won't be responsive to the double-
    digit surface-to-air missiles, and the improving technologies
    that the Russians and Chinese are fielding.
        I didn't realize I was creating a brand when I said ``fifth
    generation'' airplanes--meaning stealth, precision,
    maneuverability, networked aircraft, and speed--but it turns
    out that the Russians and the Chinese are now promoting fifth
    generation airplanes to the Indians and some of their other
    sales areas. And they're doing this with something that looks
    largely like a tornado, and then with an extraordinarily
    capable Sukhoi.
        Neither one have the capability of the F-22, or the Joint
    Strike Fighter, but we're afraid that they do have some
    capabilities that may exceed some of our aging F-15s and F-16s.
    So we are, by the way, trying to make sure that we continuously
    upgrade the F-15 to keep it combat-ready, and the F-16, as
    well. But as a previous Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
    Clark said, ``There will probably not be a future war like this
    war, and this war is not like any war we've ever fought.''
        General Moseley. Senator, thanks for that question. I have
    some entry-level understanding of the F-15 that's built in your
    district----
        Senator Bond. I know you--I know that very well.
        General Moseley. Sir, I've only flown her off and on for 30
    years. And it is part of my life, and it's part of my son's
    life, who flies the same airplanes that I flew as a captain.
        And so, I would offer to you that that airplane, as much as
    love it, is not as survivable as we would like it to be. When
    we look at the job of the Air Force, which is to maintain air
    dominance in the theater, so our Army and marine and Navy
    brothers can conduct operations. We will have a number of F-15s
    for awhile. And we've had, we've had several discussions about
    what could we do with them to keep them as operable and as
    survivable as we can to include the helmet-mounted sight, the
    new weapons systems and the new radar. We're committed to doing
    that on a number of the F-15Cs, so that the Total Force, Guard,
    and Active, can continue to fly those airplanes in the missions
    that are suitable.
        But, Senator, I'll tell you, there's a world out there that
    is increasing exponentially in technology and lethality,
    whether it is surface-to-air missiles, whether it is early
    warning radars, or whether it is air-to-air systems to include
    missiles, infrared search and track systems, or radars. We have
    to stay ahead of that if we are to maintain the air dominance
    for the theater, so that the Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps
    can operate. That's our challenge.
        Do we need 1,000 plus F-22s? No, sir. We just need enough
    to maintain the dominance in the theaters that we're tasked to
    do.
        The F-15E is a wonderful airplane, and we have her now
    deployed to Bagram because of the small diameter bomb, and the
    range and payload that the E can carry, which is the best-
    ranged, best-capable fighter of its class in any service in any
    country. That's why we have them at Bagram now, to be able to
    do this business in the spring and summer of this year. In
    fact, that's a squadron out of Mountain Home, Idaho, that's up
    there right now.
        So, sir, our challenge is to be able to match this budget,
    and to be able to match this top line, and to do all of the
    things that the country's asked us to do, and still be the best
    Air Force in the world. That's the challenge, and the stretch
    that we've got.
        Senator Bond. Certainly, the underlying theme--which I
    subscribe to--is the American aerospace industry, at large, is
    shrinking. And, it does concern me about where do we go in the
    future for competition and for production? And that does
    concern me, and we are, in fact, periodically, trying to
    conduct a survey to try to determine just what will we do?
    Frankly, the introduction of the next-generation bomber is one
    of those energies that is energizing the engineering functions
    from St. Louis to Los Angeles, and we appreciate the support
    that this subcommittee gives, because we think that that is,
    perhaps, a real opportunity that shouldn't be denied.
        Senator Bond. Well, we certainly want to support that
    mission, but I hope you recognize that the failure for
    competition was one of the major failures, and I will have
    further discussions later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Domenici.

                MISSIONS AT HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I think this hearing certainly is not going to solve the
    total problem that we're discussing here today. There are very
    big decisions that have to be made about what happens to the
    American Air Force in this area during the next 2 to 10 years,
    and it's certainly going to be something very different than
    what we thought we had in mind when we started here. And the
    Department is pretty quick to tell us that when they meet with
    us and talk about what the problems are.
        We have, for instance, Holloman Air Force Base in New
    Mexico that has some amazing assets, including airspace and
    nearby training capabilities. And your budget process proposes
    retiring the remaining Holloman F-117s in fiscal year 2008, but
    I understand that a transition plan is in place to bring F-22s
    to the base. I'm excited about working with the Air Force on
    this transition, and I have a few questions about it.
        My first question is what is the total amount that the Air
    Force needs for the F-22 beddown at Holloman, and when will
    those funds be budgeted for? General?
        General Moseley. Sir, if you'll let us take that for the
    record, we'll get you our current assessments of the beddown
    and the transition from the 117 to the F-22.
        Senator Domenici. I think it's important, not just for me,
    but I think----
        General Moseley. Yes, sir. If you would let us take that
    for the record, and we'll get you those numbers, and the
    schedule.
        [The information follows:]

                          F-22 Beddown at Holloman AFB

        The Air Force will beddown forty F-22As (36 Primary
    Assigned Aircraft) at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico
    between the first quarter of fiscal year 2009 and the first
    quarter of fiscal year 2011 with a total estimated renovation
    and military construction bill of $40 million. In fiscal year
    2006, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico executed $10.8
    million on renovation projects. The fiscal year 2008
    President's Budget Request lays out a further $26.625 million
    for planning and design and military construction projects
    spanning fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010. The
    remaining $2.5 million of the $40 million total is one project
    (squadron operations building) which is currently unfunded.
    However, the Air Force will fund for this project internally.

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2006: Operations and Maintenance--Various...          10.8
    The specific fiscal year 2008 President's Budget request
     projects are:
        Fiscal year 2008: Planning and Design...............           2.450
        Fiscal year 2009:
            Aerospace Ground Equipment Maintenance and                 2.600
             Storage Facility...............................
            Jet Engine Intermediate Maintenance Facility....           2.125
            Aircraft Maintenance Unit Facility..............           1.000
            Simulator Facility..............................           3.100
            Low Observable/Composite Repair Facility........          11.850
        Fiscal year 2010:
            Conventional Munitions Shop.....................           1.000
            Precision Guided Munitions Facility.............           2.500
        Unfunded: Squadron Operations Building; only project           2.500
         unfunded...........................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................          39.925
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Domenici. I appreciate it.
        I've also heard about differences in the number of
    authorized jobs at Holloman, and I'd like that too, if you
    could produce those for us, too, and for the record, not just
    for me.
        General Moseley. Right.
        Senator Domenici. But, for the record, it would be helpful.
    Could you do that?
        General Moseley. Yes.
        [The information follows:]

                          F-22 Beddown at Holloman AFB

        Two hundred and seventy four (274) positions will be lost
    as Holloman Air Force Base transitions from F-117s to F-22s. An
    additional 221 positions will be lost due to other actions
    affecting Holloman Air Force Base. These numbers do not include
    contractor positions.

                 MISSIONS AT CANNON AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO

        Senator Domenici. As you know, Cannon Air Force Base was
    placed in an enclave status, which turned out to be a very good
    thing. It's almost like we planned it. Enclave means we're not
    going to close it, and we're not going to keep it open, but
    we're going to keep it right here to see what it's needed for.
    It turned out that clearly, it was going to be needed, and is
    needed, and you're in the process of developing it as a new
    military air base that will not be related, as in the past, to
    a F-16 Fighter Wing, but rather this will be one that will be
    related, in a different way, to a Air Force Special Operations
    Command Wing, and you're in the process of evaluating how to
    put that together, is that correct?
        General Moseley. That's correct, sir.
        The BRAC Commission directed the 27th Fighter Wing be
    disestablished and we are proposing to stand up the 16th Wing
    by end of the summer at Cannon, and be the second of our main
    operating bases, the western location for our Air Force Special
    Operations Command, which may include fixed-wing, and UAVs, and
    a variety of other things that we can use those ranges in New
    Mexico for.
        Senator Domenici. Seems like that, all of a sudden fell
    right there where you need it, and now you will use it. And
    that seems to me to be a pretty exciting situation for the Air
    Force of the future.
        I have a couple of additional questions, I will submit
    them, we've been here long enough for this Senator.
        General Moseley. Senator, if you'll allow us to include
    those Milcon requests, and infrastructure issues for Cannon,
    also, we will include those in the record, with the amount of
    money and the time.
        [The information follows:]

                Military Construction for Cannon AFB, New Mexico

        The following is a list of military construction
    infrastructure projects programmed for Cannon Air Force Base,
    New Mexico.

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Projected
                    Fiscal year                                       Project Title                          Cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008.......................................  Add/Alter Hangar 109 for C-130........................          1.7
    2010.......................................  Consolidated Communications Facility..................         15.0
    2011.......................................  96-Person Dormitory...................................          7.5
    2011.......................................  Child Development Center..............................          7.8
    2011.......................................  Add/Alter Waste Water Treatment Plant.................          5.0
    2012.......................................  96-Person Dormitory...................................          7.5
    2012.......................................  Library Education Center..............................          8.0
    2012.......................................  96-Person Dormitory...................................          7.5
    2012.......................................  Library Education Center..............................          8.0
    2013.......................................  Add/Alter Fitness Center..............................          5.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Domenici. Well, I would like to say to the fellow
    Senators that the base that is going to become a Special
    Operations base, that's already decided, and they know what
    planes are going there. The problem they have is that, clearly
    they're going to need some additional infrastructure on the
    base, to make it what it is going to turn out to be. They don't
    have those requirements ready yet, but they're working
    diligently on them, on three or four levels of military
    involvement, and the statement just made is merely saying,
    could they submit for the record, what those needs are? I think
    it's imperative that we get that Milcon, I know it's in the
    neighborhood of $75 million over a couple of years, which will
    then make Cannon, they say, a total Special Ops base, the likes
    of which we have nothing like in the western United States. I
    think for the record, you were prepared to say that that's a
    very good asset for the Air Force, is that correct, General?
        General Moseley. Absolutely, sir. The proposed action gives
    us an east coast base in Florida, and it gives us a west coast,
    or western base in New Mexico. For 1 million reasons, it's a
    good idea to have a base like that that we can rehearse with
    the Army, with the Special Operations Command, we can operate
    on the ranges there, and there's just a variety of things that
    makes that a good idea.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I look forward to your reports, General.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

           36TH RESCUE FLIGHT AT FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON

        Mr. Secretary, Fairchild Air Force Base, in my home State
    of Washington is home to the 36th Rescue Flight. They support
    the 336th Training Group in the Air Force Survival School
    there.
        According to the news reports, each year those helicopters
    evacuate an average of three injured Survival School students,
    and they help locate about 90 students who become lost during
    their survival training. And on top of that, the 36th Rescue
    Flight Civilian Search and Rescue Operations has saved more
    than 600 lives during search and rescue missions in Idaho,
    Oregon, Montana, and Washington State, because of the
    extraordinary crew members and their unmatched capabilities.
        I am very concerned--the President's budget does not
    include funding for this 36th Rescue Flight. If that budget is
    adopted, Fairchild is going to lose those four helicopters and
    crews, and the surrounding States are going to lose a very
    critical ability to respond to emergencies in the event of a
    natural disaster. It is a big concern out in my State and the
    surrounding States, and I wanted to ask you. What is your
    rationale for not funding the 36th Rescue Flight?
        Mr. Wynne. I know that we had spent over 2 million hours
    trying to assemble this budget, and I had the sense that Air
    Education and Training Command--where these helicopters were
    actually routed through, because that's who owns the escape and
    evasion training area--probably took an additional risk that
    maybe we need to mitigate.
        We took another look, a hard look at what those helicopters
    do, they are UH-1Ns, and we are looking at that, and wondering
    whether or not that is really our Air Force contribution to,
    not just the Fairchild Air Force Base area, but to the
    surrounding terrain.
        We may have, in that area, taken a little bit too much
    risk. And so, we're thinking about, where do we go and scrape
    the money from, frankly, to reconstitute that force? Does it
    have to be four? Probably, because they are not new
    helicopters. And we'd love to get, when you have four, you can
    at least count on getting one or two off, so that's kind of one
    of the things we are taking a hard look at. Thank you for
    bringing it to our attention.
        Senator Murray. So you agree that it's important for the
    Survival School, I assume?
        Mr. Wynne. We certainly agree that there's a need there.
    We're, I think the rationale right now, is whether we need all
    four, or whether we need a few, and that's going to be an
    operational consideration. But, it seems to me we have a
    mission, and we have a real need. And it's bigger than the Air
    Force mission, which I don't think really hit home.
        Senator Murray. Okay. So, would you support restoring that
    funding?
        Mr. Wynne. Ma'am, I don't know where I'd get the money
    right now. But I'm going to look hard.
        Senator Murray. Okay, well, I think it's really critical,
    Mr. Chairman. That is a very important function, both for the
    Survival School as well as the region, and its loss to our
    region would be immense. So, we want to hear from you how we
    can restore that funding, and how----
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. This subcommittee can work
    with you to do that.
        Mr. Wynne. We appreciate your bringing it up.
        Senator Murray. I've also--I know you've been asked about
    tankers a couple of times this morning, and you know, those are
    extremely critical. I heard you say they're your number one
    procurement, many of them 45 years or older, and that they need
    to be procured.
        Your new RFP for the KC-X specifies nine performance
    parameters, and we all, I think, agree the men and women of the
    Air Force deserve the best tanker. I wanted to ask you, with
    the delay in the KC-X RFP release, are you confident the Air
    Force can execute the entire KC-X fiscal year 2008 budget
    request of $314 million?
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, ma'am. As we currently said, and primarily
    because both of the competitors are offering commercial-style
    airplanes, we think that they probably have a set of inventory
    that is going to essentially absorb that money--that they would
    essentially accelerate their response to us, which we really
    appreciate. They know we've been stretched out. They know that
    it's our number one priority. I don't think we'll have a
    problem spending that money.
        Senator Murray. When are the proposals due back? And when
    will the contract be awarded for those?
        Mr. Wynne. We're looking for the proposals to come back, I
    think, in early April, and we're looking for the contract to be
    awarded by year-end.
        Senator Murray. By the end of this year?
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. And, will you confirm for me that the Air
    Force will select a new tanker, based on an open and
    transparent acquisition process?
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. Okay, I appreciate it very much.
        One other question, Mr. Chairman.

                    RESERVE COMPONENT EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING

        I wanted to ask you, because I'm really concerned about the
    long and frequent deployments and the effect they're having on
    our service members, including those in the Air Force Reserve
    and the Air National Guard. I think we all agree that they
    deserve the best equipment and training, and I wanted to know
    if the Air Force has a solution for providing the Air National
    Guard members equipment to train with at home when their
    aircraft is being kept in Iraq?
        Mr. Wynne. Ma'am that has to do with, again, with how much
    budget do you have, and how many airplanes can you dedicate
    simply to training, when you know they are dedicated to
    warfare?
        The National Guard airplanes are the C-130Hs. We've offered
    them backfills of C-130Es and we fully understand why they
    would rather have their Hs back. We will tell you that we have
    a proposal in the supplemental to try to buy some C-130Js and
    we recognize that we think we need some C-130s downstream.
        I would say this, though, about the National Guard,
    throughout, and the Reserve. We even have some Puerto Rican
    National Guardsman, this is the very first time they ever
    deployed in their history, and they came over and were serving
    in Bagram in a C-130 squadron.
        They operated magnificently, they operated right together--
    you could not tell that it was a Guardsman or a Reservist or an
    Active Duty person. I can tell you that their training, they
    are top drawer, and the Air Force counts on them. And we have
    maintained a consistent rating throughout the Active, Reserve,
    and National Guard force structure.
        We are worried about the readiness of all of our troops
    together, and we recognize that even as we push forward into
    the joint cargo aircraft, we know we have some great people out
    there, and we are worried about their training.
        Senator Murray. General?
        General Moseley. Senator, if you would allow us, we've just
    signed out our phase four of our total force initiatives that
    includes Guard and Reserve, and we've sent that out to the
    Adjutants General over the signatures of the Secretary, myself,
    General Blum, General Bradley, and General McKinley. If you
    will allow me to put that in the record, I think that'll give
    you a good idea of where we're headed with the Guard.
        [The information follows:]

                       Phase Four Total Force Initiative

        Attached is the Total Force Integration Phase IV
    Initiatives list signed by Secretary of the Air Force Michael
    W. Wynne; Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Moseley, the
    Commander of the Air Force Reserve, Lieutenant General Bradley;
    the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General
    Blum, and the Director of the Air National Guard, Lieutenant
    General McKinley.

        General Moseley. But, ma'am, you know by watching us, we
    don't do anything without our Guard and Reserve. We have large
    percentages of our major activities that are mixed inside the
    Guard and Reserve. We don't hold Guard or Reserve units in any
    different readiness. All of the money that we fund these units
    with--in fact, over this budget cycle, the Active units are
    funded less than the Guard and Reserve units. And if you would
    like, I'll share those numbers with you.
        Senator Murray. If you could share them with the
    subcommittee in writing, that would be good.
        [The information follows:]

                       Active, Guard, and Reserve Funding

        Senator Murray, this chart breaks out our Total Force
    fiscal year 2008 funding levels in a number of critical areas
    (depot programmed equipment maintenance, contractor logistics
    support, flying hours, base operating support, and operation
    and maintenance facility sustainment) by Active Duty and
    Reserve Component. We worked corporately together as a Total
    Force team to ensure funding equity across these areas. In some
    instances, notice the active Air Force is actually requesting a
    lower percentage of funding relative to its total requirements.
    This was purposefully done to ensure fiscal fairness among the
    Active Air Force, the Air National Guard, and the Air Force
    Reserve Command.

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Active           Guard          Reserve
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DPEM:
        Funded......................................................          $2,696            $588            $400
        Requirement.................................................          $3,676            $799            $490
        Funding Levels (percent)....................................              73              74              81
    CLS:
        Funded......................................................          $3,761              NA              NA
        Requirement.................................................          $5,002              NA              NA
        Funding Levels (percent)....................................              75  ..............  ..............
    FH:
        10 percent Buyback..........................................            $516            $159             $88
    BOS:
        Funded......................................................            $780              $4             $47
        Requirement.................................................          $1,179              $6             $44
        Funding Levels (percent)....................................              66              75             108
    Sustainment:
        Funded......................................................          $1,890            $202             $58
        Requirement.................................................          $2,071            $212             $62
        Funding Levels (percent)....................................              91              95              94
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General Moseley. One of the key fundamental strengths of
    your Air Force is that we're a seamless Air Force with Guard,
    Reserve, and Active. In fact, the Commander at Kirkuk right now
    in Northern Iraq--the officer that commands that entire base--
    is from Senator Bond's unit at St. Louis. He and his senior
    NCO, she is the Command Senior Master Sergeant--they are all
    Missouri Guardsmen.
        In my time as Commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces,
    I had over 100 Guard and Reserve folks in key command positions
    at big bases. So, this notion of a seamless, Total Force, it is
    one of the fundamental beliefs of this Air Force. And so, if
    you would allow me to share this with you, I think it shows the
    overall notions of how we are looking to make this relationship
    even better.
        Senator Murray. Okay, I appreciate that. I appreciate your
    attention to that, and I hope we can put that in the record,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Leahy. You finished?
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Moseley, last week you wrote a letter to the
    Commission on the National Guard and Reserve. Mr. Chairman, I'd
    ask consent that that letter be inserted in the record.
        Senator Inouye. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
                           Department of the Air Force,
                                  Office of the Chief of Staff,
                                        Washington, DC, March 15, 2007.
    The Honorable Arnold L. Punaro,
    Chairman, Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, 2521 S. Clark
            Street, Suite 650, Arlington, VA 22202.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the recent opportunity to testify
    before your Commission on one of the most momentous and potentially
    transformational issues of the day. I appreciate your readiness to
    discuss the Commission's interim report and options to better organize,
    train and equip America's military forces. With the nation engaged in a
    global war, I believe it is especially critical to pursue new avenues
    to properly integrate the Guard, Reserves, and Active Duty Air Force
    into a seamless, Total Force.
        I wholeheartedly agree that the structure for the Reserve and
    National Guard is outdated and has not kept pace with the
    organizational changes mandated by the Goldwater Nichols Defense
    Reorganization Act of 1986. Our reserve components have moved from a
    Cold War strategic reserve posture to active support of ongoing
    operational missions. They also provide the additional capacity to meet
    surge requirements and to support wartime and contingency operations
    across the board. Whether in response to combat tasking or natural
    disasters at home, there is nothing the Air Force does that isn't
    accomplished by the Total Force. Yet, while the United States Air Force
    has served as the model for seamless Total Force integration for
    decades, even our most successful of templates could be better
    positioned to address contemporary requirements. Our military responses
    to recent domestic natural disasters highlighted these seams
    dramatically.
        Therefore, I propose your Commission investigate options that would
    more closely align the Air National Guard and Army National Guard with
    their respective Military Departments, parallel to the Reserves'
    alignment but with a differing mission set. Such realignment would be
    more consistent with how the Air Force and Army currently organize,
    train, equip, and present our forces to the combatant commanders. It
    would help the Departments address these two inherent components'
    issues holistically, as part of the Total Air Force or Army. And it
    would also better facilitate the Military Departments' identification,
    mentoring, and preparation of Air and Army National Guardsmen for
    positions of greater responsibility and authority.
        I would also propose the Commission investigate options to give our
    Governors both an Air and an Army Adjutant General, who would partner
    to create a true joint headquarters for the Governors. This new
    organizational construct would serve the individual Governors better in
    time of crisis by providing true joint competencies and expertise for
    their state headquarters. Concurrently, it would also facilitate the
    identification, training and career development of a larger pool of
    joint Total Force officers from which many additional, higher-ranking
    positions could be filled. In exploring this option, I also propose the
    Commission consider the Air Guard and Air Reserve each being led by a
    four-star general, giving both officers the status of an Air Force
    Major Command (MAJCOM) commander.
        I have committed my tenure to making the Total Air Force even more
    capable of coping with the warfighting, disaster relief and homeland
    security challenges of the 21st Century. We're working to create
    command relationships that are responsive, flexible and meet state and
    national needs seamlessly. We're now in the last of four phases of the
    most encompassing transformation of Total Force partnering
    opportunities in the history of the Department of Defense, a change
    geared toward fielding true, Total Force air, space and cyberspace
    capabilities across the entire range of operations. We plan to field up
    to twelve Total Force squadrons of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in
    California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, North Dakota, and New
    York. We have already begun partnering Air National Guard, Air Force
    Reserve and Active Airmen to man new F-22A Raptor units in Virginia and
    Alaska, and plan to follow suit in New Mexico and Hawaii. I've also
    looked to leverage the outstanding initiatives of the Vermont ANG in
    the ``City Basing'' work at Burlington and the South Carolina ANG's
    ``reverse associate'' work at McEntire, which are paying great
    dividends.
        I'm pleased with the opportunity to capitalize on the experience
    and maturity of the Missouri ANG through creative partnering with the
    509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman AFB and their B-2 bomber mission. And I'm
    proud to announce creation of an additional association between a new
    ANG security forces squadron (SFS) and an existing active duty SFS at
    Minot AFB, North Dakota--an association that over the next two years
    will help relieve one of our most stressed career fields. Finally, as
    we work the next set of Total Force beddowns of our new jet aerial
    tanked (KC-X), new Combat Search and Rescue helicopter (CSAR-X), new
    stealth fighter (F-35A/Joint Strike Fighter), and the Joint Cargo
    Aircraft (JCA), as well as the continued beddown options for C-17 and
    C-130J airlifters, there is an ever wider set of opportunities that
    will evolve over the coming years.
        I wish you and the Commission all the best in your important
    endeavors. Thank you once again for the opportunity to share my views
    with you.
                Very respectfully,
                                            T. Michael Moseley,
                                         General, USAF, Chief of Staff.

                     DUAL MISSION OF THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD

        Senator Leahy. And you seemed to be greatly uncomfortable
    with unique dual mission with the Air National Guard, and
    somehow want to take over control of it. Do you think it would
    be a good idea if the Air National Guard be organizationally
    revamped to mirror the Air Force Reserve, have the States have
    two units, General, one lead the Air Guard, one lead the Army
    Guard. That the Director of the Air National Guard be a four-
    star general, irrespective of the rank and position of the
    Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
        Now, I mention this just because none of these proposals
    will go anywhere up here. Both Republicans and Democrats are
    opposed to the, effectively demolish the National Guard, the
    Air National Guard as we know it. Eviscerate the close
    relationship between the States and local communities, and
    completely undermine the National Guard Bureau, which is
    legally tasked with coordinating National Guard activities, and
    the reason I find it interesting, is the Air National Guard is
    doing a stellar job carrying out missions both at home and
    abroad. They're carrying out a significant proportion of the
    mission--Air Guard is--in Afghanistan, Iraq, they are ready to
    react immediately to emergencies at home, I know that for a
    very significant time after 9/11 they cover flown over New York
    City, were F-16s out of my home State of Vermont, out of
    Burlington, Vermont, from the Guard, and of course they are an
    essential tie between the Air Force and local communities,
    which has many times made life easier, not more difficult for
    the Secretary. So, why do you want to end this?
        General Moseley. Sir, just the opposite. Let me tell you
    from my testimony at the Commission on the National Guard and
    Reserves that it was obvious to me that there were folks
    discussing things that would fundamentally alter the ability of
    the Air National Guard to do business. The problems it appeared
    the Commission was attempting to wrestle with had nothing to do
    with the Air National Guard.
        My testimony to the Commission was, whatever it is you're
    attempting to fix, don't break my Air National Guard and my
    relationship with my Guard. Because this is fundamental to the
    Air Force that this is a seamless relationship.
        I also said that I have----
        Senator Leahy. But it breaks it if you go into--it's
    certainly going to break it in the States and the communities
    if you break it into, in effect, two separate Guards.
        General Moseley. Sir, let me come to that, if you would.
    There's another part of this that I'm concerned about. The
    notion of being a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I'm
    still not supportive of that. The notion of promotion to four
    star, I'm okay with that, as long as there's a provision that
    the Director of the National Guard would then be rotational.
    There was no mention of that in the testimony.
        My experience in this area is that if Steve Blum is made a
    four star, and he would be an ideal candidate, because he's a
    quality officer, where in the legislation would it say that
    this is rotational between the Army Guard and the Air National
    Guard? Nowhere in there was that discussion.
        Senator Leahy. Suppose it was?
        General Moseley. I would be happier, sir.
        The notion of being able to prepare people for command--if
    you had a chance to look at my testimony, I also said that I
    have no problem with the Guardsmen commanding things as big as
    Northern Command. In fact, I'm the only Chief, I believe, that
    said that.
        Senator Leahy. Well, you know that Senator Bond, who was
    here earlier, he and I are co-chairs of the National Guard
    Caucus, and we try to keep this as devoid of politics as
    possible. We sent you a letter.
        General Moseley. Yes, sir.
        Senator Leahy. And I ask that a copy of the letter be
    inserted in the record, but we raise some concerns about your
    proposal.
        General Moseley. Sir, my concern is, don't break it------
        Senator Leahy. I know you'll be responding to that letter.
        General Moseley. Yes, sir. But I would offer in this
    setting, my real concern is don't break my Air National Guard.
    As we attempt to fix other problems, the Air National Guard is
    not broken. And so, the notion of being able to prepare people
    for command--and I'm on record by saying I have no issues with
    this, and I have actually put people in command of big
    operations--there has to be a path to prepare for command.
        The Air National Guard side, I'm happy with. And I would
    like to make that better. That's why I proposed a bit of a
    revolutionary notion that a Governor have a joint headquarters,
    and that a Governor have the ability to grow people inside the
    State, and that the Air National Guard and Reserve, which is
    lost sometimes in these discussions, has the same opportunity.
        And, so my proposal for the Air Guardsman and the Air
    Reservist to be an equal four star, I'm okay with that. In
    fact, that's why I said it. Because I believe my Air Guard, and
    my Air Reserve are key pieces of what I do as the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force, and I value that relationship.
        Senator Leahy. You say ``your'' Air Guard, and it's sort of
    all of our Air Guard, isn't it?
        General Moseley. Well, sir, I can say that as the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force, because I'm the senior airman. And I
    view these guys as airmen, they're brothers.
        Senator Leahy. I view them as a major asset of all of ours,
    of the United States.
        Now, let me ask you this, then. If you want to make it
    something that can improve, can grow, use your terms, why won't
    the Air Force expand the community basic initiative? That sends
    active duty persons on a train and fight alongside Guard
    personnel at stand-along Guard bases. I say this, because
    again, using the experience with the 158th Fighter Wing in
    Burlington, Vermont, it's worked out very well, as a superb
    national AP story talked about how well this has done, and I
    ask that that be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                    [From the Boston Globe, March 18, 2007]

           Active Duty Air Force Learning From Vermont Guard Members
                   (By Wilson Ring, Associated Press Writer)
        SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt.--When Airman 1st Class Cabe Feller joined the
    Air Force two years ago, he was hoping to see the world beyond his farm
    town. He didn't expect one of his first stops to be Vermont.
        Now, during his working hours, Feller, 20, of Herscher, Ill., is
    learning the intricacies of maintaining F-16 fighter jets. He's getting
    plenty of one-on-one tutoring about the airplanes from Vermont Air
    National Guard technicians, some of whom have worked on the planes for
    longer than he's been alive.
        During his off hours, Feller has learned to snowboard. He's been
    exposed for the first time in his life to what he sees as the
    ethnically diverse communities of Bosnians, Vietnamese and Sudanese who
    live in the Burlington area.
        ``The set-up here is fantastic,'' said Feller, an active duty
    airman taking part in a first-of-its-kind program that sends a small
    number of active duty Air Force personnel on a three-year rotations to
    the Vermont Air National Guard base at the Burlington International
    Airport.
        The program is known as ``community basing'' and is designed to
    help the active duty Air Force work closely with the Air National
    Guard.
        ``It takes advantage of the years of experience that the guardsmen
    have in training our young airmen while at the same time it exposes our
    young airmen to the guard operations,'' said Air Force Col. Michael
    Vidal, commander of the 20th Maintenance Group at Shaw Air Force Base
    in Sumter, S.C., the active duty parent of the service members in
    Vermont.
        There are similar programs under way at another base in South
    Carolina and one in Utah, Vidal said.
        The program was conceived by Vermont Guard Maj. Gen. William Etter,
    who was just appointed to the staff of the chief of the National Guard
    Bureau in Washington. And it was promoted by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy,
    the co-chairman of the Senate's National Guard Caucus.
        Leahy saw the program as a way to help the Air Force and to help
    ensure the Vermont National Guard remained important enough to the Air
    Force that the South Burlington base wouldn't be targeted for closing.
        ``It has helped cement the ties between the Air National Guard and
    the active Air Force,'' Leahy said. ``It can and should be a model now
    for the entire Air Force. I'd like to see the program expanded
    aggressively in Vermont and across the Air Guard.''
        Last month, Leahy wrote a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael
    Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley, saying the
    Air Force had not followed through with an effective program.
        ``We are not surprised but we are disappointed,'' said the letter
    signed by Leahy and co-chair Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo.
        Working with the Air Guard doesn't exempt active duty personnel in
    Vermont from overseas missions. Feller spent about six weeks in Iraq
    last year with the Vermont Guard's 158th Fighter Wing, and he's due to
    return again later this year.
        Currently, there are 14 active duty Air Force personnel at the
    South Burlington base. Two are pilots, the rest are maintenance
    technicians, the majority young people new to the Air Force on their
    first tours after they completed technical training.
        Vermont Guard Lt. Col. T.J. Jackman, who oversees the maintenance
    of the Vermont Guard's 15 aircraft, said when the airmen arrived there
    was some concern the active duty airmen wouldn't fit in with the
    guardsmen. But the two groups have blended well.
        ``We're all Green Mountain Boys,'' Jackman said, using the unit
    nickname that grew out of Vermont's Revolutionary War militia led by
    Ethan Allen.
        Air Force Master Sgt. Roger Harms, 35, originally from Clinton,
    Mo., is the noncommissioned officer in charge of the young airmen.
        He and his wife like living in an area where crime is low and
    schools are good.
        ``It's a real good place to raise a family,'' Harms said.
        For some of the young airmen, the quiet life of Vermont isn't fast
    enough and the military opportunities too few, everything from the lack
    of low-priced military theaters to being able to work on a broader
    range of equipment than are available in Vermont.
        Feller has been working on his own toward a bachelor's degree so he
    can qualify for officer training and, eventually, pilot training.
        ``The family atmosphere here is awesome,'' Feller said.
        The airmen in Vermont are due to leave in the fall of 2008.

        Senator Leahy. It shows that members of the Active Air
    Force get a super training and living opportunity, while the
    Guard gets a chance to working closer with the Active Force,
    and you cite that in the letter we just discussed, but why
    can't you find 100 to 200 people in all of the Air Force to
    expand this program in Burlington? They seem to be setting up,
    basically the model that could be used throughout the country.
    Why can't we find a way to find a way to do it in Burlington
    right? Why can't we find a way to expand it around the country?
        General Moseley. Sir, I will tell you, without being
    flippant, you're singing my song. I'm the guy that bought----
        Senator Leahy. Good, then when will we expect those 100 to
    200----
        General Moseley. Sir, I asked that question this morning.
    The test was successful, the people loved what they did, the
    experience was useful. We're doing the same thing at McEntire
    in South Carolina, we've looked for opportunities to do this.
    As we look at the drawdown of 40,000 people, and we look at the
    global tasking, and we look at over 20,000 of us that have been
    tasked to do ``in-lieu of'' tasking, as we look at the
    youngsters that we would want to put in that unit, we're
    looking hard to find the people to capitalize on the test,
    which was very successful.
        I like this, and I like what this has done, and I'm
    committed to do this.
        Senator Leahy. When?
        General Moseley. Sir, as soon as we can find the people.
        Senator Leahy. Ballpark?
        General Moseley. Sir, let me get back with you. I've asked
    the major commanders to find the people. Of course, they have
    to be fighter folks, they have to be----
        Senator Leahy. Please get back to me on it.
        General Moseley. I will do that, sir.
        Senator Leahy. I'm easy to be found.
        General Moseley. This is a good thing.
        Senator Leahy. I have a listed home phone number, I always
    have had, a listed office number, feel free. We can, otherwise,
    I'm worried that we won't have any of these bases, especially
    the Northeast or the Midwest if we don't do this. It seems
    easier to get bases in warm climates, sometimes it's good to
    train where you have all kinds of weather.
        General Moseley. Sir, the benefit of the unit in your State
    is it has been very aggressive in reaching out for this
    community basing, and it has worked--the test worked, the
    relationship worked, the outcome worked, the challenge for us
    now, is to be able to spread the ``in-lieu of'' tasking and all
    of the other missions we have, and find those people of that
    grade structure, to be able to get them there, and keep them
    there.
        Senator Leahy. Well, please work with me. I'm not saying
    this just out of parochial. As I've told our Guard, both Army
    and Air Guard, I'll go to bat for them if I feel they're doing
    something really well, I won't otherwise. I think they are
    doing very well. General Dube, who is our Adjutant General is
    an Air Force, handles both Air Force and the Army Guard very,
    very well. And, I know that there has been enormous effort from
    the civilian community to make this community base work, as the
    AP story points out, a lot of the people who were assigned
    there like it and especially when some of them were
    interviewed, I think, the day after we had had something like 3
    feet of snow--which, in Vermont sometimes slows up--we
    sometimes open a half hour late on things with 3 feet of snow.
    Not the Air Guard, they're--they fly no matter what it is. I've
    often thought that if, any terrorist organization could learn
    how to make it snow 3 inches in Washington, DC, they could
    close our Government forever. And we'd have to shift it to
    Alaska and Vermont where anything under 10 inches is a dusting,
    and once you get above 3 feet, you've got some logistical
    hurdles to clean out parking lots, but other than that, just
    keep on going.
        General Moseley. Sir----
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Secretary, that was an unnecessary aside
    on my part, but I just thought I'd throw it in.
        Mr. Wynne. Sir, I'm familiar with Burlington, and lived in
    Detroit for a long time.
        Senator Leahy. Well, you know what it's like in Detroit
    when it comes across the water and the snow hits, you know what
    it's like.
        General Moseley. Sir, the other part of this that's lost,
    even in the AP report, is the community opened up and
    effectively adopted these folks, and so these folks now have
    surrogate moms and dads and brothers and sisters in a community
    that we can benefit from the Guard's outreach in those
    communities, and we can learn a whole lot more. So, this is a
    good thing.
        Senator Leahy. Our Guard is very well-appreciated in our
    State. I'll tell you two very brief vignettes in this.
        During my campaign for re-election a couple of years ago,
    there was a concert, a lot of supporters come to it, I would
    guess that the large majority of people probably if polled
    disagreed with us being in Iraq, but here's what happened.
        My wife was on the Guard support team, family support team,
    had suggested we give 150 tickets out to families of Guard
    members who were overseas, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. The
    performer announced that these Guard families were in the
    theater. The result was a longstanding ovation for them by the
    people there. I just, I cannot think of a time in Vermont that
    anybody--certainly myself included--has ever gotten a standing
    ovation like that.
        The other was, as I told the Guard up there, about 3 weeks
    after 9/11, I got a call, my office in Burlington from someone
    who said, ``Do you remember that letter I wrote complaining
    about the noise of the F-16s taking off at the Burlington
    Airport, I wrote it to you in August?'' And somebody said,
    ``Yes, we have that right here, and Senator's going to
    answer,'' they said, ``No, no, no, no, please destroy the
    letter. I think they sound pretty darn good.''
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Gentlemen, I just have a few questions.
        One of the best-kept secrets, I believe, is the age of our
    fleet. We talk about it in this room in the subcommittee, but I
    doubt if fellow Americans realize that we have World War II
    aircraft, you know, active fleet, that our average age is 24
    years old, and I heard the stunning news, Mr. Secretary that
    Brazil is now prohibiting the landing of C-5s?
        Mr. Wynne. Argentina.
        Senator Inouye. Argentina.
        Mr. Wynne. And we're refused overflight rights into our
    diplomatic Embassy and landing rights. This was on the
    presidential South American mission.
        Senator Inouye. That being the case, I would anticipate
    that both of you are seriously, seriously considering a bomber
    replacement for our fleet.
        Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir. You're right on.
        Senator Inouye. And what the subcommittee would like to
    know would be the qualities and the characteristics of the new
    aircraft? What the time schedule is? What are the costs
    involved? I would anticipate just R&D exceeding $50 billion or
    so. And what, how much a copy? I don't expect you to give us
    the answer here, but I think this subcommittee should be
    prepared to sit down with you and assist you in this venture,
    because I still feel the scars of the B-2 challenge. Those were
    difficult times. And so, if you could share that information
    with us, it would be extremely helpful.
        I note that in your budget request, you have decreased the
    flying hour time by 10 percent. I'm not an airman, but I know
    that our men and women need training, know how to handle the
    gadgets that are on the planes--what risks are you taking by
    reducing the time?

                          AIR FORCE BUDGET PRIORITIES

        General Moseley. Sir, the challenge is, as we spent the 2.2
    million man-hours balancing this budget, as we forwarded it to
    the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which became the
    President's budget, in there we had to take some risks to
    protect the investment accounts in our people, our personnel
    accounts. We took some risk in the infrastructure, and we took
    some risk in O&M, and that's where the 10 percent of the flying
    hours are.
        But, I'll tell you, as the Service Chief, I'm less
    comfortable with additional risk in the flying hours. We're a
    country at war, we're an Air Force at war. We have to train, we
    have to generate sorties, and we have to fly. At about 7.5
    percent reduction in flying hours, we're still at low risk, but
    the difference--as you get closer to 10 percent, I'm becoming
    increasingly uncomfortable with that, and I've asked our
    operators and our programmers to look at ways to give me the
    money and put it back, so I can restore those flying hours.
        There's only so many things you can do in a simulator
    before you have to fly. And, I'm sounding like an antique
    fighter pilot here, but there's just certain things you have to
    do airborne. And so the simulator/flying mix, I think we're at
    about the right balance on that, and I'm not willing to go much
    further. And so, I'm asking to find the money to put it back to
    restore the flying hours.
        Senator Inouye. How much money would you need?
        General Moseley. Sir, I can--it's a rough order, if you'll
    let me take that for the record, I'll get that back to you
    quickly.
        Senator Inouye. Because I'd like to share that with the
    subcommittee.
        [The information follows:]

                                  Flying Hours

        The cost to buy back the 10 percent flying hour reduction
    in fiscal year 2008 is $763 million.

        General Moseley. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Because, the last thing that we want to do
    is to put our men and women who are going in harm's way at
    risk, unnecessarily.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Well, I have many questions which I'd like to submit to you
    for your responses. But, I'd like to thank you very much for
    your presence here, and your candid responses. I'd also like to
    commend and congratulate and thank the five great airmen and
    women, we appreciate your service very much. I salute you.
        Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, can we arrange to take a
    photo with those people, please?
        Senator Inouye. Oh, love to. Can we?
        General Moseley. Absolutely, you bet, sir.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                  Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael W. Wynne
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                                  end strength
        Question. Secretary Wynne, the Air Force is in the process of
    reducing its end strength by 40,000 airmen. Has a recent Department of
    Defense decision to add 92,000 Army and Marine Corps troops led the Air
    Force to rethink these reductions? If you determine that additional Air
    Force personnel are required, how would you address this within the
    constraints of the fiscal year 2008 budget request?
        Answer. The Air Force has been engaged in combat for the past 16
    years while transforming into a smaller, leaner and more capable force.
    This transformation was highlighted in the fiscal year 2007 President's
    budget request, where the Air Force reduced 40,000 full time equivalent
    Active Duty, Guard, Reserve and Civilian positions to help pay for one
    of the Service's top priorities, the recapitalization and modernization
    of its aging aircraft and spacecraft inventories.
        The reason the Air Force reduced manpower in the fiscal year 2007
    President's budget request was insufficient budget to execute the
    entire spectrum of Air Force taskings and still bring in a balanced
    program. Rather than assume risk in our recapitalization accounts,
    which we have perilously put at risk for many years, we shifted risk to
    the personnel accounts. While painful, these reductions provided a
    catalyst for significant positive transformational changes to the way
    we meet mission challenges.
        The Air Force is clearly linked to Joint ground force operations,
    so a plus up of Army and Marine forces will require an increase in Air
    Force capabilities to support it. For example, Air Mobility units are
    intrinsically tied to supporting the Army and Marines with logistical
    reach to go and be supplied anywhere in the world. This support goes
    beyond aircrews and aircraft, to include maintainers, logisticians, and
    supply technicians to name a few. Additionally, weather teams, tactical
    air control, and other forces are imbedded with or closely tied with
    the ground forces, so there will be an increased demand in these career
    fields.
        The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review called for an Air Force
    comprised of 86 modern combat wings to fulfill its role in the 1-4-2-1
    strategic plan. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget request, in
    which the Air Force was compelled to take the 40,000 full-time
    equivalent reduction to preserve essential modernization and
    recapitalization efforts, was well into development and already
    finalized at the time the QDR Report was released. Knowing what we know
    today, the Air Force clearly needs additional dollars and end strength
    to halt manpower reductions and remain at the projected fiscal year
    2008 level of near 330,000 and to ensure that added risk in manpower is
    to resource essential future bomber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
    Reconnaissance, combat airmen, and other emerging joint war fighting
    capabilities is minimized.
                                 strategic lift
        Question. Secretary Wynne, there is some uncertainty about the
    Department's strategic lift plans. The C-5 reliability and re-engining
    program has reported a Nunn-McCurdy cost overrun, while the fiscal year
    2008 budget request funds to begin shutting down the C-17 Globemaster
    production line. At the same time, both the Army and the Marine Corps
    are planning significant increases in end strength. What action is the
    Air Force taking to define requirements, assess risk, and refine or
    develop its strategic lift strategy?
        Answer. The Air Force is taking a hard look at its C-5 inventory,
    specifically the economic and operational feasibility of modernizing
    this aging fleet. Study is ongoing to evaluate the impacts and benefits
    associated with recapitalization and modernization decisions. In order
    to maintain the minimum sized fleet of strategic airlifters as defined
    by the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study (292 aircraft) and the 2007
    National Defense Authorization Act mandate (299 aircraft), any
    reduction in the current fleet size would result in a need for
    procurement of additional aircraft. Increases in land forces are
    currently under review and may impact strategic lift requirements.
    Toward this end, the Air Staff and the lead major command, Air Mobility
    Command, are working together to analyze the associated current and
    future total strategic lift requirements.
        Question. Secretary Wynne, do I have your assurance that the Air
    Force will consult with the Senate as you work through the strategic
    lift issues?
        Answer. We are committed to an open and transparent process to
    ensure America has the assets it needs to protect itself and its
    allies. Strategic lift is an Air Force core competency that projects
    global reach and we are keeping Congress fully informed of our progress
    in determining the right mix of strategic lift assets to fulfill that
    mission.
                                 c-40 aircraft
        Question. Secretary Wynne, the fiscal year 2008 budget includes
    $48.6 million to purchase two C-40 aircraft that are currently leased
    by the Air National Guard at Andrews Air Force Base. The aircraft were
    leased for a six-year term in 2002 and it expires in 2009, at which
    time the Air Force plans to purchase the aircraft. What is the total
    projected Air Force inventory and basing plan for C-40 aircraft?
        Answer. The program of record calls for a total inventory of ten C-
    40 aircraft. The basing plan for C-40 aircraft is as follows:
      --Andrews AFB MD--5;
      --Scott AFB IL--3;
      --Hickam AFB HI--1; and
      --Ramstein AB GE--1.
        Question. Is the purchase after lease plan for the two C-40
    aircraft at Andrews the best alternative for the Air Force from a cost
    perspective? Was it part of the original contract?
        Answer. Purchase is the best cost and operational alternative when
    the six-year lease term expires. The option to purchase the aircraft at
    the negotiated residual value of $24 million each is part of the
    original lease contract.
        Question. Does the Air Force plan to retire the C-9s and procure
    more C-40s for the unit at Scott Air Force Base? If so, when will those
    purchases occur?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2008 President's budget funds the C-9C
    through fiscal year 2011. The program of record retires the C-9Cs at
    the end of fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 2008 President's budget
    does not include funding to procure additional C-40s for the unit at
    Scott Air Force Base, IL.
                             satellite acquisition
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the Air Force has yet to demonstrate that
    it has schedule, costs, and quality under control when building
    satellite systems. When systems seem on the verge of recovering from
    years of challenges, DOD reduces the number of satellites and begins a
    new more high tech satellite as a replacement system to a system that
    hasn't launched yet. In this environment, how can the Air Force bring
    stability to space programs and the industrial base?
        Answer. To stabilize its space programs the Air Force is
    implementing a Block Approach wherever practical. This approach is
    based on delivering capability through discrete value-added increments
    and is consistent with current Department of Defense policy that
    specifies ``evolutionary acquisition as the preferred strategy'' for
    its acquisition. Each capability increment balances capability, budget,
    schedule, and technology maturity. The use of a Block Approach will
    enable a constant, on-going rhythm of design, build, launch, and
    operations that will ultimately reduce the acquisition cycle time,
    foster stability in the industrial base and workforce, and allow the
    Air Force to field better systems over time, all while increasing
    confidence in our production schedule and cost. Ultimately, the
    warfighter should receive a rhythm of needed, timely, affordable
    capability.
                              joint strike fighter
        Question. Secretary Wynne, the fiscal year 2008 budget includes
    funding to procure six conventional take-off and landing Joint Strike
    Fighters. The Defense Acquisition Board is scheduled to meet next month
    to review the program and approve the low-rate initial production of
    aircraft. Would you bring us up to date on the status of this program?
        Answer. The F-35 program is in the 6th year of a 12 year
    development program. The F-35 program is on track for Low Rate Initial
    Production (LRIP) I contract award. The Program Executive Officer for
    F-35 briefed the Defense Acquisition Board on April 11, 2007 to garner
    approval for full-award of two Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL)
    aircraft and long-lead item purchase for six CTOLs in LRIP II. The F135
    Pratt and Whitney engine has completed over 7,300 hours of testing on
    12 engines and continues to meet performance parameters. The F-35 AA-1
    (first CTOL aircraft) has flown nine times for 8.9 hours as of March
    26, 2007 powered by an F135 engine. This aircraft is validating design,
    manufacturing, test processes and vehicle performance. Eleven
    additional developmental aircraft are being built. All eight partner
    countries signed the Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development
    Memorandum of Understanding.
        Question. Secretary Wynne, last year, the Congress directed the
    Department to conduct an analysis of the potential savings and costs
    for developing two engine sources for the Joint Strike Fighter to
    enable competition. The study is due this month. In the interim, the
    Department is required to continue funding the alternative engine
    development program. The Air Force has not complied with that
    direction. Could you give us the Air Force views on this program?
        Answer. Congress appropriated an additional $340 million in fiscal
    year 2007 to continue development of the F136 Engine. The Department is
    continuing the development of the F136 engine in fiscal year 2007 as
    directed by Congress. In accordance with the fiscal year 2007 John
    Warner National Defense Authorization Act, three studies were conducted
    by the Government Accountability Office, the Institute for Defense
    Analysis, and the Cost Analysis Improvement Group to re-examine the
    procurement and lifecycle cost impacts of terminating the alternate
    engine program. Initial out-briefs were given to Congress on March 22,
    2007. Final reports are being written and should be finished by June
    2007. The Air Force stands by the Department of Defense's decision to
    cancel F136 development due to acceptable risk and constrained budgets,
    but sees the potential benefit of a second engine source if funding
    were available. The Department of Defense is awaiting the final reports
    of the studies that are re-evaluating the costs and benefits of an
    alternate engine.
                              joint cargo aircraft
        Question. Secretary Wynne, the Joint Cargo Aircraft is viewed by
    some as a key program needed to supply ground troops who are deployed
    to areas that cannot be served by larger aircraft. Is the Air Force
    committed to purchasing whichever version of the Joint Cargo Aircraft
    that wins the source selection scheduled for this summer?
        Answer. The Army and Air Force Vice Chiefs signed an agreement in
    June 2006 documenting our commitment to the program and outlining each
    Service's roles and responsibilities. The Joint Cargo Aircraft would be
    added to the Air Force's intra-theater airlift and Homeland Security
    missions.
        Question. Secretary Wynne, has the Air Force determined how many
    Joint Cargo Aircraft it requires? Are these requirements changing in
    light of the proposed growth of the Army and Marine Corps?
        Answer. The Air Force has not determined how many Joint Cargo
    Aircraft (JCA) it requires. The Air Force will know its requirements by
    the time the JCA Defense Acquisition Board meets on May 30, 2007. The
    JCA requirements are not currently expected to change in light of the
    proposed growth of the Army and Marine Corps.
                              joint strike fighter
        Question. What funding amount would be required in fiscal year 2008
    to continue the alternative engine project for the Joint Strike
    Fighter?
        Answer. Continued development of the F136 engine would require
    approximately $500 million in fiscal year 2008. The Air Force portion
    of that cost would be approximately $250 million.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
                                   c-5 fleet
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I sent you a letter last week relaying
    extreme concern about statements attributed to U.S. Department of Air
    Force (USAF) officials about retiring some or all of the C-5A Aircraft.
    I look forward to your response and possibly meeting with you sometime
    in the near future about this matter.
        Mr. Secretary, I am advised that the USAF Program of Record
    supports modernization of the entire C-5 fleet. Likewise, I understand
    that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and the 2005 Mobility
    Capabilities Study validated the requirement and support modernization
    of the entire C-5 fleet. Further, the President's fiscal year 2008
    budget request for the Air Force supports C-5 aircraft modernization
    through the Avionics Modernization and the Reliability Enhancement and
    Re-Engining Programs.
        With all of these official milestone C-5 modernization decisions in
    place, what has changed and why is the Air Force publicly discussing
    the retirement of C-5As at this time, conflicting with its own studies
    and analysis?
        Answer. C-5 modernization, specifically the Reliability and Re-
    Engining Program (RERP), is facing increasing cost pressures bringing
    into question the cost effectiveness of the program for a fleet of 111
    aircraft. It is also my desire to continue the recapitalization of Air
    Force aircraft. Additionally, the C-5A fleet is showing some
    significant metal corrosion and stress cracking adding to the
    investment required to maintain viability of this fleet. The average
    age of the current Air Force fleet is 26 years per aircraft. The C-5A
    portion of the fleet is, on average, over 35 years old. Continuing the
    retirement of legacy aircraft facilitates the equipping of an Air Force
    able to maintain the required airlift capability for combatant
    commanders in both peacetime and contingency operations.
        Question. Is this the official position of the Air Force on the
    matter? If so, what criteria is the Air Force using to determine
    ``worst performing'' aircraft?
        Answer. The Air Force official position is that I would like the
    ability, with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, to manage the Air
    Force fleet without congressional restriction and mandate. Air Force
    professionals are the best educated and equipped to make force
    structure decisions with regard to air and space power. With that being
    said, we are exploring every option to find the most effective and
    fiscally responsible answer to meet the strategic airlift needs of the
    Air Force of today and tomorrow.
        If the decision is made to retire some number of C-5A aircraft, the
    Air Force would use mission capable rate, maintenance man-hour/flying
    hour, cumulative flight hours, total outstanding structural repair and
    modification costs, total landings, and next programmed depot
    maintenance input dates as factors to stratify the fleet.
        Question. Under what timeline is the Air Force planning to act and
    to inform Congress and the impacted bases of such retirements?
        Answer. There is no current plan to retire specific aircraft or
    from specific bases. The proper fleet mix of strategic airlift aircraft
    is currently under review. Current legislation does not allow the Air
    Force to retire any C-5 aircraft until the Operational Test and
    Evaluation report of the C-5A aircraft, currently in flight test, is
    delivered. The report will not deliver until fiscal year 2010, 2 full
    years after the shutdown of the C-17 production line has begun. If
    relieved of legislative restrictions, the Air Force would be able to
    effectively manage the mix of various aircraft fleets. Preliminary
    options under review include replacing retiring strategic airlift
    aircraft with new C-17s or backfilling with newer C-5Bs from within the
    Air Force. No new units are anticipated. Likewise, closures of existing
    units are not planned. The Air Force will be open and transparent with
    regard to basing plans.
        Question. Are any of the C-5As that are scheduled to arrive at the
    167th Airlift Wing over the next two years among the worst performers
    noted by the Air Force Chief of Staff?
        Answer. The Air Force has not determined which specific C-5A
    aircraft will go to Martinsburg, West Virginia. The Air Force must
    conduct further analysis to finalize the specific aircraft involved and
    when they will be available for transfer to the 167th Airlift Wing.
        Question. Is it true that the Air Force's Fleet Viability Board
    found the C-5A fleet to be healthy and with decades of service life
    remaining? Is it also true that the C-5s have about 70 percent service
    life remaining and can serve through 2040?
        Answer. The Fleet Viability Board found the C-5A fleet could be
    kept viable at least until 2029 (25 years from 2004 assessment) with
    the addition of the Avionics Modernization Program and Reliability
    Enhancement and Re-engine Program modifications. In addition, the Board
    projected the C-5A will likely need an avionics upgrade on the scale of
    today's Avionics Modernization Program around fiscal year 2020 to deal
    with technology obsolescence and future operational requirements.
    According to testing and analyses, from a structural fatigue
    standpoint, it is true the C-5A has at least a 70 percent service life
    remaining. The Board has not performed any further analysis projecting
    beyond 2029.
        Question. Is it true that during IRAQI FREEDOM operations, the C-5
    flew 23 percent of the missions and delivered nearly 47 percent of the
    cargo; carried 63 percent more cargo per mission than the C-17; and
    delivered more cargo than any other aircraft?
        Answer. The following mission data collected by Air Mobility
    Command shows the most current figures:
      --The C-5 flew 16 percent of the missions (C-17 flew 29.8 percent).
      --The C-5 delivered 25.3 percent of the cargo (C-17 delivered 36.4
            percent).
      --The C-5 carried 25 percent more cargo per mission than the C-17
            (Average of 50 short tons per mission for C-5; 38 short tons
            per mission for C-17).
      --The C-5 ranked third in delivered cargo amongst aircraft types (#1.
            Commercial: 427,769 short tons, #2. C-17: 433,421 short tons,
            #3. C-5: 301,202 short tons).
        Excluding commercial aircraft from the analysis, and only counting
    military aircraft, the percentages are:
      --The C-5 flew 26.4 percent of the missions (C-17 flew 50.5 percent).
      --The C-5 delivered 39.5 percent of the cargo (C-17 delivered 56.8
            percent).
      --The C-5 carried 25 percent more cargo per mission than the C-17
            (Average of 50 short tons per mission for C-5; 38 short tons
            per mission for C-17).
      --The C-5 ranked second in delivered cargo amongst aircraft types
            (#1. C-17: 433,421 short tons, #2. C-5: 301,202 short tons).

                                                   OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM DEPLOY/SUSTAINMENT/REDEPLOY TOTALS
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Flying    Percent    Percent    Percent     STons/
                                                 Missions   Sorties      Pax       STons     Offloads    Hours     Missions   Sorties     STons     Mission
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Aircraft Type

    C-5.......................................      6,016     32,277    156,526    301,202     13,395    172,481       15.6       19.6       25.3      50.07
    C-17......................................     11,514     54,056    232,812    433,421     25,044    216,697       29.8       32.8       36.4      37.64
    C-130.....................................      1,440      7,432      6,002      2,253        779     36,811        3.7        4.5        0.2       1.56
    C-141.....................................      1,426      8,317     33,356     16,780      3,553     40,042        3.7        5.1        1.4      11.77
    Commercial................................     15,856     56,084  2,127,858    427,769     24,649    299,686       41.0       34.1       35.9      26.98
    KC-10.....................................        521      2,283     10,403      7,699      1,115     13,609        1.3        1.4        0.6      14.78
    KC-135....................................      1,690      3,560     16,986      1,491      1,477     27,939        4.4        2.2        0.1       0.88
    OTHER.....................................        185        567        185          2         60        912        0.5        0.3        0.0       0.01
                                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...............................     38,648    164,576  2,584,128  1,190,617     70,072    808,177  .........  .........  .........  .........

               Excluding Commercial

    C-5.......................................      6,016     32,277    156,526    301,202     13,395    172,481       26.4       29.8       39.5      50.07
    C-17......................................     11,514     54,056    232,812    433,421     25,044    216,697       50.5       49.8       56.8      37.64
    C-130.....................................      1,440      7,432      6,002      2,253        779     36,811        6.3        6.9        0.3       1.56
    C-141.....................................      1,426      8,317     33,356     16,780      3,553     40,042        6.3        7.7        2.2      11.77
    KC-10.....................................        521      2,283     10,403      7,699      1,115     13,609        2.3        2.1        1.0      14.78
    KC-135....................................      1,690      3,560     16,986      1,491      1,477     27,939        7.4        3.3        0.2       0.88
    OTHER.....................................        185        567        185          2         60        912        0.8        0.5        0.0       0.01
                                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...............................     22,792    108,492    456,270    762,848     45,423    508,491  .........  .........  .........  .........
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please explain why a modernized fleet of 111 C-5s and 190
    C-17s, a ratio that has been validated by the U.S. Air Force and other
    military organizations and studies, is now no longer an adequate
    solution to meet the nation's strategic airlift requirements.
        Answer. The current programs of record and the resulting 301
    strategic airlift aircraft meet current and projected requirements at
    the ``bare minimum'' of acceptable risk. The question at hand is the
    future viability of the Air Force strategic airlift fleet. As the C-5A
    fleet continues to age beyond an average of 35 years, the increased
    investment required to modernize and replace portions of the airframe
    facing stress cracks and corrosion makes this the opportune time to
    shape the future fleet.
        Question. Are there other aircraft in the U.S. inventory, beyond
    the C-5, that are capable of moving 100 percent of the Department of
    Defense airlift requirements?
        Answer. The Air Transportability Test Loading Agency (ATTLA) is the
    Department of Defense agency responsible for the approval of airlift
    cargo. The C-5 is the only aircraft capable of moving 100 percent of
    the ATTLA approved items. Air Mobility Command identified seven
    critical, time-sensitive items or National Security Sensitive items
    that are only airlifted via the C-5. This being said, a robust,
    modernized C-5 fleet is a force multiplier, carrying roughly twice the
    palletized payload of a C-17. This enables the C-17 fleet to fully
    exploit its unique multi-role, aeromedical, airdrop, special-operations
    and austere airfield capabilities (short/unimproved airfields, direct
    delivery). The programmed strategic airlift fleet, when fully mobilized
    and augmented by the Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet, provides sufficient
    airlift capability to support U.S. strategic and operational objectives
    during large-scale deployments, while concurrently supporting other
    high priority operations and sustainment of forward deployed forces.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, let me state for the record that I would
    be very opposed to efforts to prematurely retire C-5A aircraft with out
    a firm commitment from the Air Force that C-5B aircraft will
    alternatively be assigned to the 167th Airlift Wing in Martinsburg,
    West Virginia. We need to ensure that the significant military
    construction investment that has been made at the Martinsburg Air
    National Guard Base in recent years will be fully realized by the U.S.
    military and the U.S. taxpayers. I look forward to your response to my
    letter of March 14, 2007, and to these questions for the record.
        Mr. Secretary, I also understand that at the same hearing, the Air
    Force Chief of Staff made comments about the extensive maintenance
    requirements associated with the C-5 aircraft. As you are aware, the
    Air Force is launching a new regionalized approach to standardizing and
    reducing the time of Isochronal (ISO) Inspections for C-5 Aircraft. In
    fact, the 167th Airlift Wing at the Martinsburg Air National Guard Base
    has recently been selected as one of three regional sites that will
    conduct these inspections. ISO inspections are conducted on C-5
    aircraft every 420 days in accordance with Air Force regulations, and
    include hundreds of inspections covering the airframe, propulsion, and
    all systems of the C-5 aircraft. Under regionalized ISOs on the 420 day
    schedule, inspections will only require 15 days per inspection, rather
    than the current forty-day endeavor.
        Do you believe that this new streamlined process developed by the
    Air Force, which will be in place next year, will help with the C-5
    reliability issues that have been raised by the Air Force?
        Answer. The primary benefit of regionalized Isochronal Inspections
    will be increased aircraft availability through reduced inspection and
    repair time, but it would not address the reliability issues plaguing
    the C-5A.
        Question. Mr Secretary, I have also heard that the Air Force is
    concerned about possible cost overruns associated with the Reliability
    Enhancement and Re-Engining Program (RERP) for the C-5 fleet, which is
    leading the Air Force to consider the premature retirement of C-5A
    aircraft. In reviewing the planned modification schedules for RERP, it
    appears that the Air Force has stretched this program out to the point
    where the Air Force itself has contributed much to the overall program
    cost growth that is currently under discussion.
        Is it possible that the Air Force's desire to slow down the program
    drives inefficiencies, which drives up costs? What would it take to
    accelerate the C-5 RERP program and create greater efficiencies in
    production? Does the C-5 RERP pay for itself and generate substantial
    additional savings over the projected service life of this aircraft?
        Answer. The Air Force does not desire to slow down C-5 RERP.
    Rather, the delays and ``stretch'' to the RERP schedule are due
    primarily to upward cost pressures for RERP production associated with
    GE engines, Goodrich pylons and Lockheed Martin touch labor. A detailed
    Air Force cost estimating effort is underway (projected to be complete
    by July 2007) that will determine the extent of the cost growth and
    result in a service cost position for the C-5 RERP. Given a constrained
    program budget across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), any RERP
    production cost growth will translate into reductions to the planned
    annual kit quantities and delays to the RERP schedule and projected
    completion dates.
        To keep RERP on its previous schedule (and limit the inefficiencies
    due to reduced production quantities), it would likely take significant
    RERP funding increases across the FYDP and beyond. The exact amount
    will not be known until the ongoing cost estimating effort is completed
    in July 2007. Adding significant funding within the FYDP above what has
    been previously programmed for RERP will be extremely challenging given
    the current fiscally constrained environment.
        Ongoing evaluation of C-5 RERP has brought previous estimates of
    cost savings into question. The assumptions that led to predictions of
    substantial cost savings through 2040 did not account for the recently
    identified cost pressures associated with engines, pylons, and touch
    labor. Analysis of overall RERP cost savings is part of the cost
    estimating effort projected to complete in July 2007.
        Question. What is the interpretation of the Air Force of Section
    132 of the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act that
    precludes the retirement of any number of C-5As that would bring the
    total C-5A/B/C fleet below 112 aircraft until an operational evaluation
    and assessment was performed on a RERPed-modified C5A?
        Answer. The language of Section 132, fiscal year 2004 Defense
    Authorization Act, Limitation on Retiring C-5 Aircraft, provides: ``The
    Air Force may not proceed with a decision to retire C-5A aircraft from
    the active Air Force inventory that will reduce the active C-5 fleet
    below 112 aircraft until two conditions are satisfied: (1) the Air
    Force has modified a C-5A aircraft to the RERP configuration as planned
    under the program as of May 1, 2003, and (2) the DOD Director of
    Operational Test and Evaluation conducts an operational evaluation of
    the RERPed aircraft and provides an operational assessment to the
    Secretary of Defense and Congressional Defense Committees.''
        The operational evaluation referred to above requires an evaluation
    conducted during operational testing and evaluation of the RERPed
    aircraft that addresses the performance of the aircraft concerning
    reliability, maintainability, and availability with respect to critical
    operational issues. The operational assessment referred to above is a
    operational assessment of the C-5 RERP program to determine the overall
    strengths and weaknesses of the program to improve performance of the
    RERPed C-5 aircraft relative to requirements and specifications in
    effect May, 1, 2003, for reliability, maintainability, and availability
    of the RERPed C-5 aircraft.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                  fiscal year 2008 unfunded request for c-17s
        Question. In its Fiscal Year 2008 Unfunded Priorities List, the Air
    Force requests funding for 2 additional C-17s. How was this number
    determined? Did this determination include a consideration of potential
    requirement emitting from a 92,000 increase in troop endstrength? Did
    this determination include a consideration of a potential requirement
    emitting from the Army's Combat System.
        Answer. The Air Force determined that 2 additional C-17 aircraft
    above the programmed 190 are required to meet Backup Aircraft Inventory
    (BAI) and GWOT overfly requirements. The planned 180 C-17 aircraft
    fleet was assessed to be deficient by 7 BAI aircraft and 5 aircraft
    short due to higher than planned utilization supporting the GWOT. The
    10 aircraft added by Congress in fiscal year 2007 solved the BAI
    deficiency and some of the GWOT overfly requirements. Two additional
    aircraft are needed to meet the GWOT deficiency. The decision to
    identify two C-17 aircraft on the fiscal year 2008 unfunded priorities
    list did not consider emerging requirements such as the increased Army
    and Marine Corps endstrength or the Army's Future Combat System.
                                      c-17
        Question. In its fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Air Force
    once again requests funding to terminate the C-17 program. If the C-17
    line were to close down, how do you anticipate the Air Force would
    respond if the official strategic airlift requirements moved beyond 299
    or in the case of the C-17, 180? If the C-17 program was terminated,
    are there other military transport aircraft currently manufactured in
    the United States that could be used to address an increase in the
    strategic airlift requirement?
        Answer. In the event the strategic airlift requirement increases,
    the Air Force would need to address this requirement with existing
    civilian airlift production lines, procure non-U.S. airlift platforms,
    or procure other existing military aircraft (e.g., C-130J).
                         strategic airlift requirements
        Question. In my view, the future drivers of airlift include the
    continuing Global War on Terrorism, the return of forces from forward
    deployed locations to the United States, 92,000 additional soldiers and
    Marines and the planned increase of six Brigade Combat Teams and 33
    Multifunctional brigades in the Army. All of these future drivers point
    to the need for more lift to deploy and sustain them.
        When do you anticipate the Air Force will receive direction
    regarding an updated airlift requirement based on a troop endstrength
    of 92,000? What steps must be completed before the Air Force can inform
    Congress of an updated airlift requirements based on increased military
    endstrength?
        Answer. Please let me address these as two separate questions. The
    Air Force Chief of Staff has directed Air Mobility Command to make an
    initial assessment and provide him with preliminary results by June
    2007. Official direction regarding an updated airlift requirement based
    on a troop end strength increase of 92,000 should emerge during an
    updated mobility study that is scheduled to begin in the Spring of
    2008. At that time, overall deployment and employment requirements will
    be set and the airlift requirements to support those demands can be
    assessed.
        In answer to your second question, the employment timeline for new
    units created as a result of increased military end strength must be
    determined before an updated airlift requirement can be developed.
        Question. Outside any requirements emitting from an increase in
    Army and Marine endstrength, what other factors do you anticipate will
    have a strong influence on strategic airlift requirements over the next
    decade?
        Answer. The Army's Future Force Capstone Concept outlines the
    requirement for operational maneuver from strategic distances, Intra-
    theater operational maneuver, and distributed maneuver support and
    sustainment of brigade combat teams equipped with Future Combat Systems
    and Stryker class vehicles. Based on this outline, it can be concluded
    that this future Army maneuver scheme will have a strong influence on
    strategic airlift requirements over the next decade.
                          mobility capabilities study
        Question. There has been tremendous criticism within the Congress
    regarding the recommendations in the Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS).
    Moreover, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has questioned
    many of the assumptions of the MCS.
        Outside of the findings of the MCS, what evidence do you have that
    180 C-17s will be sufficient to meet our military's future airlift
    requirements?
        Answer. There are no current studies outside of the Mobility
    Capabilities Study upon which to base an assessment of the military's
    future airlift requirements.
        Question. When will the Air Force complete the comprehensive
    Mobility Requirements Study required by the fiscal year 2007 John
    Warner National Defense Authorization Act?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 John Warner National Defense
    Authorization Act required the Secretary of Defense to determine
    Department of Defense mobility requirements and submit a report on
    those requirements to the congressional defense committees. The Air
    Force, while not responsible for completing this report, has
    coordinated on a draft of the required report. The status of the
    report's completion rests with the Defense Department staff.
        Question. Was the 180 requirement number in the MCS a ``static''
    figure, or did it come within a broader range of recommended airlift?
    If it came within a range, what was that range?
        Answer. The 180 number, mentioned in the Mobility Capability Study,
    refers to the C-17 component of the then-current program of 292
    strategic airlift aircraft, which was judged adequate to support the
    National Military Strategy (NMS) with acceptable risk. (The remaining
    112 aircraft in the 292-aircraft program consisted of C-5s.) While 292
    strategic airlift aircraft support the capability required to meet the
    NMS with acceptable operational risk, the MCS did discuss a range of
    strategic airlift aircraft. The 292 number reflects the lower end of
    that range. The upper end of the range was stated as 383 strategic
    airlift aircraft. The greater number yields reduced operational risk in
    some areas, along with generally improved flexibility.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                                    mp-rtip
        Question. The Air Force put a funding request in the fiscal year
    2008 GWOT Supplemental and in the Unfunded Priorities List for the
    large MP-RTIP; however, OSD and the Air Force are taking steps to
    terminate the large MP-RTIP prior to Congress having an opportunity to
    make a decision on continuing the large MP-RTIP. What is OSD and the
    Air Force's plan to protect the large radar's technology until the
    Congress has made a decision?
        Answer. SECAF-OSD and the Air Force are working closely to preserve
    the options for the MP-RTIP technology, but are also working hard to
    keep the costs down during the current fiscal year. The Air Force, in
    coordination with OSD, has taken initial steps in starting to ramp down
    the large MP-RTIP radar development based on the fiscal year 2008
    submission and are working the overall impacts to the fiscal year 2008
    funding elimination on the E-10 program. The timing of congressional
    activities for the fiscal year 2008 budget is being factored into the
    planning currently being done and final direction on fiscal year 2007
    activities has not been given by OSD to the Air Force.
                                  e-10 program
        Question. In the fiscal year 2008 budget the Air Force stopped
    development of the E-10 program including the development of the large
    radar. What happened to the operational requirement for the program?
        Answer. The operational requirement for the program has not changed
    because of the cancelling of the E-10 program. The Air Force is
    mitigating what the Multi Platform--Radar Technology Insertion Program
    (MP-RTIP) Wide Area Surveillance (WAS) radar would have provided by
    procuring three additional Global Hawk (GH) Block 40 for a total of 15
    GH Block 40s. The GH Block 40 will provide a ground moving target
    indicator and synthetic aperture radar imaging, but with reduced
    coverage area compared to the E-10. The cruise missile defense
    capability the E-10 was bringing to the warfighter will be an unfilled
    capability gap.
        On December 13, 2006, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    directed ``United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) and USD (AT&L),
    in coordination with the Services, to lead a study to assess the likely
    effectiveness of the United States air and cruise missile defense
    architecture and systems in fiscal year 2015.'' Additionally,
    USSTRATCOM will leverage the results completed on the Sensor Weapon
    Pairing Task Force Study and the ongoing integrated Air and Missile
    Evaluation of Alternatives to provide more complete coverage for air
    and missile defense. If warranted, USSTRATCOM will provide
    recommendations for suggested improvement in capabilities and present
    the results by August 15, 2007 to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
                                    mp-rtip
        Question. Do you believe the large radar is still needed for force
    protection, including against cruise missiles? If not, what has
    changes? If so, how are you meeting the operational requirement?
        Answer. Yes, the Air Force still believes the large radar is needed
    for force protection including the capability to defend against cruise
    missiles. Component commanders still have a valid requirement to see
    low-observable low-altitude activities, today and in the future. With
    the exception of cruise missile defense, Joint STARS is providing
    ground moving target indicator (GMTI) and synthetic aperture radar
    (SAR) for the warfighter. The capability the Global Hawk Block 40 will
    bring adds to the GMTI and SAR range/coverage beyond Joint STARS'
    capability. For cruise missile defense, there will be a capability gap
    that will not be met and the Department is accepting the risk based on
    fiscal constraints.
        Question. Have you considered moving the mission to the Joint STARS
    aircraft by installing the new radar on the fleet of the already
    operational aircraft?
        Answer. Yes, the Air Force has assessed the value to migrate the
    Cruise Missile Defense mission to Joint STARS. However, in light of
    budget considerations, the ongoing Air and Cruise Missile Defense
    architecture study, and the assessed Cruise Missile Defense capability
    with MP-RTIP on Joint STARS, it was not deemed critical to replace the
    Joint STARS radar at this time. However, if a decision were made to
    replace the Joint STARS radar, it would be replaced with the MP-RTIP.
        Question. Since you are re-engining Joint STARS, why haven't you
    transferred the MP-RTIP radar to the Joint STARS platform? You placed
    the MP-RTIP in your top 20 programs in the Unfunded Requirements List.
    What platform were you planning on using to flight test the radar since
    you terminated the E-10 program?
        Answer. Re-enginging Joint STARS was needed to allow that aircraft
    to better perform its mission and meet operational requirements. While
    the re-engine effort provides for a more capable platform, replacing
    the current radar system on Joint STARS is unaffordable at this time.
        If funding were made available, the unfunded priority list request
    for MP-RTIP would continue the Wide Area Surveillance large radar
    variant for an additional year of development headed towards a flight
    test program. Additional funding would be required to reach a flight
    test.
        Question. In the GWOT Supplemental, you requested funding for
    upgrading the backend of Joint STAS to handle MP-RTIP data, and you
    requested funding for further development of the large MP-RTIP;
    however, you requested funding for the E-10. If you already cancelled
    the E-10, why didn't you request this additional funding to move the
    radar to Joint STARS, instead of continuing on the E-10?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2008 President's budget request included
    funding to complete the development and flight testing of the MP-RTIP
    variant for Global Hawk Block 40, not to continue the E-10 program
    itself. This activity is on schedule to be operational in 2011. We
    evaluated transitioning the MP-RTIP technology to Joint STARS. However,
    the GWOT funding requested to address the diminishing manufacturing
    sources related to the Joint STARS mission equipment is only a small
    fraction of the funding required to transition the MP-RTIP to Joint
    STARS. The notion of keeping the large radar technology alive and
    potentially putting it on the Joint STARS in the future is why it was
    placed on the Air Force's unfunded priority list as the number 15
    priority.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                              joint cargo aircraft
        Question. Secretary Wynne, I understand the Air Force is working in
    conjunction with the Army on the development of the Joint Cargo
    Aircraft. And I have been informed that the Air Force requirements for
    this aircraft are being developed and should be defined by the fiscal
    year for future procurement starting in fiscal year 2010. I commend the
    Army and Air Force for working together to meet requirements while
    saving resources.
        Could you provide us with the current status of this program?
        Answer. The Army and Air Force are on track to complete the
    documentation required to support a Milestone C decision for low rate
    initial production in May 2007. Additionally, the source selection
    evaluations are nearing completion. We expect the winner to be
    announced very shortly after a successful Milestone C decision.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
                                  f-22 beddown
        Question. As you know, Holloman Air Force Base has some amazing
    assets to offer the Air Force, including air space and nearby training
    capabilities at White Sands Missile Range. Your budget proposes
    retiring the remaining Holloman F-117s in fiscal year 2008, but I
    understand that a transition plan is in place to bring F-22s to the
    base. I am excited about working with the Air Force on this transition
    have a few questions about it.
        What total amount does the Air Force need for the F-22 beddown at
    Holloman, and when will those funds be budgeted for?
        Answer. The Air Force needs a total of $40 million in renovation
    and Military Construction projects for F-22A beddown at Holloman, Air
    Force Base, NM. In fiscal year 2006, Holloman executed $10.8 million on
    renovation projects. The fiscal year 2008 President's budget request
    lays out a further $26.625 million for Planning and Design and Military
    Construction projects spanning fiscal years 2008 through 2010. The
    remaining $2.5 million of the $40 million total is one project
    (squadron operations building) which is currently unfunded. The Air
    Force will reallocate funding internally to fund this project.
        Question. I've heard about differences in the number of authorized
    jobs at Holloman as a result of this transition, but what will the end
    difference be between the number of actual jobs at Holloman now and
    after the F-22s are fully operational?
        Answer. Two-hundred and seventy-four positions will be lost as a
    result of the transition from F-117s to F-22s. An additional 221
    positions will leave due to all other actions impacting Holloman Air
    Force Base. These numbers do not include any changes to the contractor
    workforce.
              new missions for holloman air force base, new mexico
        Question. Is the Air Force looking at other missions that could
    benefit from Holloman's air space and other assets, including working
    with other Services on joint missions?
        Answer. Yes, the Air Force is working closely with the Army to
    expand the use of White Sands Missile Range (WSMR)--Holloman airspace
    for future F-22 training. This training will be integrated with
    existing Joint Air and Missile Defense training of PATRIOT crews and
    multi-Service command and control staffs. The Air Force plans to
    conduct extensive supersonic training and will fly defensive missions
    in support of multi-Service air-ground operations as well as air-to-air
    missions in support of unilateral and joint training events. In the
    future, the Air Force will also be looking to leverage Special
    Operations Force forces stationed at Cannon Air Force Base for
    conventional-special operations forces integration training in the
    WSMR-Holloman training complex.
                                 46th test wing
        Question. What is in the budget for the 46th Test Wing, including
    the Central Inertial Guidance Test Facility at Holloman?
        Answer. The following table represents the current budget picture
    for the 46th Test Wing at Holloman Air Force Base, NM:

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       46 Test Wing    46 Test Group
                            Fiscal year 2008                               Total            \1\          CIGTF \2\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Institutional and Military Personnel Funding....................         259,605          36,091           8,969
    Base Operations Support.........................................             394             394             100
    Facility Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization...............           4,588           1,588             200
    Military Construction...........................................           9,100  ..............  ..............
    Improvement & Modernization.....................................          23,844           4,079           1,289
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................         297,531          42,152          10,558
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Values in the 3rd and 4th columns are broken out of the 2nd column.
    \2\ Values in the 4th column are broken out of the 3rd column.

                          new missions for cannon afb
        Question. As you know, Cannon Air Force Base was placed in enclave
    status as a result of the 2005 BRAC process, and the Department of
    Defense was instructed to seek a new mission for Cannon. Last June, the
    Department decided Cannon will be home to a new Air Force Special
    Operations Command wing. I look forward to working with the Air Force
    and Special Operations Command on this new mission and making this
    transition go as smooth as possible. From an Air Force perspective, how
    is the transition process going thus far?
        Answer. In accordance with BRAC 2005, F-16s began departing Cannon
    Air Force Base in January 2007 with all F-16 aircraft reassigned by the
    end of March 2008. Cannon Air Force Base will stand up the 16th Special
    Operations Wing as the new mission in October 2007, with the 73rd
    Special Operations Squadron as the first flying organization. This
    transition is proceeding on the programmed timeline.
                    special operations assets for cannon afb
        Question. What is the time-line for moving F-16s from Cannon and
    bringing Special Operations assets to Cannon?
        Answer. All F-16s will depart Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico by
    the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2008 as follows:
      --Fiscal year 2007/3--last jet leaves from 523rd Fighter Squadron, F-
            16 Block 30.
      --Fiscal year 2007/4--last jet leaves from 524th Fighter Squadron, F-
            16 Block 40.
      --Fiscal year 2008/2--last jet leaves from 522nd Fighter Squadron, F-
            16 Block 50.
        Cannon Air Force Base will transfer from Air Combat Command to Air
    Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) effective October 2007. The
    AFSOC Detachment 1 has been established and pending completion of the
    ongoing environmental impact statement, AFSOC will move the 73rd
    Special Operations Squadron to Cannon Air Force Base in October 2007.
    The remaining forces will flow to Cannon Air Force Base between fiscal
    years 2008 and 2010.
                      military construction for cannon afb
        Question. What MILCON projects will the Air Force build at Cannon
    as a result of this new mission, and when will these projects be
    completed?
        Answer. Below is a list of Air Force Military Construction
    infrastructure projects programmed to support the new mission at Cannon
    Air Force Base, NM. These projects will typically be completed within
    two years of being authorized and appropriated.

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Fiscal year                                     Project Title                      Projected Cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    08.......................................  Add/Alter Hangar 109 for C-130.......................            $1.7
    10.......................................  Consolidated Communications Facility.................            15.0
    11.......................................  96-Person Dormitory..................................             7.5
    11.......................................  Child Development Center.............................             7.8
    11.......................................  Add/Alter Waste Water Treatment Plant................             5.0
    12.......................................  96-Person Dormitory..................................             7.5
    12.......................................  Library Education Center.............................             8.0
    12.......................................  96-Person Dormitory..................................             7.5
    12.......................................  Library Education Center.............................             8.0
    13.......................................  Add/Alter Fitness Center.............................             5.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 brac funds for transition of afrl to kirtland
        Question. New Mexico has a third Air Force base that is well known
    for much of its work. Among other things, Kirtland Air Force Base is
    home to the Nuclear Weapons Center, 58th Special Operations Wing, and
    two Air Force Research Laboratories. How much has the Air Force
    budgeted for in BRAC funds to transition AFRL's Space Weather work to
    Kirtland?
        Answer. Under Base Realignment and Closure recommendation number
    187, the Air Force Research Laboratory Battlespace Environment Space
    Vehicles Division at Hanscom Air Force Base, MA, which includes the
    space weather satellite programs, is scheduled to move to Kirtland Air
    Force Base, NM. The Air Force BRAC program budgeted a total of $57.4
    million--$11.9 million to relocate personnel and equipment from Hanscom
    AFB, $42.7 million for construction of a new lab at Kirtland AFB, and
    $2.8 million for related expenses at Kirtland Air Force Base.
                    pararescue/combat rescue training center
        Question. Last year the Senate included $11.4 million in its MILCON
    bill for a new pararescue/combat rescue training center at Kirtland
    because attendance at the school is increasing dramatically as a result
    of the Global War on Terror. Can you tell us a little about the
    school's needs?
        Answer. Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) is an important Air Force
    core competency. Our CSAR forces have been in a low density/high demand
    (LD/HD) situation since Operations DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM and this
    has been exacerbated by the Global War on Terrorism. To fix this we
    have made CSAR-X and our Guardian Angel force, which includes our
    Pararescue Airmen (PJ) and Combat Rescue Officers (CRO), high
    priorities. In addition to CSAR-X, Air Combat Command is growing 143
    additional PJs and CROs over the Future Years Defense Program. This
    will result in removing these valuable forces from LD/HD status. At
    Kirtland Air Force Base this requires us to increase the capacity to
    produce PJs and CROs from 113 to 174 annually. This is going to take
    additional facilities (a rescue and recovery training center, a
    logistics building, and a surgical lab), instructors, equipment, as
    well as the expansion of contracts for paramedic and military freefall
    training.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                 Description                     Type       ------------------------------------------------                     Remarks
                                                                  2007            2008            2009
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Equipment               O&M..............        $365,000  ..............  ..............  Outfit additional 32-man class
    5th class TDY Augmentation Costs....  O&M..............         128,000        $128,000  ..............  ...............................................
    ARC Man days to support 5th class...  O&M..............         ( \1\ )         ( \1\ )  ..............  1,260 man days p/yr for seven ARC augmentees
    Paramedic Contract..................  O&M..............  ..............       2,600,000      $3,500,000  Interim until fiscal year 2010 POM cycle
    Navy MFF Contract...................  O&M..............  ..............       1,000,000       1,500,000  Interim until fiscal year 2010 POM cycle
                                                            ------------------------------------------------
          Total O&M.....................  .................         500,000       3,700,000       5,000,000  ...............................................
                                                            ================================================
    PJ RRTC Design......................  MILCON...........       1,100,000  ..............  ..............  ...............................................
    PJ RRTC Build.......................  MILCON...........  ..............      11,400,000  ..............  ...............................................
    PJ Logistics........................  MILCON...........  ..............       3,700,000  ..............  ...............................................
    PJ Surgical Laboratory..............  MILCON...........  ..............  ..............       4,700,000  ...............................................
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     joint training and testing initiatives
        Question. Clearly New Mexico offers a number of assets of critical
    importance to the Department of Defense, and I'm pleased the Department
    is taking advantage of those assets by locating F-22s at Holloman,
    Special Operations Forces at Cannon, research and space work at
    Kirtland, and a variety of test and evaluation work at White Sands
    Missile Range. Additionally, Fort Bliss often does work in New Mexico,
    either on its own land or on WSMR land. What are you doing to
    coordinate joint training and testing initiatives among these groups?
        Answer. The Air Force coordinates joint training and testing
    whenever possible. For instance, the Defense Planning Guidance
    established the Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) in 2002.
    JNTC's mission is to provide dynamic, capabilities-based training for
    the Department of Defense in support of national security requirements
    across the full spectrum of service, joint, interagency,
    intergovernmental, and multinational operations. Fort Bliss, TX based
    Patriot missiles/crews have routinely participated in air centric
    exercises like RED FLAG-NELLIS. These same Patriot missile battalions
    participated in a variety of virtual, distributed exercises through the
    Distributed Mission Operations Center (DMOC) facility at Kirtland AFB,
    NM. Army Air and Missile Defense units have become habitual training
    partners at our RED FLAG-NELLIS and BLUE FLAG staff training exercises.
    Air Force JNTC funds pay for the sustainment costs for the scenario
    generation server at the DMOC, which provides rapid generation of
    scenarios for exercises and mission rehearsal for personnel from all
    Services and the U.S. Special Operations Command. Additionally, shared
    opportunities for joint test and training in Western Texas and Southern
    New Mexico are actively being explored. As a matter of fact, Mr.
    Manclark (Director of Air Force Test and Evaluation) tentatively plans
    to visit the region in May of this year for that purpose.
                        army and air force coordination
        Question. Will you work with the Secretary of the Army to ensure
    that the Army's and the Air Force's work on New Mexico and Texas are
    coordinated and cooperative whenever possible?
        Answer. Yes. The routine participation of the Fort Bliss, TX Army
    Patriot missile battalions is an example of Army and Air Force
    cooperation. Through the facilities of the Distributed Mission
    Operations Center facility at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, the Army and
    Air Force conduct a variety of joint, live and virtual exercises and is
    indicative of the integration we seek. Air Force RED FLAG, VIRTUAL
    FLAG, and BLUE FLAG exercises also provide a robust event schedule for
    joint live, virtual, and constructive unit and staff training
    opportunities. We will continue to conduct such cooperate training
    whenever possible.
                       joint army and air force training
        Question. Have you ever considered doing joint Air Force/Army Red
    Team/Blue Team exercises using the diverse groups at New Mexico and
    West Texas military facilities?
        Answer. Yes, Air Force considered using New Mexico/West Texas
    military facilities to meet Red Team/Blue Team training requirements
    between the Army and the Air Force. The primary west coast Red Team/
    Blue Team exercise venues are the Army's National Training Center at
    Fort Irwin, CA and the Air Force at Nellis Air Force Base, NV. The east
    coast venue is the Army's Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk,
    LA and the Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base, LA and Little Rock
    Air Force Base, AR. Additionally, the Army/Air Force routinely conduct
    Red Team/Blue Team staff exercises at the Battle Command Training
    Program at Fort Leavenworth, KS and BLUE FLAG at Hurlburt Air Force
    Base, FL. Fort Bliss provides both Red and Blue air defense
    participation in joint training exercises, primarily RED FLAG-NELLIS
    and VIRTUAL FLAG, as well as to numerous Joint Forces Command sponsored
    joint exercises/events. The Air Force will continue to explore new ways
    to further integrate and connect the other Services' diverse war
    fighters who require this type training. New Mexico's Distributed
    Mission Operations Center at Kirtland AFB will remain the hub for
    connecting not only Air Force but also other Service participants to
    joint training exercises/events.
                            150th fighter wing f-16s
        Question. The 150th Fighter Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base has a
    proud heritage as part of the Air National Guard. The 150th used to fly
    Block 40 F-16s, but gave them to the Active Duty force to assist in
    meeting mission priorities. Now the 150th flies Block 30 F-16s, which
    are at risk as a result of BRAC. What is the Air Force doing to develop
    a new mission for the Air National Guard at Kirtland Air Force Base?
        Answer. The 150th Fighter Wing have made great contributions to the
    national defense. They have volunteered to participate in numerous Air
    Expeditionary Force deployments to support wartime taskings. As a
    result of the Base Realignment and Closure 2006 decisions, the 150th
    Fighter Wing increased from a 15 Primary Aircraft Authorized Block 30
    F-16 unit to an 18 PAA Block 30 F-16 unit. As the Air Force moves from
    older generation aircraft to fifth generation aircraft, the Air Reserve
    Component will be a full participant. The current Air Force aircraft
    roadmap has reserve units receiving low time fourth generation fighters
    and fifth generation fighters to keep the units relevant and ready to
    participate in the Air Expeditionary Force.
        Question. Has the Air Force considered giving Block 40 or 50 F-16s
    to the 150th to enable them to continue providing their outstanding
    service to New Mexico and the United States?
        Answer. The current Air Force aircraft roadmap has a modernization
    plan for Air Reserve Component units to recapitalize legacy airframes
    and migrate to fifth generation aircraft. The 150th will be considered
    for new platforms and/or missions as part of the Air Force roadmap.
                    new missions at cannon and holloman afbs
        Question. Can you tell us about the potential Air National Guard
    work with the new missions at Cannon and Holloman?
        Answer. The Air Force Total Force Integration (TFI) initiative
    forms a classic associate F-22 unit with the New Mexico Air National
    Guard and the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
    This association will begin in fiscal year 2008 with the first aircraft
    arriving during fiscal year 2009. The Air National Guard and the Air
    Force continue to explore other TFI initiatives to maximize
    efficiencies and increase combat capability.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to General T. Michael Moseley
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
            air force executive agency for unmanned aerial vehicles
        Question. General Moseley, have the other Services expressed
    opinions on the Air Force serving as executive agent for unmanned
    aerial vehicles? What have been the major comments or critiques?
        Answer. We have received no formal correspondence; however, we are
    aware of many concerns, expressed primarily by Army representatives.
    The Deputy Secretary of Defense received a letter dated March 22, 2007
    from the Alabama Congressional Delegation which expresses their
    ``serious concerns'' and which, we believe, sum up the Army issues.
        Their concerns center on the delineation of UAV missions as
    ``tactical'' (Army) and ``strategic'' (Air Force) and presumed
    derivative capabilities, such as aircraft size (thus expense), flight
    profiles, response times; and, ultimately, competencies, concluding
    that the Air Force ``. . . has little expertise in tactical UAVs . .
    .'' and designating it as Executive Agent would be
    ``counterintuitive.''
        They also state the Army conducts nearly 80 percent of the current
    UAV operations with less than 20 percent of the DOD budget.
        The following facts diminish these concerns:
      --The Air Force is currently flying 75 percent of the medium-altitude
            UAV sorties and 100 percent of the high-altitude UAV sorties.
        --In 2006, the Army flew 93 percent of the 70,000 low-altitude UAV
                hours or about 65,000 hours.
        --In 2006, the Air Force flew 75 percent of the 80,000 medium-
                altitude UAV hours or about 60,000 hours, and 100 percent
                of the 3,500 high-altitude UAV hours.
      --It is of the utmost importance to understand that the delineation
            of UAVs as ``tactical'' or ``strategic'' is to misunderstand
            the attributes of airpower.
        --Aircraft are not inherently strategic or tactical--how aircraft
                are used will determine whether they achieve strategic or
                tactical effects.
        --As airpower doctrine evolved along with advances in technology,
                the Air Force came to understand that it is limiting to
                consign an extremely flexible system to a limited mission
                set: A B-52 can do close air support, an F-16 can do
                strategic attack.
        --Because of their persistence, range, sensor flexibility, and
                responsiveness, UAVs defy categorization regarding the
                effects they have the potential to achieve.
        --A Global Hawk can support a ``tactical'' commander or a special
                ops team in a remote location while fulfilling requirements
                for ``strategic'' imaging of 40,000 square miles, over the
                rest of its 40-hour mission,
        --A Predator, during one 24-hour mission, can support missions at
                all levels of war.
        --A Shadow UAV can support a mission of strategic scope and
                importance.
        The Air Force is committed to maximizing the effectiveness of UAVs
    to support the Joint warfighter and minimizing wasted resources on
    inefficient or redundant UAV acquisition.
        Question. General Moseley, I understand that you recently sent a
    memorandum to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the senior military
    leadership recommending that the Air Force assume an ``executive
    agent'' role for medium and high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles.
    What problems are occurring due to the current decentralized approach
    and how does having an executive agent help solve them?
        Answer. One problem lies in the current decentralized control of
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets in the
    theater--particularly the aircraft operating in the very crowded
    airspace above 3,500 feet, that the Services, notably the Army, term
    ``organic.'' This organic assignment or ``ownership'' of critically
    needed ISR aircraft by individual units severely limits otherwise very
    flexible aircraft from responding quickly to changing battlefield
    situations across the entire theater. All ISR assets are in constant
    demand; yet, under decentralized control, one unit's ``organic'' ISR
    UAVs may be idle when they could be supporting another unit's mission.
    This concept is not only wasteful and inefficient, but is contrary to
    DOD Directive 5100.1, Functions of the DOD and Its Major Components,
    which assigns the Air Force, as a primary function to ``. . . provide
    forces for . . . tactical air reconnaissance.'' This approach is also
    in conflict with established Joint Doctrine.
        The existing role of the Air Force in conducting warfare from the
    air, through space, and in cyberspace--as well as the assigned missions
    of the Air Force--make assignment of Executive Agent to the Air Force
    for medium- and high-altitude UAVs the right decision for acquiring,
    integrating UAVs to achieve optimal joint warfighting effects, and
    interdependency among the Services.
        Recognizing that UAVs must be treated like any other aircraft from
    an operational and acquisition perspective is key:
      --Aviation is a core competency of the Air Force.
      --From their beginning, the Air Force has treated UAVs as aircraft
            and integrated them as full participants in joint air
            operations.
      --The Air Force knows how to optimize utility of aircraft to achieve
            jointness, efficiency, and warfighting effectiveness.
        The benefits of the Chief of Staff's proposal to mid- and high-
    altitude UAVs fall in three major categories:
      --Achieving efficiencies in acquisition.
      --Enhanced interoperability by directing common, synchronized
            architectures, data links, radios, etc.
      --Increasing warfighting effectiveness in designing an optimal
            medium-/high-altitude UAV concept of operations.
        Achieving efficiencies in acquisition.--The Department of Defense
    (DOD) could save considerable resources in the current Future Years
    Defense Program with an integrated approach to the acquisition of
    medium- and high-altitude UAVs:
      --Combining the MQ-1 Predator, MQ-1C Warrior, RQ-4 Global Hawk, BAMS
            (whether the Navy's Mariner or a maritime Global Hawk variant),
            and MQ-9 Reaper programs could achieve significant savings
            through purchase economies of scale, production efficiencies,
            and integrated priorities.
        --Army MQ-1C Warrior fiscal year 2008 President's budget request is
                $312 million in Research, Development, Testing, and
                Evaluation (RDT&E) and $1,231 million in production.
        --Navy BAMS fiscal year 2008 President's budget request is $2,318
                million RDT&E and $743 million in production.
      --DOD has to pay twice for duplicative cost categories if separate
            contracts are maintained for the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-1C
            Warrior programs, as well as RQ-4 Global Hawk and BAMS.
      --The Air Force can leverage its core competencies to streamline
            medium- and high-altitude UAV acquisition, programming, and
            operational concepts to minimize or eliminate most of these
            inefficiencies.
      --The Air Force is rapidly fielding as much Predator, Global Hawk,
            and Reaper capability as possible.
        --The Air Force's fiscal year 2007 budget submission reprogrammed
                $2.3 billion to nearly double UAV coverage by accelerating
                Predator acquisitions.
        --The Air Force's fiscal year 2008 budget includes nearly $13
                billion to buy 241 UAVs--a 265 percent increase in UAVs and
                ground support equipment over the previous baseline to
                equip 12 Total Force Predator squadrons (battalion
                equivalents) and better meet warfighter needs.
        --By April 2007, the Air Force will have fielded a total of 12
                Predator UAV Combat Air Patrols.
        --By 2010, the Air Force will field a total of 21 Predator Combat
                Air Patrols.
        Enhanced interoperability by directing common, synchronized
    architectures, data links, radios, etc.--The Executive Agent (EA) could
    be empowered to ensure all DOD medium- and high-altitude UAVs operating
    above the coordination altitude are equipped with standardized/
    interoperable equipment (transponders, radios, etc.).
      --The Air Force has extensive, relevant experience as a DOD EA. The
            Air Force is already the EA for Space and Common Data Link.
            These activities are directly applicable to supporting the
            infrastructures and architectures required for UAV employment.
      --The Air Force can leverage its extensive investments in developing
            medium- and high-altitude UAVs and appropriate architectures.
            Unique Service solutions waste valuable resources through
            duplication of effort; stove-piped collection, processing, and
            dissemination architectures; unsynchronized command and
            control; and unnecessary competition for bandwidth and
            spectrum.
        Increasing warfighting effectiveness in designing an optimal
    medium/high-altitude UAV concept of operations.--A joint theater ISR
    strategy can best be achieved through mission responsiveness, and
    command and control architectures directed by the commander responsible
    to the Joint Force Commander for that purpose--the Combined/Joint Force
    Air Component Commander (C/JFACC).
      --Some critics tend to confuse a sufficiency problem for a lack of
            responsiveness. There will remain insufficient UAV capacity to
            satisfy every desire for the information those UAVs provide.
            Accordingly, optimal efficiency is gained by prioritizing UAV
            allocation based on Joint Force Commander (JFC) guidance to
            task them where they are needed most.
      --Per Joint Publication 2.0, Doctrine for Intelligence Support to
            Joint Operations, ``Because intelligence needs will always
            exceed intelligence capabilities, prioritization of efforts and
            ISR resource allocation are vital aspects of intelligence
            planning.'' This argues for ``centralized control and
            decentralized execution'' to optimize ISR assets with respect
            to the JFC's highest priorities. It argues against organically
            assigning medium/high altitude UAVs to units that will preclude
            their benefit to the entire theater joint fight.
      --All operational Air Force Predators are currently operating in the
            U.S. Central Command. The appropriate theater/Joint Task Force
            (JTF) commanders (Army Generals) allocate those--not the Air
            Force. If the Army has a problem with allocation, it has an
            issue with the Army theater/JTF Commanders.
      --DOD needs joint solutions that support the JFC; ensuring
            information dissemination across an entire theater of
            operations is a key enabler. Each Service operates UAVs with
            their own limited architectures that only provide products to a
            specified number of users. On the other hand, the Air Force
            architecture provides information to all joint users including
            the individual soldier through the use of ROVER. It is critical
            to joint warfighting effectiveness that DOD field systems with
            interoperable architectures that provide information to all
            joint users.
      --The Air Force has an established reachback, distributed
            architecture that leverages the total force in order to deliver
            capability to the warfighter. Through using our mature
            Distributed Common Ground System coupled with our reachback
            technologies for operating medium- and high-altitude UAVs, we
            reduce the forward deployed footprint and expedite
            responsiveness to crisis or contingency.
      --Predator is a very responsive system which can deliver effects from
            tactical to strategic. In many instances, a tactical commander
            is given direct command and control of the asset. Predator's
            long loiter time provides a tactical commander an entire kill
            chain (from find/fix to strike and bomb damage assessment) with
            no breaks in coverage.
      --A key element of CFACC-control of medium- and high-altitude UAVs is
            the ability to rapidly re-task and respond across the Area of
            Responsibility to meet emerging shifts in the JFC's priorities.
      --The 3,500 foot delineation in the CSAF EA proposal is used to
            introduce a nominal demarcation of UAV activities between UAVs
            organic to small unit command and control, and C/JFACC command
            and control. EA will provide the concept of operations for UAVs
            operating above the coordination altitude to ensure effective
            airspace control, area air defense, and optimal employment of
            those systems for the joint force commander.
      --In terms of airspace control and coordination, the Army recognizes
            the growing issue with the proliferation of UAVs. Per the Joint
            Airspace Command and Control Joint Feasibility Study sponsored
            by the Army (November 2006), ``An ever increasing proliferation
            of multi-role unmanned systems which are difficult to track and
            have no eyes' to support onboard deconfliction are competing
            for airspace traditionally occupied by manned aircraft are
            adding to the joint airspace command and control challenge.
            This results in sub-optimized use of airspace. Inability to
            rapidly deconflict and provide airspace clearance has resulted
            in the failure to engage attacking forces or insurgents,
            permitting them to leave the area unscathed with weapons to be
            used again on United States, Coalition and civilian targets.''
      --Per DOD Directive 5100.1, Functions of DOD and its Major
            Components, November 21, 2003: The Air Force is directed to
            ``organize, train and equip and provide forces for CAS and . .
            . tactical air reconnaissance . . . ''
             e-10 multi-sensor command and control aircraft (mc2a)
        Question. General Moseley, in the fiscal year 2008 budget
    submission, the Air Force has cancelled the E-10 aircraft program.
    However, funds are still requested for the Multi-Platform radar
    program. What are the termination costs associated with this decision?
    How much funding is required to complete the radar development?
        Answer. The funds associated with Multi-Platform Radar Technology
    Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) in the fiscal year 2008 President's budget
    request are for the continued development and testing of the Global
    Hawk MP-RTIP variant, which was unaffected by the cancellation of the
    E-10 program. No additional funds have been requested to pay for the
    cancellation decision. The cancellation costs associated with the E-10
    program are anticipated to come from the remaining fiscal year 2007
    funding. However, the final cost estimates for cancellation will not be
    complete until after contractual discussions with the prime contractor
    and direction from the Office of the Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
        In addition to the President's budget for Global Hawk MP-RTIP
    Development, a total of approximately $410 million between fiscal years
    2008 to 2011 is required to complete the radar development for the MP-
    RTIP Wide Area Surveillance (WAS) large variant associated with the E-
    10 program. This funding, however, does not include the funding
    necessary to complete a technology development program for a weapon
    system platform, including integration into a wide body test bed and a
    flight demonstration of the WAS capability.
                         role of the air force in gwot
        Question. General Moseley, as I said in my opening statement, Iraq
    and Afghanistan are seen by the public as Army and Marine Corps
    operations. Please explain the Air Force's current role in supporting
    operations in the Global War on Terror. What sort of vital roles are
    the Air Force undertaking?
        Answer. The Air Force is fully engaged 24/7 with our sister
    services in the Global War on Terror, executing full spectrum missions
    to achieve Coalition objectives. Beyond our traditional roles of
    airlift and Close Air Support (CAS), current Air Force missions range
    from Airmen performing non-traditional convoy security operations to
    Air Force Joint Tactical Air Controllers embedded in Army and Marine
    units calling in satellite-guided airstikes on enemy positions. Roughly
    21,000 In-Lieu-Of Airmen are currently doing, have done, or are
    preparing to do, jobs typically done by Soldiers and Marines. We
    continue to maintain our steady state rotation of 23,000 Airmen into
    U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom
    (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) from 56 locations located
    within the USCENTCOM Area of Responsibility. Additionally, another
    191,000 Airmen provide global strategic support to USCENTCOM and all of
    the Combatant Commanders in roles such as mobility, mid-air refueling,
    homeland defense, space operations (including global positioning
    satellites), weather, secure communications, persistent C4ISR, and so
    forth.
        Since 2001, the Air Force has flown 430,000 combat sorties in
    support of OIF and OEF representing 82 percent of coalition sorties in
    OIF and 78 percent of coalition sorties in OEF. Additionally, our Total
    Force construct of Active Duty, Air National Guard and Air Force
    Reserve has flown over 47,000 Operation Noble Eagle sorties from home
    stations in the United States in support of GWOT homeland defense.
        Since 2003, just in support of OIF, we've airlifted over 455,000
    personnel, roughly equivalent to moving the entire population of Kansas
    City, Missouri by air; 763,000 short-tons of goods; and completed over
    18,000 aeromedical evacuation missions back to the United States.
        In the past, to resupply troops on the ground in OEF, we could only
    generate the accuracy to airdrop supplies in an area one mile wide by
    half mile wide, while the aircrew put itself and the survival of the
    aircraft at risk. Through precision airdrop methods such as the Joint
    Precision Airdrop System (JPADS), we now airdrop ammo and critical
    supplies to troops engaged in firefights with the enemy, with the cargo
    delivered to an area the size of a football field, and from an altitude
    where the aircraft can operate with an increased margin of safety.
        Since 2001, in support of Army, Marine, Air Force and Coalition
    personnel on the ground, the Air Force has employed 20,000 precision
    guided munitions, and expended 675,289 rounds of ammunition against
    enemy targets, supporting troops in contact with the enemy with on-call
    CAS. The average response to a call for support to bombs on target is
    measured in scant minutes. The combined efforts of the Coalition, Army
    and Air Force working as a team were able to rapidly find, fix, and
    kill Al Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's top operative in Iraq with airpower.
                                 aging aircraft
        Question. General Moseley, this Subcommittee recognizes the
    challenges of finding the right balance between recapitalization,
    purchasing new aircraft, and modernization of existing aircraft. How do
    you determine tradeoffs between meeting today's needs while at the same
    time ensuring the Air Force is prepared to face potential threats in
    the future?
        Answer. As the Service Chief you are counting on me to organize,
    train and equip the United States Air Force to be able to fly, fight
    and win our Nation's wars as a member of the Joint Warfighting team.
    The U.S. Air Force has been engaged in combat for over 16 consecutive
    years. The U.S. Air Force is doing everything in its power to become
    more effective and efficient while simultaneously preparing for the
    long-term. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we have declining
    readiness and our recapitalization rates are up to 50 years. Our 50
    year recapitalization rate is like planning to use P-51s in Vietnam or
    F-86s in Iraq. To meet the needs of our Nation at war now and in the
    future, we must build an Air Force fully capable of executing its
    mission in air, space and cyberspace as outlined in the fully
    recapitalized and modernized planning force. We have been making
    tradeoffs every year through the iterative budgeting process, which is
    ultimately focused on pushing resources to the warfighter. To ensure
    America and our future Airmen inherit an Air Force that is ready,
    capable and sustainable with acceptable risk is problematic without
    additional resources and tough strategic choices by the Nation. I look
    forward to detailing these concerns and Air Force plans to reverse
    these trends in the coming weeks.
                      combat search and rescue helicopter
        Question. General Moseley, you have consistently stated that a
    replacement for the Pave Hawk combat search and rescue helicopter is a
    top priority for the Air Force. Last month, GAO upheld a protest
    against the Air Force's selection. What is the current status of the
    protest, and when do you expect a resolution of the issue?
        Answer. In its March 29, 2007 decision, the GAO denied all of the
    additional arguments raised by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin Systems
    Integration, ``finding that none furnished an additional basis for
    sustaining the protests.'' In response to the GAO's recommendation in
    their February 26, 2007 decision, the Air Force intends to amend the
    Request for Proposals to clarify its intent with respect to the
    evaluation of operations and support costs, reopen discussions with
    offerors, and request revised proposals. If the evaluation of the
    revised proposals results in a change to the CSAR-X Best Value Source
    Selection decision, the Air Force will make any necessary changes in
    the contract award decision.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                      c-17
        Question. I understand that the C-17 is performing remarkably well
    in Iraq and Afghanistan as a medivac, personnel, and cargo transport.
    Could you describe the intra-theater utilization rate of the C-17 in
    support of contingency operations since September 2001? Assuming these
    rates remain consistent over the next several years, what affect do you
    believe attrition could have on the Air Force's projected strategic
    airlift requirements?
        Answer. Please let me address these as two separate questions. Due
    to C-130 fleet limitations, C-17s are utilized to augment intra-theater
    operations. This method of employment--Theater Direct Delivery (TDD)--
    utilizes approximately 12 C-17s (and a smaller number of other
    aircraft) to sustain passenger and cargo movement in theater for the
    warfighter. In addition to extra lift capacity, these C-17s have two
    inherent advantages: First, the number of C-130s required in theater is
    reduced by roughly one-third and second, this has prevented 35,977
    trucks and 15,380 buses from being exposed to potential insurgent
    attack. This course of action has provided much success but it has come
    at an increased ``cost'' to our C-17 fleet.
        While aircraft status, as well as all other maintenance indicators
    for intra-theater C-17 utilization usage, was not tracked until June
    2005, we've determined this method of employment has created additional
    operational stresses to the C-17 fleet. Although not solely
    attributable to TDD missions, across the Air Force, hourly use rates
    have decreased from 2003 to present but the number of annual sorties
    has more than doubled from 2001 to 2006 (22,392 to 52,135). We are
    flying more sorties of shorter duration (fitting the profile of the TDD
    mission) which creates more stress to the system (i.e. cycles on the
    engines, landing gear, and flight controls). A quantifiable example of
    the operational stress to the C-17 is found in the upper wing skin
    which is almost two times the baseline usage. The increased damage is
    driven by take offs and landings and landing fuel weights higher than
    design assumptions. This existed prior to OEF, but OEF/OIF has
    exacerbated the issue.
        In answer to your second question, from 2001-2006, the C-17 fleet
    has over flown its service life by over 159,000 hours. The overfly can
    be attributed to the GWOT and the lack of proper Basic Aircraft
    Inventory resulting in additional aircraft wear and tear. Congress
    added 10 additional C-17s to the established 180 purchase, of which 7
    will be used to correct the shortfall and 3 will go towards recovering
    the wear and tear caused by GWOT. An additional 2 C-17s are required to
    recover the remaining capability lost due to wear and tear caused by
    GWOT for a total of 12 additional C-17s.
        Question. As you know, General Handy--the U.S. TRANSCOM Combatant
    Commander until mid-2005--repeatedly and publicly stated that a minimum
    of 42 additional C-17s (past the 180) were necessary to meet the Air
    Force's mobility needs. Outside the findings of the Mobility
    Capabilities Study (MCS)--a study that many believe fails to consider a
    number of critical factors related to airlift requirements post-9/11--
    what evidence do you have that 180 C-17s will be sufficient to meet our
    military's future airlift requirements?
        Answer. The C-17 has been supporting Global War on Terror inter-
    theater and intra-theater airlift missions. There are no current inter-
    theater specific studies outside of the Mobility Capabilities Study
    upon which to base an assessment that 180 C-17s will be sufficient for
    the military's future airlift requirements. The C-17 will be evaluated
    as part of the Intra-theater Lift Capabilities Study to determine the
    preferred mix of capabilities needed to accomplish Intra-theater lift.
    Additionally, the MCS identified a range of strategic airlift aircraft
    of 292-383. With the current fleet of 111 C-5s and 190 C-17s (164 of
    190 C-17s have been delivered) the Air Force will have 301 strategic
    airlifters.
        Question. Based on what you know today--considering the recent
    changes in operational requirements and airlift missions--are you able
    to confidently tell the Committee that the Mobility Capabilities Study
    (MCS) projections will adequately meet our military's lift requirements
    for the so-called ``long war''?
        Answer. The Mobility Capability Study (MCS), as reported in 2005,
    set a baseline for mobility forces to meet the demands of the National
    Military Strategy. The MCS, by design, was constructed as a ``warm''
    database from which further study could be accomplished as factors and/
    or conditions changed. Some of that additional study is ongoing. What
    we have seen is that we are using our mobility aircraft at greater
    rates than envisioned in the MCS. As such, the Air Force has requested
    additional assets in both our supplemental and unfunded requirements
    list to offset this increased usage rate. In the way ahead, the Air
    Force is committed to recapitalizating of the airlift fleet. The MCS
    substantiated the need to continue airlift recapitalization in order to
    meet the capability demands on the inventory. Hence, our efforts to
    offset increased utilization, modernize the C-5, recapitalize the C-
    130, and explore options for a future Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) are
    very consistent with the MCS and necessary to meet the demands of the
    long war. Ongoing study of the JCA requirements, as well as the
    progress of the C-5 modernization program, will no doubt shape the
    requisite choices to maintain our airlift capability. Further, we are
    assessing the impact of changes to our ground forces. The 92,000
    increase in the Army and Marine forces could eventually require our
    lift assets to support a larger, more diverse force in the field. In
    the near term we do not see a major change in support to the rotational
    forces. However, understanding the size, composition, and mission sets
    of our future ground force is something we must consider in planning.
    We look to the Army and the Marines to assess their programmed growth
    and changes in operational planning, and then identify requirements so
    that we can quickly refocus our lift capabilities to meet the emergent
    demands. We are meeting the demands of the long war but
    recapitalization is a mandate we must stay ahead of or we will fall
    below the capabilities required. Your continued support of future
    ground force requirements is key to posture our forces correctly in the
    future.
        Question. The Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) validated a program
    of record to procure 180 C-17s. However, the MCS assumed that 112 of
    the older C-5 transports would remain in the fleet, due to
    Congressional restrictions barring the retirement of those aircraft. If
    the Congress eased the retirement restrictions placed on the 111 C-5s,
    how might you manage the strategic fleet differently?
        Answer. Without congressional restrictions, we, the Air Force
    senior leadership would be empowered to manage the fleet in the most
    effective manner. The Secretary and I feel it is our responsibility to
    recapitalize an Air Force fleet that averages 26 years old per
    aircraft. The average C-5A is over 35 years old. We, as Air Force
    leaders, are obligated to build an Air Force today, capable of meeting
    the challenges of tomorrow. We are investigating every option in order
    to identify and procure the most effective strategic airlift mix.
        Question. What if the C-5 modernization program is unsuccessful and
    you've already proceeded with closing the C-17 line? What would the Air
    Force do at that point? Doesn't it make more sense to preserve the C-17
    line until you can unequivocally confirm that upgrading the C-5 is a
    viable option? Are you concerned about the cost increases in the C-5
    modernization program? If so, when do you plan to inform Congress of
    any cost ``breaches'' in the program?
        Answer. The Air Force continues to evaluate all options as to how
    to meet strategic airlift requirements with the most suitable airlift
    asset. Significant cost growth of the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and
    Re-Engining Program (RERP), combined with the costs associated with the
    shut-down of the current C-17 line and the potential start-up of a new
    aircraft line may indicate the need to re-evaluate the business case of
    using RERP on older C-5As versus the efficiencies and long-term
    benefits of procuring additional C-17s.
        A detailed Air Force cost estimating effort is underway (projected
    to be complete in July 2007) that will determine the cost position for
    the C-5 RERP. The Air Force will notify Congress if an actual cost
    breach is identified.
        Question. If you retire some C-5s, how many C-5As would you retire?
    How many C-5Bs?
        Answer. We are investigating every option in order to identify the
    most effective strategic airlift mix. Preliminary options being
    evaluated include retiring approximately 30 C-5A aircraft. There are
    currently no plans to retire C-5Bs.
        Question. Would the Air Force work with Congress to implement a
    transition plan to replace any retired C-5s?
        Answer. There is currently no plan to retire specific aircraft from
    specific bases. The proper fleet mix of strategic airlift aircraft is
    currently under review. Current legislation does not allow the Air
    Force to retire any C-5 aircraft until the Operational Test and
    Evaluation report of the C-5A aircraft, currently in flight test, is
    completed. The report will not be completed until fiscal year 2010, two
    full years after the shutdown of the C-17 production line has begun. If
    relieved of legislative restrictions, the Air Force would be able to
    manage effectively the fleet mix of various aircraft fleets. The
    options under review include replacing the strategic airlift aircraft
    identified for retirement with new C-17s or backfilling with newer C-
    5Bs from within the Air Force. No new units are anticipated and no
    closures of existing units are planned.
                          mobility capabilities study
        Question. It is my understanding that the Air Force has at least 5
    ongoing studies--following up from the MCS--looking at the issue of
    future airlift requirements. Can you provide an overview of each study
    related to airlift that the Air Force is currently working on? Do you
    anticipate that any of these studies will provide guidance on future
    airlift requirements? When do you anticipate you will complete each
    study and when will they become available to Congress?
        Answer. The Mobility Capabilities Study 2006 (MCS-06) is the
    follow-on to the original MCS completed in 2005. The Air Force is a
    participant in MCS-06, which is actually a Department of Defense and
    Joint Staff led effort that includes the following three sub-studies:
    Intra Theater Lift Capabilities Study
        Purpose--Determine the preferred mix of capabilities needed to
    accomplish intra theater lift to support the defense strategy.
        DOD Sponsor/OPR--JS J4, OSD PA&E.
        Suspense--Complete, awaiting OSD release.
    Global Responsiveness: Prepositioning
        Purpose--Facilitate development of an integrated Department-wide
    prepositioning strategy that supports U.S. strategic objectives in the
    context of the evolving global defense posture.
        DOD Sponsor/OPR--OSD PA&E.
        Suspense--Estimated completion Summer 2007.
    Tanker Operations
        Purpose--Add to the body of knowledge regarding air refueling.
    Direct outgrowth of the original MCS that identified tanker mission
    sharing and alternate mission concepts for additional study.
        DOD Sponsor/OPR--JS J8, OSD PA&E.
        Suspense--Complete, awaiting final General Officer Steering Group
    review.
        In addition to the MCS-06 studies, the Air Force is also
    participating in two Joint-led efforts involving airlift issues and
    related to discussion in the MCS:
    Joint Intra Theater Distribution Assessment
        Purpose--Assess tactical distribution capabilities and shortfalls
    from air and sea points of debarkation to the lowest distribution point
    (``the last tactical mile'').
        DOD Sponsor/OPR--JCS J4.
        Suspense--Estimated completion Summer 2007 for Major Combat
    Operations-1 analysis.
    Joint Future Theater Airlift Capabilities Analysis
        Purpose--Analyze future Joint Force theater airlift requirements in
    light of distribution processes, examining non-material and material
    solutions for the 2015-2024 timeframe.
        DOD Sponsor/OPR--U.S. Transportation Command.
        Suspense--Estimated completion Spring 2007.
        Although each of these studies will contribute to the discussion on
    future airlift force structure requirements, none of them alone will
    provide a comprehensive answer.
        Actual study completion dates and determination on the availability
    of these studies to Congress resides with the Department of Defense and
    the Joint Staff.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                                civil air patrol
        Question. General Moseley, I noticed the fiscal year 2008
    Operations & Maintenance budget proposed for the Civil Air Patrol is
    less than what was funded for fiscal year 2007. The Civil Air Patrol
    performs a wide variety of mission ranging from supporting disaster
    relief to playing the role of hostile forces during training exercises.
    Can you tell the subcommittee how the Civil Air Patrol will maintain
    the same level of effort in fiscal year 2008 as they do today with the
    proposed budget reduction?
        Answer. The Air Force truly appreciates the contributions the Civil
    Air Patrol makes to our Nation and our Air Force. These professionals
    contribute to the defense support of civil authorities and the non-
    combat programs and missions of the Air Force. However, as with all
    members of the Air Force team, the Civil Air Patrol operates in a
    constrained budget environment. Due to fiscal constraints, the Air
    Force reduced the Operations and Training budget request for the Civil
    Air Patrol by 4.2 percent or $1.05 million. This reduction is in line
    with reductions we have made across the entire Air Force. To prepare
    for these potential reductions the Civil Air Patrol has streamlined its
    headquarters staff and reduced personnel by 25 percent. Additionally,
    the Civil Air Patrol is prepared to transition wing administrators, who
    are corporate employees, to part-time, if further costs savings are
    required. These actions should allow the Civil Air Patrol to continue
    to conduct its missions in the excellent manner which we have all come
    to expect.
        With that said, Congress might consider a measure that would
    mitigate the impact of these cuts. The Congress could remove language
    in the DOD appropriations bill (Section 8025, paragraph (b)) that
    prevents the Secretary from seeking reimbursement for counter-drug
    missions in support of Federal, State and local government agencies.
                                   aesa radar
        Question. It is my understanding that starting in 2010 the Air
    Force will be procuring Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
    radar systems for a number of your F-15E's. I understand this type of
    radar is presently being used on a number of other fighter aircraft as
    well and significantly enhances the radar capability of these aircraft
    and helps our pilots detect and engage enemy threats.
        I have been informed there is some effort underway to also upgrade
    the radar systems for Air National Guard F-15s with this system.
    General Moseley, can you elaborate on the importance of the AESA radar
    system and can you tell us about the need for such systems, to conclude
    the Air National Guard F-15 fleet?
        Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) does not possess F-15E Strike
    Eagles and cannot speak for that program. For the F-15C, the APG-63
    (V3) AESA radar is an Air Force Total Force effort, initially led by
    the ANG, through recent Congressional adds. The Air Force has now
    programmed follow-on funds for their F-15Cs in the Future Years Defense
    Program.
        The ANG needs the AESA for the F-15C fleet for reliability,
    maintainability, and enhanced capability. The APG-63 (V)3 AESA radar
    will replace the current ANG F-15 APG-63(V)0 mechanically scanned radar
    that is increasingly more difficult to maintain due to parts
    obsolescence and diminishing manufacturer support. The APG-63 (V)3
    offers greatly enhanced capability required by the combatant commanders
    for both deployed and homeland operations. Leveraging the use of a
    stationary radar antenna covered with an array of over one thousand
    transmitter-receiver modules, the (V)3 AESA combines added signal power
    and performs greatly enhanced detection, tracking, communication, and
    jamming functions in multiple directions simultaneously. AESA provides
    significant increases in precision to detect, track, and eliminate
    multiple threats faster and with greater efficiency than the current
    mechanically scanned radars. In the traditional air superiority mission
    areas, the ANG F-15C's primary advantage in air-to-air combat needs to
    dominate the beyond-visual-range arena, detecting both current and
    future generation airborne threats and retaining the first shot, first
    kill capability vital for mission effectiveness. For the Air
    Sovereignty Alert mission, the F-15Cs need a greatly enhanced
    capability to detect challenging targets (small aircraft, cruise
    missile defense, asymmetric threats, etc.) in a very dense air traffic
    area normally found around the major airports in the United States.
    With the current funding, the first delivery of the APG-63 (V)3 for the
    ANG F-15Cs is scheduled for mid 2009.
                        home station simulators for ang
        Question. General Moseley, we appreciate the Air Force's continued
    contributions to homeland defense and to supporting operation in Iraq
    and Afghanistan. Particularly noteworthy is the statement contained in
    the Air National Guard's 2007 posture statement that the Air National
    Guard fulfills 34 percent of Air Force missions with 7 percent of the
    budget. Combined with a recruiting shortfall last month, Air National
    Guardsmen are contributing significantly to this joint fight. Despite
    these heroic efforts, challenges to sustain adequate training at home
    station continue to exist mainly due to equipment shortages. Does the
    Air Force's fiscal year 2008 budget request adequately funding to make
    full use of simulations to augment limitations in home station training
    programs for the Air National Guard?
        Answer. A 10 percent reduction in flying hours can be somewhat
    mitigated by increased use of simulators for training purposes.
    However, the reality is that the Air National Guard has very few
    simulators at its flying wing installations. The Air National Guard
    plans to fully utilize simulators at home station where available.
    Travel and other related costs necessary for wings without simulators
    will be an ``out-of-hide'' execution year bill in an already
    challenging budget environment. The 2008 budget request does not
    specify funding to cover the added expense to the Air National Guard
    home station straining resulting from the 10 percent reduction in
    flying hours.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. If there is nothing further, the
    subcommittee will stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:28 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Cochran.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD C. WINTER, SECRETARY OF THE
                NAVY

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. This morning the subcommittee meets to
    receive testimony on the fiscal year 2008 budget request for
    the Navy and Marine Corps. And, on behalf of the subcommittee,
    I welcome today's witnesses, the Secretary of the Navy, the
    Honorable Donald Winter, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
    Michael Mullen, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General
    James Conway.
        The 2008 budget request for the Navy and Marine Corps
    includes $139.8 billion in baseline funds, which is an increase
    of 10 percent over this year's budget, and an additional $19.7
    billion in emergency funding for the costs of the wars in Iraq
    and Afghanistan.
        Despite this proposed increase in the baseline budget, the
    Navy and Marine Corps each face key challenges in fighting the
    war on terrorism and preparing for the threats that are
    expected to face our country in the future.
        The Navy's well underway on a number of programs to
    modernize its fleets of ships and aircraft, while programs such
    as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the littoral combat ship
    have key roles in preparing the Navy for new and emerging
    threats. Critics have raised many questions about whether this
    complex program is proceeding on track. I'm certain our
    witnesses today will be able to inform the subcommittee about
    the status of the efforts on each of these programs.
        In the case of the Marine Corps, the President has proposed
    an increased end strength in the Marine Corps by 27,000 over
    the next 5 years in order to relieve some of the strain caused
    by deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. The subcommittee's
    interested to hear what is needed to recruit and to train these
    additional marines. Equally as important, we must know what
    other steps are being taken to reduce the strain of sailors and
    marines, many of whom--having served multiple tours on the
    front lines in the global war on terrorism (GWOT)--so that we
    can retain the experienced force that is needed.
        While the subcommittee today will examine the difficult
    issues before the Navy and the Marine Corps, we cannot overlook
    the extraordinary work performed by sailors and marines who
    have volunteered to serve our country. I know I speak for every
    member of this subcommittee when I say that we are committed to
    looking out for them in every way possible.
        And, once again, I thank the witnesses for their testimony
    this morning. And, their full statements will be included in
    the record.
        And, now if I may, I'd like to turn to the co-chairman of
    the subcommittee for any opening remarks he may wish to make.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
    Secretary Winter, Admiral Mullen, and Commandant Conway. I
    welcome you back and enjoy the opportunity to visit with you
    concerning this hearing.
        The demand for funding far surpasses the amounts that we
    have available, so this is going to be a very important
    hearing. I do hope we can meet the pressing needs of the Navy
    and the Marine Corps. It's going to be difficult, but we do
    appreciate your coming, once again, thank you very much.

                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senate Cochran has submitted a statement that he would like
    placed in the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary
    Winter, Admiral Mullen, and General Conway to our subcommittee.
        This has been a challenging year for our military forces. We
    appreciate the role the Navy and Marine Corps play in protecting the
    United States in the global war on terrorism. The all-volunteer active
    and reserve forces and their families have performed with a high degree
    of professional distinction, and our Nation is thankful for their
    service.
        We are aware of the importance of the need for appropriate levels
    of funding to ensure that the men and women in uniform have the
    equipment and training they need to succeed and to return home safely.
    Monday, we began floor consideration of the bill making emergency
    supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
    2007, and for other purposes. During your testimony, I would like you
    to provide this subcommittee with an indication of what you judge to be
    the latest date those emergency appropriations must be available to the
    Navy and Marine Corps.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DONALD C. WINTER

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Winter. Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee. Today I am
    joined by Admiral Mullen and General Conway, two outstanding
    leaders whose dedication to the Navy and Marine Corps is
    apparent to all who have had the pleasure of working with them.
    Each of us has prepared a statement for the record, and we
    appreciate the inclusion of that statement in the record of
    this hearing.
        These documents outline, in detail, this Department's
    priorities, the strategic thinking behind them, and the funding
    requests that are necessary to support them. Our priorities
    presented in the fiscal year 2008 budget and the global war on
    terror requests, encompass both long-term and short-term
    requirements.
        The short-term imperatives include supporting marines and
    sailors in the field, funding the urgent requirements, such as
    the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Program, and making
    up for the losses of vehicles, equipment, and aircraft that
    have been incurred in combat operations. At the same time, we
    must provide for the critical needs of the Navy and Marine
    Corps of the future. To that end, the Department of the Navy is
    pursuing an unprecedented modernization program across the full
    spectrum of our weapons platforms in both the Navy and the
    Marine Corps. This drive to transform the force is necessary
    and vital to our national security.
        The current transformation entails a shift from blue water-
    centered fleet to one with greater brown and green water
    capabilities. This shift in focus reflects a greater demand for
    expeditionary capability, a capability that will allow us to
    operate in the littorals. The broad transformation now underway
    includes a new generation of ships, submarines, and aircraft
    with programs in development, production, or already in
    operation with the fleet.
        Some of the Department's new programs have encountered
    significant challenges. The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship Program
    and the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program
    are both innovative weapon platforms incorporating new
    technologies. We are working on solving the problems that have
    arisen so that we can deliver vitally needed capabilities to
    our warfighters. Both of these programs represent the kind of
    capabilities that the future Navy and Marine Corps will need to
    fight and win the wars of tomorrow. Faced with a dangerous,
    uncertain world with terrorist enemies, states that actively
    support or condone them, and rising powers with intentions and
    capabilities that lack transparency, we have no choice, but to
    improve our own capabilities.
        Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2008
    budget request is critical to both the short-term and long-term
    national security of the United States.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for your continued support for our efforts to
    meet our constitutional obligations to provide for the common
    defense of the American people. I look forward to answering
    your questions. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald C. Winter
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the committee, it
    is an honor to appear before you representing the brave men and women
    of the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps--active,
    reserve, and civilian over 800,000 strong.
        Over the past year, I have had many opportunities to meet with
    sailors and marines who are stationed both within the continental
    United States and abroad. I have traveled three times to the Central
    Command Area of Responsibility including Iraq. During my visits I have
    had countless conversations with our young sailors and marines. I am
    continually amazed at how dedicated and committed they are to carrying
    out their duties--without question, without complaint. Our sailors and
    marines recognize the significance of their mission. They remain
    determined to win the current war and are committed to defending our
    Nation against future threats. They are the very best and they deserve
    the very best from their leadership in the Pentagon and on Capitol
    Hill.
        Today, I am here to present the Department of the Navy's plan to
    support our sailors and marines in their mission to fight the global
    war on terror and to defend our Nation against future challenges. I
    believe the President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget request for the Navy
    and Marine Corps provides them what they need and I ask that you
    support this request--submitted to Congress on February 5, 2007.
        The Department of the Navy's budget signifies a vital investment in
    our Navy and Marine Corps. In its totality, this budget represents $160
    billion in requested funding for fiscal year 2008, including the
    estimated costs of the global war on terror.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Highlights of the Department of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2008
    Budget'', p. 1-15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These funds are essential in enabling the Department of the Navy to
    maintain current readiness, sustain the operational tempo in the global
    war on terror, support the quality of life of our sailors, marines and
    their families, while preparing for a future of uncertainty. Our
    priorities for fiscal year 2008 are simply stated: We will fight the
    global war on terror by investing in the present needs of our Navy and
    Marine Corps, while we prepare for future challenges by investing in
    our people, facilities, and capabilities.
        The development of this budget has not been easy--tough decisions
    have been made and continue to be made throughout the Department to
    balance risk and to be responsible stewards of the tax dollars
    entrusted to us. Yet, we believe that this budget is appropriately
    structured and is a necessary investment to successfully meet both our
    present and future challenges.
        The difficulty of preparing for future challenges has been striking
    the proper balance between building capabilities to support traditional
    and irregular warfare demands while transforming a blue water Navy into
    one that can operate, fight and win in blue, green, and brown waters,
    and expanding the lethality and reach of the Marine Corps.
        Justification of every program is important for Congress to
    understand the Department's intent and rationale, and we will do so.
    For the sake of brevity in this statement I will not go into detail on
    each program. Instead, I will call attention to areas crucial to our
    budget submission and I ask that the ``Highlights of the Department of
    the Navy's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget'' book be submitted for the record
    as part of my statement.
                            investing in the present
    Fighting the Global War on Terror
        As we come before you today, I do not have to remind you that we
    are a Nation in our sixth-year of a long, irregular, and global war.
    Your naval forces--sailors, marines and civilians--are engaged at home
    and around the world today in a full spectrum of operations in support
    of this war. They have answered the call to defend the Nation and they
    are carrying out their duties superbly. Yet while focusing on the
    present needs of the global war on terror, we must also keep a keen eye
    on an ever evolving strategic environment around the globe. The pace of
    change in today's world is very rapid. We have witnessed events--such
    as North Korea's nuclear test last October and China's test of an anti-
    satellite weapon this past January--that can change our strategic
    calculations overnight. Even as these changes occur, our sailors and
    marines continue to stand guard across the world.
        As I speak to you today, there are over 50,000 sailors and marines
    serving in the Central Command Area of Responsibility (AOR). Of those,
    over 21,000 marines and 12,000 sailors are serving on the ground in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes over 8,000 sailors deployed as
    Individual Augmentees (IA) and 4,500 performing ``in-lieu-of'' missions
    often serving in non-traditional capacities but adding to the
    warfighting capability of our military forces with their expertise.
    Additionally, over 700 sailors and marines are in the Horn of Africa.
    Finally, on any given day, approximately 30 percent of our ships and
    submarines and over 45,000 of our sailors are deployed worldwide
    serving in, on, or over the world's oceans.
        We are also key players in executing the President's new strategy
    in Iraq. The strategy requires increased coalition military and
    civilian resources to include an additional two battalions of marines
    to strengthen control of the Al Anbar Province. Approximately 4,000
    additional sailors and marines will be part of this effort.
        This ongoing pace of operations in fighting the global war on
    terror has had a financial impact on the Department of the Navy.
    Approximately 40-50 percent of the fleet continues to be at sea. This,
    coupled with the increased deployment of marines across the globe, has
    placed a strain on our resources. The 2008 GWOT request represents a
    critical investment in providing the adequate resources necessary to
    prosecute and win the global war on terror. The Department of the Navy
    is seeking approximately $20 billion to directly support prosecution of
    the global war on terror and to reset the force.
                      safeguarding our forces in harms way
        Before we deploy our brave men and women in harm's way we must do
    everything in our power to invest in their protection. Therefore, we
    are investing in measures to counter and protect our men and women from
    Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) with such platforms as the Mine
    Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle. We are transitioning to a
    newly designed Modular Tactical Vest (MTV) and are committed to
    providing the best head protection to our warfighters. We are also
    investing in measures I am personally involved with seeking improved
    acquisition processes which will accelerate fielding of these new
    technologies.
        Unavoidably, with war comes the tragedy of loss of life and injury
    to our young men and women. We are committed to providing the best
    medical care on and off the battlefield. The treatment of patients has
    been greatly enhanced by improvements in medical capabilities at the
    personal, unit and organizational levels--yet we must never be
    satisfied with where we are. We will continue to seek advancements in
    medical care. Care for our wounded does not end at the field hospital.
    We continue to aggressively monitor post-deployment mental health
    screenings as well as, suicides, domestic violence, and divorce rates
    and to assure the quality long-term physical and psychological welfare
    of our sailors and marines.
                              resetting the force
        While we endeavor to provide what is needed, we also recognize that
    war is a costly business, and this one is no different. Our sailors and
    marines will always do what it takes, but there is a significant
    price--not only in their personal sacrifices--but also in the financial
    cost of operations and on the equipment that we provide them. We must
    continue to invest in the present needs of our warfighters.
        The ongoing intense combat operations and high operational tempo
    have had a significant impact on the quality, operability, and service
    life of Navy and Marine Corps equipment--it is imperative that we
    support our brave men and women by replacing our rapidly aging
    equipment. In many cases it makes no sense to replace aging legacy
    equipment with more of the same. In the case where it makes smart
    financial or operational sense, we are purchasing next generation
    equipment and platforms to replace combat losses. Resetting the Navy
    and Marine Corps is essential, and we are investing significant
    resources to restore our combat capability and readiness. The fiscal
    year 2008 GWOT request includes $3.8 billion--$2.1 billion for the
    Navy, $1.7 billion for the Marine Corps--toward reset requirements.
    These funds will refurbish or replace equipment damaged or lost during
    combat operations and restore the capability and readiness of the Navy
    and Marine Corps for future threats and operations. It should be noted
    that the reset requirement is dynamic and changes as conditions
    change.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Highlights of the Department of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2008
    Budget'', p. 2-10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            investing in the future
        As we fight the global war on terrorism, we cannot forget that the
    security challenges of the 21st century are complex and varied. They
    range from the irregular, asymmetric threats of terrorists, and rogue
    states, to the sophisticated military technology of future peer
    competitors. The Department has also been called upon to conduct
    disaster relief and humanitarian assistance missions--often being the
    first to respond to natural disasters around the world as in the case
    of the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami, the earthquake in Pakistan and
    Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast. Naval forces are uniquely balanced
    to address these diverse strategic challenges with the capability and
    capacity to rapidly project power anywhere in the world. We must
    continue to invest in this capability. We cannot allow ourselves to be
    fixated on one threat alone.
        Preparing for an uncertain future demands that the seas of the
    world remain safe for all nations. The Department of the Navy strongly
    supports U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. Joining the
    Convention, with the declarations and understandings reflected in
    Executive Report 108-10 (Senate Foreign Relations Committee), will
    enable the United States to exercise a leadership role in the future
    development of oceans law and policy. As a non-party, the United States
    does not have access to the Convention's formal processes in which over
    150 nations participate in influencing future law of the sea
    developments, and is therefore less able to promote and protect our
    security and commercial interests. Additionally, by providing legal
    certainty and stability for the world's largest maneuver space, the
    Convention furthers a core goal of our National Security Strategy to
    promote the rule of law around the world.
        This is also a time of unprecedented change in the Department of
    the Navy. We are executing a major transformation of the force at the
    same time that we are executing an array of operations in the global
    war on terror. This transformation is about people as much as it is
    about equipment.
    Investing in our People
        The development and retention of quality people are vital to our
    continued success. America's naval forces are combat-ready due to the
    dedication and motivation of individual sailors, marines, civilians,
    and their families. The Department is committed to taking care of them
    by sustaining our quality of service/quality of life programs,
    including training, compensation, and promotion opportunities, health
    care, housing, and reasonable operational and personnel tempo. The cost
    of manpower is the single greatest factor in the fiscal year 2008
    budget, but it is money well spent. We must continue to recruit,
    retain, and provide for our sailors and marines.
                Recruiting and Retention
        We continue to invest in programs to recruit the right people,
    retain the right people, and achieve targeted attrition. The fiscal
    year 2008 budget requests a 3-percent raise in military base pay. This
    investment along with increased enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses,
    is necessary if we are to continue to man our forces with the highest
    levels of ability and character. These citizens are in high demand
    everywhere; since we ask so much of them, we owe them proper
    compensation. The Navy and Marine Corps are currently meeting
    recruiting and retention goals for most ratings and designators in the
    active and reserve components. In fiscal year 2006, Navy achieved 100
    percent of its overall active component enlisted recruiting goal and
    the Marine Corps also achieved over 100 percent of its accession goal.
                Navy and Marine Corps End-Strength
        To avoid an adverse toll on our sailors, marines, and their
    families, and to prevent a decrease in readiness, the Secretary of
    Defense established a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio goal for all active
    component forces. Our goal for the Marine Corps is to achieve that 1:2
    deployment-to-dwell ratio for active component units and 1:5 for
    reserve units. Currently, the deployment length for marine units in
    Iraq is 7 months.
        While our recruiting remains at impressive levels, it is important
    to focus on sizing the Department to achieve its overall objectives. As
    we develop and build more efficient and automated ships, aircraft, and
    combat systems, personnel reductions are inevitable; yet the skill
    level and specialization requirements increase. The Navy has reduced
    its end strength by approximately 40,000 over the last 5 years, and as
    we look ahead to more capable ships entering service in the next few
    years, we anticipate a stabilization of that trend at an end-strength
    of about 320,000-325,000.
        For the Marine Corps the proposed increase to our active component
    end strength to 202,000 marines, by 2011, is an investment in reducing
    the strain on the individual marines and the institution of the Marine
    Corps while ensuring the Marine Corps can provide trained forces in
    support of other contingencies. Our first task will be to build three
    new infantry battalions and their supporting structure--approximately
    4,000 marines. We will then systematically build the additional units
    and individuals on a schedule of approximately 5,000 marines per year.
                National Security Personnel System
        It is important to note that while a considerable investment is
    taking place in the uniformed workforce, we are also placing emphasis
    on creating a proficient civilian workforce, whose pay and promotions
    are performance-based. Deployment of the National Security Personnel
    System began in fiscal year 2006 and continued through fiscal year
    2007. A significant portion, over 50,000 employees, are scheduled to
    transition at the start of fiscal year 2008.
                Safety
        Fundamental to taking care of our sailors, marines and DON civilian
    employees is establishing a culture and environment where safety is an
    intrinsic and critical component of all decisionmaking, both on and
    off-duty. Safety directly affects the readiness of our fighting forces
    and significant mishap reductions remains a key department-wide
    objective in fiscal year 2008. We are refining our concept of
    Operational Risk Management (ORM), which calls for assessing risks
    prior to an evolution and then implementing mitigating actions during
    the evolution, to ensure it is more widely accepted and employed by our
    younger sailors and marines when making decisions off duty. We have
    placed great emphasis on reducing Private Motor Vehicle (PMV) mishap
    rates through new policy changes we believe will help reduce needless
    PMV-related injuries and fatalities. Other safety initiatives are aimed
    at the reduction of aviation mishaps and improving safety in the
    workplace.
    Investing in Our Facilities
        Essential to recruiting and retaining the right people is
    maintaining their quality of life and service. The Department of the
    Navy continues to invest in our sailors and marines by sustaining our
    quality of life/quality of service programs and by ensuring quality
    housing and facilities in which to live, work and train. We are
    developing global infrastructure plans to analyze bottom line facility
    requirements. The Department of the Navy has been aggressively
    eliminating excess facilities and is on track to its footprint of 23.9
    million square feet by 2013.
                Military Construction
        The fiscal year 2008 budget invests over $2.1 billion toward 64
    military construction projects for our active Navy and Marine Corps and
    10 projects for our reserve forces.
                Base Realignment and Closure
        The fiscal year 2008 budget continues to fund BRAC initiatives. We
    are requesting $733.7 million in the fiscal year 2008 budget submission
    to continue implementation of the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendations.
    The fiscal year 2008 request invests in construction (including
    planning and design), operational movements at key closure and
    realignment locations, and the necessary environmental studies at
    receiving locations to fulfill National Environmental Policy Act
    requirements.
                Carrier Homeporting
        Consistent with the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Navy plans
    to adjust its force posture to base at least six ``operationally
    available'' carriers in the Pacific while maintaining the flexibility
    to respond to threats around the world.\3\ The Navy will achieve the
    six Pacific carrier posture in fiscal year 2010 when the U.S.S. Carl
    Vinson (CVN 70) is homeported to the Pacific.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``2006, Quadrennial Defense Review'', p. 47.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Realignment of our Forces in the Western Pacific
        As part of the Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), a change in
    the United States-Japan alliance to the security environment, the
    United States and the Government of Japan (GOJ) signed an agreement for
    the relocation of some marines from Okinawa to Guam. This realignment
    requires a commitment to investment in our Western Pacific area of
    operations. The fiscal year 2008 budget invests $28 million for
    planning and continuation of the environmental impact analysis.
    Investment in Capabilities
        To meet the demands of the global war on terror and the uncertain
    threats of the future, the Department of the Navy must also invest in
    new generation capabilities and to transform the force. We must
    continue an acquisition program which seeks to build a fleet that is
    both affordable and meets the national security challenges of the 21st
    century. It must cover all facets of the surface, sub-surface, and
    aviation requirements. We must also invest in our expeditionary forces
    providing them with the capabilities to remain always ready and always
    capable of forcible entry. Our fiscal year 2008 baseline budget invests
    almost $46 billion for procurement programs.
        As we invest in our naval force it is critical that we pursue a
    program of stable transformation. The core products that the Navy and
    Marine Corps buy face a significant time constraint--we go into battle
    with assets that are built many years in advance; and a stable
    transformation can only be achieved if the Department of the Navy, in
    conjunction with Congress, follow a long-term path of program
    stability.
                Building a Fleet for the Future
        We have initiated an aggressive investment strategy to build an
    affordable 313-ship fleet tailored to support the National Defense
    Strategy and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. The Department plans
    to procure seven ships \4\ in fiscal year 2008 for the United States
    Navy, and we are serving as the executive agent for one Joint High-
    Speed Vessel for the United States Army--an investment of over $14.2
    billion toward ship building and conversion.\5\ As required by
    Congress, the Department of the Navy recently submitted its 30-year
    shipbuilding plan which reinforces the 313-ship fleet introduced last
    year.\6\ The fiscal year 2008 30-year shipbuilding plan, unchanged from
    the fiscal year 2007 plan, represents the Departments commitment to
    creating programs of stability and predictability which in turn
    minimizes disruption in shipbuilding and creates efficiency and
    effectiveness in our industrial base.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ ``Highlights of the Department of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2008
    Budget'', p. 3-5.
        \5\ ``Highlights of the Department of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2008
    Budget'', p. 1-15.
        \6\ DON 30-year Shipbuilding Plan, submitted to Congress on
    February 5, 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The fiscal year 2008 budget continues investment in the shift to
    next generation warships. The surface ships and submarines which make
    up the fleet of the future will be more capable than ever to respond to
    enhanced threats across the globe. Several critical shipbuilding
    programs in support of the 30-year shipbuilding plan include:
      --The lead ship of the CVN 21 Program--Gerald R. Ford (CVN78) with
            expected delivery in 2015--will replace U.S.S. Enterprise
            (CVN65). Program funding is requested over 2 years with 40
            percent, approximately $2.7 billion, in fiscal year 2008 and
            the remaining 60 percent in fiscal year 2009.
      --The DDG1000 program, formerly known as the DDX, is the next
            generation of multi-mission surface combatants. Under the dual
            lead ship strategy, a lead ship will be constructed at both
            Northrop Grumman Ship Systems and General Dynamics Bath Iron
            Works. Contracts for detail design were awarded to the
            shipbuilders in August 2006. Construction contracts of the dual
            lead ships are expected to be awarded in fiscal year 2007. The
            fiscal year 2008 budget provides the second increment of
            funding, approximately $2.8 billion, required to complete the 2
            fiscal year 2007 lead ships.
      --The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will be a fast, agile and networked
            surface combatant with capabilities optimized to assure naval
            and joint force access into contested littoral regions. The
            Navy has awarded contracts for construction of the first four
            LCS sea frames. LCS 1 was launched in September 2006. The Navy
            intends to continue with a plan to procure a reduced number of
            ships in fiscal 2008 and 2009 within existing budget resources.
            LCS is needed now to fill critical, urgent warfighting
            requirements gaps that exist today. Operational experience and
            analyses indicate that potential adversaries will employ
            asymmetric capabilities to deny United States and allied forces
            access in critical coastal regions to include strategic choke
            points and vital economic sea lanes.
      --In the past year the second and third Virginia Class fast attack
            submarines joined the fleet. Construction of the Virginia Class
            continues to be performed under a teaming arrangement between
            General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation and Northrop Grumman
            Newport News Shipbuilding. Six Virginia Class submarines are
            under construction. The fiscal year 2008 budget invests
            approximately $1.8 billion in the tenth Virginia Class
            submarine and is the fifth of five Virginia class submarines
            covered under a multiyear procurement contract.
        A number of congressional authorities are necessary in order to
    maintain the stability of the 30-year shipbuilding plan. Key to
    achieving cost reductions in our Virginia Class program is the ability
    to enter into multiyear ship contracts. We are asking Congress to
    continue multiyear procurement authority for Virginia Class Submarines.
    As we modernize our carrier force to the new Gerald R. Ford Class
    (CVN78), we will drop below our carrier requirement by one ship during
    a 2 year period. Through adjustments to refueling availabilities and by
    carefully managing our Nimitz Class service life, we will be able to
    mitigate the impact of this drop in the short term and long term. We
    are asking Congress to authorize a temporary waiver of the carrier
    requirement from 11 to 10 ships.
                Enhancing Expeditionary Warfare Capabilities
        The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review describes the reorientation of
    joint ground forces from dependence on large, permanent overseas
    garrisons toward expeditionary operations. This includes a focus on
    greater capability to conduct irregular warfare. Naval forces are
    inherently prepared for this role through our ability to project power
    ashore. Amphibious warships and MAGTF capability are essential to the
    Navy-Marine Corps ability to conduct forcible entry. The Department of
    the Navy will invest in several key procurement programs to enhance our
    expeditionary warfare capability.
      --The San Antonio (LPD 17) Class of amphibious warfare ships
            represents the Department of the Navy's commitment to a modern
            expeditionary power projection fleet. The rapid off-load
            capability of the San Antonio Class will enable our naval force
            to operate across the spectrum of warfare. The fiscal year 2008
            budget invests $1.4 billion to fully fund the construction of
            the ninth ship in the San Antonio Class.
      --The Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is the Marine
            Corps' largest ground combat system acquisition program. It
            will replace the aging assault amphibious vehicle that has been
            in service since 1972. The fiscal year 2008 budget invests $288
            million from the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
            account toward EFV development to ensure that EFV meets all
            requirements for performance and reliability before entering
            into production.
      --The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle is playing an
            increased role in protecting our sailors and marines in harm's
            way. MRAPs are employed to protect against the three primary
            kill mechanisms of mines and improvised explosive devices--
            fragmentation, blast overpressure, and acceleration. These
            vehicles provide the best available protection against
            improvised explosive devices. The fiscal year 2008 GWOT request
            procures over 255 MRAP vehicles for the Navy and Marine Corps
            team. We continue to assess this need as is necessary.
                Recapitalizing Aviation Capacity
        The Department of the Navy requires a robust aviation capacity
    including attack, utility, and lift capabilities. The Department is in
    the midst of an extensive, long-term consolidation and recapitalization
    of all aircraft in the naval inventory in order to develop the optimum
    balance between requirements and usage. We are increasing our
    investment in our aviation programs. In fiscal year 2008 we plan to
    procure 188 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps team.\7\
    Particularly critical programs include the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF),
    the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the EA-18G Growler, the P-8A Multi-Mission
    Maritime Aircraft (MMA), the MV-22, and helicopter programs. The
    Department also serves as the executive agent for the modernization of
    the fleet of presidential helicopters which will be replaced by the VH-
    71.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ ``Highlights of the Department of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2008
    Budget'', p. 3-15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (STOVL, CV, CTOL) is the next-
            generation strike fighter weapons system designed to counter
            the threats of 2010 and beyond. Low rate initial production
            (LRIP) long lead funding for initial Conventional Take-off and
            Landing (CTOL) aircraft was awarded in March 2006. A
            significant upcoming milestone for JSF is the Defense
            Acquisition Board in spring 2007 for approval of LRIP 1 full
            funding and LRIP 2 long lead contract awards.
      --The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the Navy's multi-mission strike
            fighter. Currently in its eighth year of full production, 65
            percent of the total procurement objective has been delivered
            (298/460). The fiscal year 2008 budget requests funding for 24
            F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. An additional 12 F/A-18E/F Super
            Hornets are requested in the fiscal year 2008 GWOT request to
            bridge the projected shortfalls due to excessive operational
            use which will shorten ESL.
      --The EA-18G Growler is the Navy's replacement for the legacy EA-6B
            and will assume the role for airborne electronic attack. First
            flight for the Growler occurred in August 2006. EA-18G aircraft
            are being procured as part of the F/A-18E/F Multi-Year
            Procurement II contract. The fiscal year 2008 budget invests
            $1.3 billion which procures 18 E/A-18G aircraft.
      --The P8A MMA replaces the Navy's P-3C Orion and fills Combatant
            Commander requirements for long endurance naval aircraft in
            fulfillment of many missions in major combat operations, GWOT
            and homeland defense. The program, now in detailed design
            phase, will achieve initial operational capability in fiscal
            year 2013--initial production buys will begin in fiscal year
            2010.
      --The MV-22 Osprey Tilt Rotor aircraft will supplement and replace
            the CH-46 with enhanced mission capabilities. The CH-46E is
            over 40 years old, with limited lift and mission capabilities
            to support the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) and the
            GWOT. MV-22 initial operational capability is scheduled for
            fall 2007 with a continued transition of two CH-46E squadrons
            per year thereafter. The fiscal year 2008 budget includes a
            request for 21 MV-22 aircraft.
      --Helicopters continue to provide essential lift capability to the
            Navy and Marine Corps. Critical to this capability are the MH-
            60R/S and the UH-1 programs. The MH-60R will replace the aging
            SH-60B and SH-60F helicopters with the primary mission of
            undersea and surface warfare. The MH-60S will support the CSG
            and ESG combat logistics, search and rescue, vertical
            replenishment, anti-surface warfare, airborne mine
            countermeasures, combat search and rescue, and naval special
            warfare mission area. The fiscal year 2008 budget invests in 27
            MH-60R and 18 MH-60S helicopters. The UH-1 continues to fulfill
            the Marine Corps utility helicopter missions. The fiscal year
            2008 budget supports the UH-1Y new build strategy and procures
            20 UH-1Y helicopters.
                Research and Development
        As we look to transform our force with new generation platforms, we
    must also actively seek out new innovations and niche technology. Our
    fiscal year 2008 budget continues investment in the research and
    development, Science and Technology (S&T), and the Research,
    Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E) management support accounts. In
    fiscal year 2008, the RDT&E account decreases by over 8 percent,
    reflecting technology maturation and the transition to production of
    programs previously in RDT&E. Funding for Science and Technology (S&T)
    is kept relatively constant to enhance capabilities for the naval
    forces of today, tomorrow, and the future. To maximize our return on
    S&T funding, we have developed a newly integrated naval S&T strategic
    plan focused on areas where the Department of the Navy needs to be a
    world leader and an early adopter of technologies. RDT&E accounts also
    support the transition of technologies and the development of critical
    new weapon systems. Critical shipbuilding programs include CVN 21, SSN
    774 Virginia Class Submarine, DDG 1000, LCS, LPD 17, T-AKE, and Joint
    High Speed Vessel. Critical manned aviation programs include the F-35,
    VH-71, P-8A, CH-53K, E2D, and EA-18G. As a final part of the RDT&E
    account, our test and evaluation communities are ensuring that
    technologies will perform as required in the field.
                Cultivating a Stable Acquisition Environment
        While our investment strategy is forward leaning--so must our
    procurement process be. It is clear that we must better define our
    programs early in the acquisition process. A key emphasis must be to
    properly incentivize contractors to bid in a responsible manner and
    then to diligently execute to the accepted proposal. I intend to focus
    a significant part of my remaining time as Secretary of the Navy in
    getting this right. This year we are focusing our efforts to take on
    the challenges of revising and reinstituting our policy on contractor
    performance assessment, controlling cost growth and reducing program
    volatility, and building rapid acquisition processes. We have
    established acquisition guidelines concerning urgent warfighting needs,
    addressing schedule priority, source selection criteria and contract
    performance. Specific acquisition policies emphasize rapid deployment
    capability, rapid acquisition processing, controlling cost growth, and
    contractor performance assessments. An acquisition reengineering effort
    addressing an open systems business model, accountability and portfolio
    assessment, human capital planning, and program formulation and
    capability planning has been initiated. These four threads are aimed at
    making the acquisition process more responsive and delivering the
    agreed upon warfighting capability within the agreed upon cost and
    schedule.
        In addition to acquisition reform, we are investing in methods to
    increase efficiency and maximize the return on our investments. Though
    still maturing, the Navy is developing the Navy Enterprise Framework
    which will better leverage the value streams consisting of people,
    dollars, and materiel needed to deliver warfighting readiness to Navy
    Component and Combatant Commanders. The Department is also seeking to
    use ``best practices'' of the private sector through the deployment of
    Lean Six-Sigma (LSS). LSS is being implemented throughout the
    Department to increase quality of work life, safety levels, speed of
    decisions and transactions, and to decrease total cost of ownership.
    The vision is to create a critical mass of leaders and personnel who
    routinely apply LSS methodologies for continuous process improvement.
        The Department will continue to seek ways to transform the way we
    do business resulting in improved efficiency, better decision-making,
    and an organizational culture that is performance-based.
                                   conclusion
        Investing in our present needs and fighting the global war on
    terror are on the forefront of our priorities--but we must not forget
    that the world is an ever evolving environment. We must be prepared to
    respond to emerging threats of an uncertain future. To accomplish these
    goals we must continue to invest in our national defense.
        Thanks to the continuous support of the Congress our naval forces
    are superior to all others. But developing and maintaining capable
    naval forces requires our Nation to take a long-term view. It requires
    time, constant strategic planning, and significant commitment of
    resources to develop and maintain the world's premier naval force.
    Together, we have made tough decisions and I believe that this budget
    submission is adequately structured to support the needs of the United
    States Navy and the United States Marine Corps.
        Only through the collaborative efforts of the Congress and the
    Department of the Navy and with the support of the American people can
    we provide the Nation the naval force it needs to fight the global war
    on terror and prepare for the challenges of the future.
        Thank you.

        Senator Inouye. May I now recognize Chief of Naval
    Operations, Admiral Mullen.
    STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MICHAEL G. MULLEN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
                OPERATIONS
        Admiral Mullen. Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, other
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for your
    continued support of our men and women in uniform, and for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        I'm honored to join Secretary Winter and General Conway,
    representing the longest lasting inner-service relationship in
    our Nation's military history, the Navy-Marine Corps team. As
    the Secretary said, we are a nation at war--a maritime nation I
    might point out--fighting an elusive and adaptive enemy, bent
    on using terror and irregular tactics, to spread hatred and
    fear across the globe.
        At the same time, we are confronted by potentially hostile
    nation-states determined to develop and use sophisticated
    weapons systems. Your Navy is ready to meet these challenges.
    Sir, 2006 was a busy year. We met the demands of combatant
    commanders for well-trained, combat-ready forces around the
    world, deterring aggression and combating terrorism while
    providing international disaster relief to Pakistan and to the
    Philippines. Revisiting the tsunami-ravaged Southeast Asia with
    humanitarian relief on board hospital ship Mercy. Successfully
    evacuating over 14,000 American citizens safely from Lebanon
    and demonstrating our surge capability and partner building
    capacity in exercises Valiant Shield and RIMPAC.
        In addition to that, we monitored missile launches on the
    Korean peninsula with our aegis destroyers, sent a message of
    hope and resolve by the George Washington strike group in
    partnership of the Americas, and developed closer military-to-
    military relationships with the navies of China, India, and
    Russia.
        Some of our finest warfare officers command PRTs in
    Afghanistan, and Navy admirals commanded the joint task forces
    Horn of Africa and at Guantanamo Bay. We also strengthened our
    homeland security through partnership with our Coast Guard.
    Nearly 100 of your ships and submarines are at sea today and
    more than 60,000 sailors are forward deployed. Fully one-half
    of these men and women serve in the CENTCOM AOR and almost one-
    half of that number are on the ground in combat support roles.
    They are performing magnificently, each and every one.
        I had the opportunity to visit with many of them over the
    holidays in the Arabian Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and
    the Horn of Africa. I can tell you they are focused, well
    trained, and well led. They are proud of what they are doing,
    still proud of the difference they know they are making.
        But, we have work, we have to work hard to sustain this
    readiness. Though we continue to meet or exceed almost all of
    our recruiting and retention goals, I remain concerned about
    certain shortfalls among our expeditionary forces. SEALS,
    explosive ordinance disposal personnel, our naval construction
    force, medical corps, and our naval intelligence community.
    Additionally, I am starting to see, for the first time in
    years, a drop in our first-term retention and I'm watching this
    very closely.
        As I testified to the House Armed Services Committee last
    month, the accelerated wear and tear on systems and equipment
    in a harsh physical environment requires immediate attention,
    especially on combat construction equipment for our Seabees and
    older models of our expeditionary aircraft, the P-3, the EP-3,
    and the EA-6B Prowlers. The sound investments we made to
    improve fleet capabilities have paid off. We must now continue
    to reenergize our procurement accounts to maintain those
    capabilities in the future.
        Our fiscal year 2008 budget request helps us do that,
    calling for the construction of seven new ships as well as the
    addition of 188 new operational aircraft to the inventory,
    nearly 40 more than we ordered last year. As you know, we
    submitted a shipbuilding plan to Congress last year that would
    produce a fleet of 313 ships by 2020, a fleet sized and
    balanced to meet the challenges we face at the maximum
    acceptable risk. That plan, submitted with this budget, has not
    changed--still centered on 11 and eventually 12 aircraft
    carriers, 48 submarines, and 88 surface combatants--which
    include 88 cruisers and destroyers and up to 55 littoral combat
    ships. It will provide the Nation more options and more
    flexibility than ever before, particularly in core warfighting
    areas like mine and undersea warfare and antiballistic missile
    defense.
        I appreciate the support we've received from this
    subcommittee in developing this plan and building this fleet.
    We continue to evaluate, as we must, the impact of global
    developments, global developments that we had on the plan's
    original risk assumptions. I assure you I remain committed to a
    stable shipbuilding program and to pursuing, with our partners
    in industry, OSD and here on the Hill, the efficiencies
    required to make it affordable.
        Three things have definitely not changed, Mr. Chairman. My
    priorities to sustain combat readiness, build a fleet for the
    future, and develop 21st century leaders. I know the role our
    Navy must play in helping win the war on terror, while
    providing a powerful deterrent and remaining a vital element of
    this Nation's strategic reserve. I know well our requirement to
    support those we send into harm's way with the very best
    medical care, top-notch housing, and installations, and a
    strong commitment to their professional growth.
        The 2008 budget we've submitted is not without risk. While
    other services have seen their top lines increase since 9/11,
    the Navy has experienced a $7 billion decrease in buying power
    over the last 4 years. Our 2008 budget represents the maximum
    risk we believe we can accept in four key areas; manpower,
    readiness--both ashore and afloat--our procurement accounts,
    and our reset.
        When our ground forces return from Iraq and Afghanistan,
    our Nation will increasingly depend on the core expeditionary
    capabilities of our Navy and Marine Corps team. It is what we
    have done for over 231 years, and what we must continue to
    deliver to keep our Nation safe and prosperous. I know--and I
    know you know--that a maritime nation, such as ours, depends in
    great measure, as it has for more than 230 years, on the
    flexibility, reach, agility, and lethality of a strong Navy. We
    are that Navy, Mr. Chairman, and with your continued support we
    will remain that Navy.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Again, on behalf of your sailors, Navy civilians, and their
    wonderfully supportive families, I thank you for the
    opportunity before you and stand ready to answer your
    questions.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Admiral, for your
    reassuring remarks.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Admiral Michael G. Mullen
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and members of the committee, it is
    an honor to appear before you today representing the brave men and
    women, sailors and civilians, of the United States Navy. And it is with
    great pride, tempered by the urgency of war, that I report to you the
    Navy's readiness to answer all bells for our Nation's security, today
    and for generations to come. Thank you for your longstanding support.
                                  introduction
        We are a maritime Nation involved in a long, irregular and global
    war that extends far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat we face
    breeds within failing states and the under-governed spaces of the world
    and preys upon those weakened by poverty, disease, and hatred. It
    thrives where there is no rule of law and spreads like a malignancy
    through cyberspace and the vast maritime commons that serve as
    connecting tissue in this age of globalization.
        We are also confronted by nation-states determined to develop
    sophisticated weapons systems, including nuclear arms. We cannot allow
    ourselves to be fixated on one threat alone. Our national security is
    dependent upon a strong Navy that can keep the sea lanes free, deter
    aggression, safeguard our sources of energy, protect the interests of
    our citizens at home and reassure our friends abroad. We must never
    relinquish overmatching capability and capacity.
        While our ground forces are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
    Navy--with its ability to deliver two unique attributes day to day--
    global reach and persistent presence--will continue to support our
    responsibilities worldwide and provide a powerful deterrence, both in
    day-to-day operations as well as being a vital element of our Nation's
    ``Strategic Reserve.'' As we pace the rapidly changing security
    environment, there is no alternative to a well balanced fleet.
        Much has changed in the world since I testified before this
    committee last year. Iran has been emboldened by the Israel/Shoebill
    war and continues the overt pursuit of a nuclear production capability.
    North Korea has test fired long range ballistic missiles and conducted
    an underground nuclear detonation. China has demonstrated the ability
    and willingness to conduct out of area diesel submarine operations and
    their advanced military and space technology development continues
    apace. The stated desire for, and apparent pursuit of, weapons of mass
    destruction (WMD) and advanced delivery systems has increased among
    terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. And within our own
    hemisphere, some leaders have become increasingly vocal in their
    opposition to policies of the United States.
        Last Spring I signed the Navy Strategic Plan (NSP) to better align
    budgetary decisions with future operations and risk assessments. The
    NSP also laid the foundation for the Naval Operating Concept (NOC),
    which I co-signed with the Commandant of the Marine Corps in August
    2006. The NOC is intended to define the objectives and missions of the
    Navy-Marine Corps Team and to underscore our warfighting
    interdependence.
        The President's National Strategy for Maritime Security (NSMS)
    calls for enhanced international cooperation to ensure lawful and
    timely enforcement actions against maritime threats. During the Cold
    War, our Navy was guided by a maritime strategy focused on containing
    and defeating the spread of communism and Soviet domination. It is time
    to develop a new maritime strategy based on global reach and persistent
    presence--a strategy that includes core Navy warfighting competencies
    and deterrence, strategic communication and information operations,
    shaping and stability operations, emerging and enduring partnerships.
        At the International Sea Power Symposium in September 2005, the
    Chiefs of 49 navies and coast guards, among 72 countries represented,
    discussed a new vision of sea power in the 21st century. That vision of
    sea power encourages international partnerships for maritime security
    and awareness, consisting of vessels and capabilities from partner
    nations around the world--nations with a shared stake in international
    commerce, security and freedom of the seas: the ``1,000 Ship Navy.''
        This year the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard have joined maritime forces
    around the world interested in participating in global maritime
    partnerships--a proverbial ``1,000 Ship Navy.'' Membership in this
    ``global fleet'' is not proscriptive and has no legal or encumbering
    ties. It is envisioned to be a free form force of maritime partners who
    see the promise of sea power to unite, rather than to divide:
    Collective security on the oceans highways through a global maritime
    network.

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

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

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

                                   priorities
        In last year's testimony, I identified three priorities addressed
    by our fiscal year 2007 budget. We have made progress in all three and
    our fiscal year 2008 budget reaffirms our commitment to these
    priorities. We seek your assistance as we move forward, placing
    particular emphasis on strengthening our core warfighting capabilities
    and increasing our own military capacity as well as that of our
    partners. Our three priorities remain:
      --Sustain Combat Readiness.--With the right combat capabilities--
            speed, agility, persistence, and dominance--for the right cost.
      --Build a Fleet for the Future.--Balanced, rotational, forward
            deployed and surge capable--the proper size and mix of
            capabilities to empower our enduring and emerging partners,
            deter our adversaries, and defeat our enemies.
      --Develop 21st Century leaders.--Inherent in a strategy which,
            through a transformed manpower, personnel, training and
            education organization, better competes for the talent our
            country produces and creates the conditions in which the full
            potential of every man and woman serving our Navy can be
            achieved.
                            sustain combat readiness
    Fiscal Year 2006 in Review
        The Navy answered all bells in 2006. We met the demands of
    Combatant Commanders for well-trained, combat-ready forces--deterring
    aggression while conducting Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi
    Freedom, international disaster relief, and humanitarian missions. We
    successfully evacuated over 14,000 American citizens safely from
    Lebanon and demonstrated our resolve, capability and partner building
    capacity in Exercises Valiant Shield, RIMPAC, and Partnership of the
    Americas.
        Over 10,000 Navy individual augmentees continued to make
    significant contributions around the world in all manner of joint and
    coalition billets, particularly in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.
    We continued to provide vital direct and indirect combat support to the
    Marine Corps through a variety of blue in support of green programs,
    and we supported homeland defense initiatives with the U.S. Coast
    Guard, including the development of a Maritime Domain Awareness Concept
    of Operations (CONOPS) and the establishment of three Sector Command
    Center-Joint, interagency harbor operations centers.
        Last year the Navy also made progress toward improving our core
    warfighting competencies: anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, and
    ballistic missile defense. As the missile tests on the Korean Peninsula
    and the out of area deployment of a Chinese diesel submarine remind us,
    we must ensure we sustain our overmatching capability and capacity in
    these, and other, core warfighting mission areas.
    Current Readiness
        I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti,
    Bahrain, and ships at sea in the Arabian Gulf. I visited with sailors
    conducting special operations and combat support in Iraq, flying combat
    sorties in support of OEF and OIF, providing security protection for
    oil platforms, conducting civil affairs missions in Afghanistan,
    participating in Theater Security Cooperation activities in Horn of
    Africa, and standing watches onboard U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower,
    U.S.S. Anzio, and U.S.S. Boxer--reassuring our allies in the region
    while providing a formidable deterrent to Iran.
        Our Navy's readiness is superb and our sailors are performing at
    exceptional levels at sea and ashore. The men and women of your Navy
    are on watch around the world, around the clock.

        On 15 March 2007 we had 95 ships on deployment (34 percent of the
    fleet) and 127 ships underway (46 percent of the fleet) in every
    theater of operation; this included 3 aircraft carriers, and 4 big deck
    amphibious ships (LHA/LHD), and approximately 25 submarines (Figure 1).
        That same day, 2,744 active and reserve Seabees, and 4,896 of our
    active and reserve medical corps were serving overseas, many in combat
    support roles. Additionally, 817 members of the Navy Special Warfare
    community were deployed overseas (of 3,616 deployable), as were 247
    Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel (with 105 surge-available to
    deploy), and 744 Naval Coastal Warfare/Expeditionary Security Force
    personnel (of 2,640 deployable). Earlier this month, 167 sailors from
    the Navy's first, newly established Riverine Squadron arrived in Iraq
    to provide area security at the Haditha Dam.
        Worldwide, on March 15, 2007, there were 60,313 of our sailors
    deployed ashore and afloat worldwide, conducting strategic deterrence;
    intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; anti-submarine warfare
    training, ballistic missile defense, mine counter warfare, counter
    piracy and counter-drug patrols, theater security cooperation
    activities, and humanitarian assistance. On that day there were 31,120
    sailors serving in the CENTCOM AOR, 13,007 of whom, were on the ground
    building roads and schools, offering combat care and medical assistance
    to our fleet marines, providing timely intelligence support to Special
    Operations, and contributing to the myriad combat support and
    reconstruction missions ongoing in that region. No less vital are the
    sailors and civilians--the total Navy--who serve the shore-based
    infrastructure that underpins our fleet worldwide.
        Perhaps the greatest enabler of our current, and continuous,
    readiness has been the ongoing development of the Fleet Response Plan
    (FRP). FRP is an evolving, deliberate process to ensure increased and
    continuous availability of trained, ready Navy forces capable of a
    surge response forward on short notice. FRP does not change training
    requirements, operational capabilities or the amount of maintenance.
    Rather, it delivers enhanced surge capability while providing
    rotationally deployed forces to fulfill global force commitments.
        Another key enabler of our fleet readiness is family readiness.
    ``Family readiness'' means sailors' families are prepared for the
    absence of their loved one. The Navy strives to reduce the uncertainty
    and apprehension experienced by our Navy families in these stressful
    times, while strengthening the programs and resources available to
    support them.
        Without the support of our families--and, without supporting them
    in return--we cannot hope to sustain combat readiness. We owe our
    sailors and their families the very best quality of life we can offer.
    This includes top-notch housing and installations, the best health care
    we can provide, and a strong commitment to child care.
    Requirements to Sustain Combat Readiness
        As we adapt to asymmetric threats and the challenges of irregular
    warfare, we cannot lose sight of Navy's core warfighting competencies.
    We must continue to improve performance in anti-submarine and mine
    warfare, anti-surface warfare, anti-air warfare, strike warfare,
    ballistic missile defense, and other core maritime supremacy missions.
    We will continue to mature our Fleet Response Plan (FRP) and strengthen
    Fleet and Family Readiness--to ensure combat ready, surge-capable
    forces are available to meet any contingency. Natural disasters abroad
    and hurricanes here at home taught us valuable lessons. We need to
    extend the FRP philosophy of ``continuous readiness'' to our shore
    commands, our people, and to our families.
        To sustain our combat readiness, we seek congressional support in
    the following areas:
      --Anti-submarine Warfare.--Submarines with improving stealth and
            attack capability--particularly modern diesel attack
            submarines--are proliferating world-wide at an alarming rate.
            Locating these relatively inexpensive but extremely quiet boats
            presents our Navy with a formidable challenge. Navy is pursuing
            a distributed and netted approach to ASW. Some of the key ASW
            programs we must continue to develop and field as quickly as
            possible include: the Deployable Distributed Autonomous system
            (DADS); the Reliable Acoustic Path Vertical Line Array
            (RAPVLA); the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense System (SSTD); the
            Aircraft Carrier Periscope Detection Radar (CVNPDR); and, the
            High Altitude ASW Weapon Concept (HAAWC).
      --SONAR Restrictions.--ASW is a very complex and challenging
            warfighting competency in which to achieve and sustain the
            required level of expertise. Therefore every opportunity we
            have to gain and maintain proficiency at the ship/unit level,
            and every opportunity we have to integrate units in complex
            scenarios is crucial to our readiness. Unfortunately, our
            ability to train in the same manner in which we fight is under
            attack in public forums, including the courts. Thus far, we
            have seen little scientific basis for the claims lodged against
            the Navy. However, these allegations present the potential for
            severe restrictions on our continued ability to train
            effectively, as we saw in RIMPAC 2006 wherein we lost 3 days of
            valuable ASW training with active sonar because of a court
            restraining order. Navy is currently executing a comprehensive
            plan of action to cover all our at-sea training areas with
            environmental compliance documents by the end of 2009. We are
            committed to maintaining an open dialogue, continuing to
            advance our scientific understanding of the impacts of sonar on
            marine mammals, and complying with the relevant statutes. We
            have consistently made this clear as an organization in our
            debate on this issue. Maintaining proficiency in ASW is a daily
            challenge, and while our long-term compliance documents are
            being developed, we cannot afford to stop training. We owe it
            to our sailors to ensure they receive the training they need to
            fight and win.
          The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) requires permits for
            activities that may affect marine mammals. This includes
            military activities, including certain Navy activities at sea.
            The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 included a
            provision that authorizes the Secretary of Defense to grant
            exemptions to the MMPA for certain military activities critical
            to our national defense. On January 23, 2007, the Deputy
            Secretary of Defense granted Navy a National Defense Exemption
            (NDE) for 2 years covering mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar
            activities for major exercises and in major operating areas, as
            well as the use of Improved Explosive Echo Ranging sonobuoys
            (IEER). The NDE will help Navy continue to conduct the sonar
            training necessary for our national defense while protecting
            marine mammals through established mitigation measures.
      --Naval Expeditionary Combat Command.--NECC is developing into a true
            force of choice in phase zero (pre-conflict) and phase V
            (reconstruction) operations, and as a vital part of our
            Nation's long war against terrorism. Included in the Naval
            Expeditionary Combat Command today are 30,363 Active and
            Reserve component sailors including 15,339 in the Naval
            Construction Force, 6,557 in Naval Coastal Warfare, 3,607 in
            the Navy Expeditionary Logistics Force, 2,482 in Explosive
            Ordnance Disposal, 712 in the Riverine Force, 591 in the Navy
            Expeditionary Guard Battalion, 441 in Visit Board Search and
            Seizure/Intel, 431 in the Maritime Civil Affairs Group, 85 in
            Combat Camera, 68 in the Expeditionary Combat Readiness Center,
            and 50 in the Expeditionary Training Group. All new forces--
            Riverine, Expeditionary Training Group, Maritime Civil Affairs
            and Maritime Expeditionary Security Force--will meet full IOC
            objectives in fiscal year 2007. Riverine will deploy its first
            squadron to Iraq this month to provide area security at Haditha
            dam and interdiction operations on the Euphrates River. Your
            continued support of our Riverine capability and capacity is
            vital. Our second Riverine squadron was established on February
            2, 2007 and our third squadron will be stood up this June.
      --Sea Basing.--It would be difficult to consider any future
            expeditionary missions without recognizing the need for a sea
            base from which to stage Joint Forcible Entry Operations,
            Theater Security Cooperation, and humanitarian assistance
            activities. Sea basing provides operational maneuver and
            assured access to the Joint Force while significantly reducing
            our footprint ashore and minimizing the permissions required to
            operate from host nations. These are operational
            characteristics that will prove increasingly vital in the post-
            OIF/OEF political-military security environment. Navy is
            exploring innovative operational concepts combining sea basing
            with adaptive force packaging that will further support
            national security policy and the Combatant Commanders'
            objectives worldwide. Our 30 year shipbuilding plan provides
            for sea basing that covers the spectrum of warfare from Joint
            Forcible Entry to persistent and cooperative Theater Security
            Cooperation.
      --Ballistic Missile Defense.--Missile tests on the Korean Peninsula
            and by Iran, along with the proliferation of ballistic missile
            technology underscores the growing need for a robust, sea-borne
            ballistic missile defense system. Last year, the Navy made
            further progress on our Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD),
            the sea based component of the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA)
            Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). It enables surface
            combatants to support ground-based sensors and provides a
            capability to intercept short and medium range ballistic
            missiles with ship-based interceptors (SM-3). The Sea-Based
            Terminal Program will provide the ability to engage Short Range
            Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) with modified SM-2 BLk IV missiles
            from Aegis BMD capable ships.
      --Depot Level Maintenance.--Ship and aviation depot level maintenance
            is critical to enable the continuing readiness of our
            warfighting capabilities. Support of our O&MN accounts will
            ensure we don't defer critical maintenance.
      --U.S.S. George Washington.--The U.S.S. George Washington will
            relieve U.S.S. Kitty Hawk as our forward deployed Naval forces
            CVN in Japan in fiscal year 2008. This transition, vital to our
            security interests in the Asian Pacific region, needs to be
            fully funded.
      --Fleet and Family Readiness.--The Navy is addressing fleet and
            family readiness in many critical areas, four of which are:
            minimizing financial risk and predatory lending; improving
            crisis management and response procedures; enhancing child care
            programs and centers; and, improving ombudsman programs. We
            also continue to work with those families struggling to recover
            from the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
      --Steaming Days.--The fiscal year 2008 budget provides funds
            necessary to support 48 underway days per quarter of the active
            operational tempo (OPTEMPO) for deployed forces and 22 underway
            days per quarter for non-deployed forces (primarily used for
            training). Our fiscal year 2008 baseline budget estimates also
            include reductions to peacetime OPTEMPO levels. The fiscal year
            2008 budget supports the ``6+1'' surge readiness level from our
            Carrier Strike Groups. As in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year
            2007, it is anticipated that operational requirements will
            continue to exceed peacetime levels in fiscal year 2008.
                         ibuild a fleet for the future
    Fiscal Year 2006 in Review
        In 2005 the Navy conducted extensive analysis to determine the
    minimum required force structure needed to meet the security demands of
    the 21st century with an acceptable level of risk. In February 2006,
    the Navy unveiled a new 30-year shipbuilding plan that will provide a
    Battle Force of approximately 313 ships by 2020 with more capacity and
    capability than was ever dreamed when our fleet was much larger in
    size. Stabilizing this plan, which remained essentially unchanged in
    our 2007 submission, is intended to provide the shipbuilding industry
    with sufficient predictability to maintain critical skills and to make
    business decisions that increase efficiency and productivity in order
    to meet the Navy's projected shipbuilding requirements.
        Last year we began to see our future fleet taking shape. We
    currently have 38 ships under contract for construction, and in fiscal
    year 2006 ships that had been designed a few short years ago rolled
    down the ways. We christened the first Freedom Class Littoral Combat
    Ship, amphibious assault ship Makin Island, amphibious transport dock
    ship Green Bay, guided missile destroyers Gridley and Sampson, nuclear
    fast attack submarine Hawaii, auxiliary dry cargo ships Alan Shepard
    and Sacagawea, and the aircraft carrier George HW Bush. We commissioned
    the amphibious nuclear attack submarine Texas and the guided missile
    destroyer Farragut. We also rolled out the first EA-18G Growler.
        In fiscal year 2006, the increased wartime OPTEMPO of Operations
    Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and the global war on terror continued
    to wear down Navy's aging, ``legacy'' aircraft. Expeditionary aircraft
    utilization has dramatically increased, particularly for EA-6B airborne
    electronic attack aircraft, MH-60 multi-mission helicopters, P-3
    maritime patrol aircraft, EP-3 electronic surveillance aircraft, and F/
    A-18 C/D attack aircraft, thus shortening the expected service life
    (ESL) of these aging airframes.
        Improving our own capacity was only part of the Navy's focus in
    fiscal year 2006. We also pursued the broadest possible approach to
    strengthening maritime security through partnerships. This included
    closer cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard and our other interagency
    partners, international organizations, non-governmental agencies,
    commercial shippers, and maritime nations great and small.
        Perhaps the most tangible application of Navy's global reach and
    persistent presence in building partner capacity was last year's 5
    month deployment of the hospital ship Mercy in the summer of 2006 to
    the tsunami-affected areas in South and Southeast Asia. Working with
    embarked military medical personnel from Canada, Australia, Singapore,
    India and Malaysia as well as representatives from 11 non-governmental
    organizations, Mercy's accomplishments ashore and afloat included:
    60,081 patients seen, 131,511 total services provided; 1,083 surgeries;
    19,375 immunizations; 20,134 optometry evaluations, 16,141 glasses
    distributed; 9,373 dental extractions; 236 biomedical equipment
    repairs, 254 people trained; 59 major and 177 minor medical systems
    restored to 100 percent operational capacity; and, 6,201 host nation
    students trained.
        In an August 2006 public opinion survey, conducted by Terror Free
    Tomorrow, Indonesians and Bangladeshis overwhelmingly indicated their
    support of this humanitarian mission. In Indonesia, 85 percent of those
    aware of Mercy's visit had a favorable opinion, and in Bangladesh this
    figure was 95 percent. Further, 87 percent of those polled in
    Bangladesh stated that Mercy's activities made their overall view of
    the United States more positive. These polling results provide some
    indication of the power of partnerships.
    Current Force
        By the end of fiscal year 2007 we will have stopped the free fall
    of our Navy and our fleet's net size will have grown from a low of 274
    ships in March 2007 to 279, including five newly commissioned ships.
        Navy is in the process of evaluating the impact global developments
    have had on our risk assumptions, and ultimately whether or not this
    will affect the build rate of our future Battle Force. Whatever the
    outcome of this evaluation, we will work closely with our partners in
    industry to control requirements costs and provide the industrial base
    the stability it needs to become more productive.
        Future platforms and combat systems must be designed and built with
    the knowledge that we plan to continually upgrade them over their
    lifetime. An open architecture approach to software acquisition and
    development of integrated weapons systems is a critical part of this
    business model. Free and open competition in which the best idea wins
    is the goal.
        The fiscal year 2008 President's budget submission provides for
    procuring seven new ships in fiscal year 2008 and 67 new ships over the
    FYDP (fiscal year 2008-2013). To facilitate the stability required to
    achieve reduced costs in this constrained industrial sector, no changes
    in ship acquisitions were made in fiscal year 2008 from PB07 to PB08.
    The Navy has a long-range vision to reduce types and models of ships,
    to maximize reuse of ship designs and components, and to employ a
    business model that encourages the use of open architecture and mission
    systems modularity.
        The next major challenge in building a fleet for the future is to
    deliver a long range aviation procurement plan. Much work has been done
    analyzing joint warfighting capabilities and capacity based on threat
    and risk assessments driven by Defense Planning Guidance. Consideration
    has also been given to affordability, industrial capacity and
    production times associated with next generation aviation warfare. The
    Navy will work to deliver a stable aviation build plan that transforms
    and balances aviation capabilities with respect to conventional and
    irregular warfare, reduces excess capacity, and achieves technological
    superiority through cost-wise investments in recapitalization,
    sustainment and modernization programs.
        PB08 procures 188 aircraft in fiscal year 2008 and 1,295 aircraft
    across the FYDP (fiscal year 2008-2013), reduces average aircraft age
    from 74 percent to 50 percent of expected service life, and
    concentrates on resourcing critical maritime and joint effects. The
    plan is structured to support required economic order quantity
    investments and facilitate Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contracts.
        We must include the vital contribution that can be made in securing
    the global commons by our partners with common interests. The
    President's National Strategy for Maritime Security states, that, ``The
    safety and economic security of the United States depends upon the
    secure use of the world's oceans.'' It further notes that, ``maritime
    security is best achieved by blending public and private maritime
    security activities on a global scale into an integrated effort that
    addresses all maritime threats.''
        I believe an international ``1,000 ship Navy,'' offers a real
    opportunity to increase partner nation capabilities while reducing
    transnational crime, WMD proliferation, terrorism, and human
    trafficking. Regional maritime security partnerships are already taking
    shape worldwide that support this ideal, some with and some without
    direct U.S. Navy involvement. The self-organizing evacuation of non-
    combatants from Lebanon during the Israeli-Hezbollah war, in which 170
    ships from 17 countries came together, accomplished their mission, and
    dispersed is often cited as a good example of how such partnerships
    might work.
        Critical to increasing partner capacity in the war on terror, as
    well as building strong global maritime partnerships (the ``1,000 ship
    Navy'') that promote maritime security, is the Building Global
    Partnerships Act of 2007, being submitted to Congress by the Department
    of Defense as a top legislative priority. The BGP Act will
    significantly improve our ability to help friendly nations develop
    capabilities to better govern and defend their territorial waters and
    the global maritime commons, denying access to terrorists and criminal
    organizations. We encourage your support for this vital legislation
    that will further enable support for the ``1,000 ship Navy'' concept.
        Sea power in this century cannot be harnessed by a single nation
    acting alone. If we are to build a fleet for the future capable of
    keeping pace with globalization, we must leverage the capacity of our
    partners with common interests. The positive potential of sea power and
    freedom of the seas can only be achieved through a collective and
    cooperative approach focused on international rule of law and freedom
    of the maritime commons.
    Requirements to Build a Fleet for the Future
        We have worked hard with Congress and industry to start to create
    stability in our shipbuilding plans and industrial base. We must
    continue to fund and build a balanced, effective Battle Force of about
    313 ships--the minimum force required to guarantee the long-term
    strength and viability of U.S. naval air and sea power with acceptable
    risk. We recognize the need to control requirements, maintain program
    stability, curb costs, and monitor best business practices. We need
    support for sustained funding of our shipbuilding account--consistent
    with the 30-year plan--that is critical to provide our partners in
    industry the stability they need to curb cost growth and sustain our
    vital shipbuilding industrial base.
        To build a fleet for the future and strong partnerships, we seek
    congressional support in the following areas:
      --11 Carrier Force.--The 30 year shipbuilding plan recognizes that as
            a result of the retirement of U.S.S. Enterprise in fiscal year
            2013, the number of aircraft carriers will drop to 10 for a
            period of approximately 30 months, until the U.S.S. Gerald Ford
            enters active service. Legislative relief is required from the
            Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act requiring a
            carrier force of 11. In developing the 30 year shipbuilding
            plan, Navy conducted extensive analysis that concluded the
            temporary drop to a carrier force of 10 from fiscal year 2013
            through fiscal year 2015 is an acceptable, though moderate,
            risk. A carrier force of 11 is recognized as minimum risk over
            the long run.
      --Littoral Combat Ship.--The Littoral Combat Ship program remains of
            critical importance to our Navy. Current cost estimates exceed
            established thresholds for detail design and construction of
            LCS 1, the lead Lockheed Martin hull. This recent cost growth
            has provided an opportunity to reinforce the Navy's commitment
            to providing warfighting capability through affordability. The
            Navy is executing a pause in the construction of LCS 3, the
            second Lockheed Martin hull, to conduct a thorough review of
            the program, and to examine both internal and external factors
            relating to the acquisition and contracting processes,
            practices, and oversight and the related impact on cost. The
            Navy remains committed to bringing Littoral Combat Ship
            capability into the fleet quickly and by means of an
            acquisition strategy that is executable, affordable, and in the
            best interests of the Navy.
      --Virginia Class Multi-Year Procurement (MYP).--Navy is seeking
            multi-year procurement authority in fiscal year 2008 for
            Virginia Class submarine contracts beginning with the fiscal
            year 2009 ship. Continued MYP authority will help maintain a
            stable SCN profile and greatly aid in Virginia Class cost
            reduction initiatives. In order to support our long-term
            submarine force structure of 48 boats, Navy plans to increase
            the build rate of this class to two/year beginning in fiscal
            year 2012.
      --Split Funding for Zumwalt Class DDG.--The support of Congress for
            last year's split funding request was greatly appreciated. This
            year Navy requests the second half of split year funding for
            dual lead ships of the Zumwalt Class destroyer to maximize
            competitive efficiencies and focus design efforts. Split
            funding will also lend stability to the shipbuilding industrial
            base. This funding strategy supports the current budget
            structure, enhances future competitive opportunities, and
            limits liability for appropriations in future years.
      --Joint Strike Fighter.--The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter remains the
            cornerstone of Navy's continuing superiority in air warfare.
            Although risk associated with the recent 2 year slide in the
            carrier variant of the F-35 will be mitigated by an increased
            buy of F/A-18E,F variants, there should be no doubt that JSF is
            a much more capable aircraft. I encourage your continued strong
            support of this program to guard against further delays in
            production.
      --Legacy Expeditionary Aircraft Replacement.--As our aging, legacy
            aircraft reach the end of the service lives, funding for
            follow-on programs becomes critical. Among these programs are
            the P-8A multi-mission maritime aircraft, the F/A 18-E/F and
            JSF, the EA-18G airborne electronic attack aircraft, the V-22
            tilt-rotor aircraft, and the MH-60R/S and CH-53K helicopters.
            Navy's RDT&E program is also vital to this effort.
      --Research and Development.--To achieve the speed of war Navy is
            pursuing Innovative Naval Prototypes (INPs)--revolutionary
            ``game changers'' for future naval warfare. These initiatives
            have resulted in the development of an electro-magnetic rail-
            gun prototype; new concepts for persistent, netted, littoral
            anti-submarine warfare; technologies to enable sea-basing; and
            the naval tactical utilization of space.
      --Public Shipyard Loading.--As we work with industry on shipbuilding
            cost reduction, we must ensure legislation and policy support
            best business practices and efficiencies. Apportioning work
            based upon funding quotas to drive work-loading in public naval
            shipyards potentially diverts efficiency opportunities away
            from the private sector. Public yards provide vital services
            for nuclear propulsion and submarine work, and these critical
            competencies must be maintained. However, our first priorities
            in shipyard loading should be quality, efficiency, and cost
            savings. We seek your assistance in removing restrictions on
            our work-loading flexibility.
      --Shore Installations and BRAC V.--In addition to our ships and
            airplanes, another critical piece of force structure is our
            shore infrastructure, to include installations, piers and
            support facilities, training ranges, schoolhouses, hospitals,
            and housing. Supporting a ``Surge Navy'' demands we create an
            infrastructure that leverages advanced technology, sound
            investment and intelligent sustainment for the fleet, for our
            sailors and their families. The Navy's Ashore Vision 2030 is
            our roadmap for transforming the Navy shore infrastructure over
            the next 25 years; it is aligned with the congressionally-
            mandated Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
          The Continuing Resolution (CR) voted into Public Law in February
            2007, decreased Department of Defense BRAC V funding from $5.6
            billion request to $2.5 billion. Without supplemental funding
            to remedy the $3.1 billion reduction this law made in the DOD
            BRAC request, Navy's BRAC V funding will essentially be cut
            from $675 million to $291 million--a 57 percent reduction. This
            would devastate a program entering the critical stages of
            execution. This reduction would also delay, or in some cases
            negate, our ability to harvest savings and reap funds from land
            sales and transfers. Should this shortfall be remedied through
            fiscal year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations funding,
            Navy would do its best to minimize the impact of this delay
            through prompt execution of funds.
      --MHC Transfers.--Legislative authority for planned ship transfers
            are an important aspect of inter-operability with the navies of
            our allies. These transfers also contribute to the 1,000 ship
            Navy vision by building partner nation capacity, while reducing
            the taxpayer costs of maintaining or disposing of
            decommissioned ships. Navy seeks authority to transfer coastal
            mine hunting ships (MHCs) to Lithuania and Turkey. Limited in
            speed and endurance, the MHCs were designed as non-deploying
            assets. With no sweep capability and without redundant
            engineering and combat systems equipment, they are constrained
            in their ability to conduct mine clearance operations. For the
            MHCs to provide utility in a homeland defense role, they would
            have to be strategically distributed across the United States
            which would drain limited fiscal and manpower resources and
            hamper the Navy's ability to field a responsive and capable MCM
            force. These ships are scheduled for decommissioning in fiscal
            year 2008 and if authority is timely, they can be ``hot
            transferred'' which is less expensive for both the United
            States and the recipient.
      --United Nations Law of the Sea Convention.--To interact more
            effectively with our maritime partners, it is time to ratify
            the Law of the Sea Convention. Robust operational and
            navigational rights codified in the Law of the Sea Convention
            must be preserved for the Navy to continue to maximize its
            ability to execute the National Strategy for Maritime Security.
            Accession to the convention is of critical importance to global
            naval maritime and over flight mobility.
                          develop 21st century leaders
    Fiscal Year 2006 in Review
        In fiscal year 2006, Navy continued to meet recruiting and
    retention goals for most ratings and designators in the active and
    reserve components. We achieved 100 percent of our overall active
    component enlisted recruiting goal, and our overall enlisted retention
    goal was exceeded at 104 percent. We met 98 percent of our overall
    active component officer accession goal and 99 percent of our active
    officer end strength goal. Navy will continue to remain vigilant in
    what is proving to be an increasingly difficult recruiting environment.
        Fiscal year 2006 was the fifth year of support for the global war
    on terror. Continued wartime OPTEMPO for Operations OIF and OEF has
    raised concern for the health and welfare of some parts of our
    expeditionary force. Medical ratings and designators, Explosive
    Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel, divers, Special Warfare Combat
    Crewmen (SWCC), and Seals remained recruiting challenges.
        Last year, Navy put a great deal of effort into analyzing and
    addressing the root causes of these recruiting shortfalls. New
    authorities provided in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense
    Authorization Act, such as increased accession bonuses and college
    stipends, are expected to help mitigate medical officer recruiting
    challenges. Increased accession bonuses for Seal/Navy Special Warfare
    ratings and improved training techniques to reduce attrition will help
    us meet future requirements in our global war on terror intensive
    ratings.
        The Expeditionary Combat Readiness Center (ECRC), a command within
    the NECC, was established in fiscal year 2006 as the single process
    owner for the deployment of Navy Individual Augmentees (IA) and In-lieu
    of (ILO) forces, of which the Navy is currently fielding over 10,000
    sailors. The ECRC helps organize, process, train, equip, and deploy
    IAs, providing reach-back support and eventually helping them re-
    integrate with their parent command. Additionally, all active duty
    sailors now process through one of four Navy Mobilization Processing
    Sites (NMPS) which has greatly enhanced consistency in processing
    between our Active and Reserve components. The ECRC NMPS are helping
    Navy process IAs while meeting a goal of 60 day advanced notification
    of deployment.
        Central to Navy's ability to sustain overall readiness,
    particularly in support of the global war on terror through the
    Individual Augmentee program, was, and is, the near-seamless
    integration of our Active and Reserve components. Since September 11,
    2001, over 42,000 Navy Reservists have been mobilized in support of the
    global war on terror (GWOT), representing over 80 percent of the total
    number of sailors deployed on the ground in theater. On any given day,
    over 20,000 citizen-sailors are on some type of Active Duty (AD) or
    Inactive Duty (ID) orders at their supported commands meeting global
    COCOM requirements. This number includes about 5,000 RC sailors
    mobilized in support of OIF and OEF. Additionally, we maintain the
    capacity to rapidly increase contingency support with more than 28,000
    RC sailors yet to be mobilized.
        Navy's Active/Reserve Integration program (ARI) aligns Reserve
    Component (RC) and Active Component (AC) personnel, training, equipment
    and policy to achieve unity of command. It leverages both budgetary and
    administrative efficiencies, as well as ensuring that the full weight
    of Navy resources and capabilities are under the authority of a single
    commander. Navy Reservists are aligned and fully integrated into their
    AC supported commands, and often conduct ``flex-drilling,'' putting
    multiple drill periods together to provide longer periods of
    availability when requested. This flexibility enables our Reserve
    sailors to better balance the schedules and demands of their civilian
    employers and families while achieving greater technical proficiency,
    more cohesive units and increased readiness.
        The Reserve Component is a critical enabler of the ``Sailor for
    Life'' concept that is central to our Strategy for our People. This
    approach to recruiting, retention, and professional development
    explores innovative opportunities for career on-ramps and off-ramps,
    providing fluidity between the active and reserve components. Last
    year, Navy continued to actively pursue incentives that will develop a
    more adaptable, better educated, and more highly skilled workforce
    while encouraging sailors to serve longer and more productively.
        Based on national demographic trends and the pace of globalization,
    it is clear we must build a more diverse Navy. According to the U.S.
    Census Bureau, by 2030 African Americans will comprise approximately 14
    percent of the population nationally, Hispanics 20 percent, and Asians/
    Pacific Islanders/other 10 percent. Our officer corps currently
    consists of 81 percent non-minority and our enlisted ranks are
    approximately 52 percent non-minority. To ensure we have the best
    people, from the widest talent pool available, we must do a better job
    of recruiting and retaining our Nation's young minority students.
    Current Status of Our Sailors and Civilians
        Perhaps no where else in our Navy is the pace of change more
    profoundly felt than in our manpower, personnel and training
    enterprise. It is here that the dynamics of globalization, cultural
    diversity, advancing technologies, generational differences, changes in
    the labor market, and declining numbers of hard science degrees among
    America's youth combine to make recruiting and retention more
    challenging than ever.
        Currently, only three in ten high school graduates meet the minimum
    criteria for military service, including academic/mental, physical, and
    social/legal requirements. With all four armed services, a great number
    of colleges and universities, as well as corporate America seeking
    talented and qualified high school graduates, competition is stiff.
        If we are to pace the security challenges of this century, our
    sailors and civilian workforce must evolve with our weapons systems. We
    must recruit today the young men and women who will be leading the
    fleet tomorrow. This will be a more specialized, technically capable,
    better educated, more culturally diverse and aware Navy than we have
    today. And it will be smaller.
        Unfortunately, the old model of recruiting and detailing in which
    we focused on simply filling specific requirements, is no longer
    sufficient. Today, and in the future, as we reduce the size of our
    force to align it with increasingly sophisticated systems in a complex
    security environment, we must strive to fit the right person to match
    the requirements. And as we eliminate excess infrastructure ashore and
    increase our global outreach and persistent presence forward, the ratio
    of sea to shore billets will become more balanced. In order to make the
    right fit for each individual sailor, we must be mindful of providing
    geographic stability, satisfying work, personal and professional
    development, and, to the degree possible, predictability in their
    future assignments.
        Admittedly, we could adapt more easily to the rapidly changing
    security environment if we could focus on a specific enemy or choose
    between effectiveness in irregular warfare or major combat operations--
    between asymmetric or conventional threats. Unfortunately, we cannot
    choose; we must prepare for both.
        Nor can we make it the responsibility of each sailor to
    individually sort out priorities or determine how to accommodate the
    greater breadth of learning and the depth of experience the future
    requires. Rather, we must adjust our personnel strategies to account
    for the dynamic nature of the demands on our people while assuring a
    predictable availability of current capability and future capacity
    suitable to the needs of the Joint Force and the Nation.
        As we develop and build more efficient and automated ships, planes,
    and combat systems, personnel reductions are inevitable, and as crew
    sizes decrease, the skill level and specialization requirements
    increase. The Navy has reduced its active end strength by some 35,000
    sailors over the last 4 years. In 2003 our active component consisted
    of 375,700 sailors; at the end of fiscal year 2007 we will have
    340,700; and, by the end of fiscal year 2008 we will have 328,400. As
    we look ahead to the smaller, more capable ships entering service in
    the FYDP, we anticipate a stabilization of that trend at an active end-
    strength between 320,000 and 325,000. We are also trimming our Reserve
    component which will have gone from a total of 87,800 in 2003 to a
    total of 71,300 at the end of fiscal year 2007 and 67,800 by the end of
    fiscal year 2008. But these reductions are more about shaping the right
    force, than simply trimming its size. Our priority, then, is to recruit
    some 45,000 active sailors with the right mix of diversity, education,
    and skill sets necessary to serve our fleet in 2009 and beyond.
        The Strategy for our People provides the framework through which we
    will size, shape and stabilize the Navy Total Force. The execution of
    Navy's overarching Strategy for Our People focuses on six goals:
    capability driven management; a competency based workforce; an
    effective total force; increased diversity; being competitive in the
    marketplace; and, being agile and cost efficient. The achievement of
    these goals depends on our ability to execute our programs of record.
    This strategy will satisfy future joint warfighting needs by
    attracting, retaining, and better educating sailors and civilians
    capable of adapting and responding to mission needs anytime, anyplace,
    anywhere. [Figure 2]

        Capability Driven Manpower.--Warfighting missions and operations
    have become more complex and uncertain. Navy work and workforce
    requirements are constantly shifting and evolving with changes in
    required operational, political and strategic capabilities. Basing
    manpower requirements on current and projected warfighting needs will
    ensure we meet today's operational requirements while continuously
    updating and balancing the workforce as needs change.
        A Competency Based Workforce.--The Force Planning Concept suggests
    the joint force must develop unique capabilities that fall outside the
    realm of conventional warfighting. This means an expansion of the Navy
    workforce requirements beyond traditional roles (e.g. Maritime Civil
    Affairs Group). Developing the workforce based on competencies allows
    the Navy to continuously evaluate critical skills and create a
    workforce well-matched to the needs of the warfighters. A competency-
    based workforce also enables the Navy to determine where there is
    workforce commonality (or exclusivity) across a range of military
    operations so efficiencies can be realized.
        An Effective Total Force.--A constrained fiscal environment and
    workforce reductions demand our focus on applying the best resources to
    jobs as creatively as necessary. Viewing workforce components as one
    integrated team of sailors and civilians provides flexibility and
    reduces risk while better meeting warfighting needs. Leveraging the
    strength of the Total Force provides maximum flexibility in applying
    the right skill-set to a requirement in the most cost-efficient manner.
        Diversity.--The changing demographics of the American population
    and the diversity of our missions in the world demand Navy take
    proactive steps to ensure it has access to the full range of the
    Nation's talent. Leveraging the strength of the Nation's diversity
    creates an environment of excellence and continuous improvement, in
    which artificial barriers to achievement are removed and the
    contributions of all participants are valued.
        Being Competitive in the Marketplace.--The Navy is faced with
    recruiting and retention challenges in an era of increased military
    operations, a strong civilian economy, and a decreasing propensity for
    military service. To remain competitive with the other services,
    academic institutions, and corporate America the Navy must revise and
    update its personnel policies and programs so it is attractive to the
    desired talent base and successfully competes with the private sector
    for the best talent.
        Being Agile and Cost Efficient.--Expanding capability-driven
    workforce requirements and fiscal constraints require the Navy to
    deliver a more capable, versatile force. Agility means swiftly
    developing and implementing strategies, policies and processes to
    proactively meet evolving needs and challenges while focusing on the
    skills and abilities most in demand right now. Cost-efficient means we
    do this economically and without fiscal waste.
        Education is another area that will be treated as a strategic
    investment in our future. Our education strategy must reflect the
    technological basis of our core warfighting skills, the interdependence
    of joint and combined operations, the complexity of decision-making,
    and the sophisticated regional knowledge and grasp of political-
    military issues expected of Navy leaders. The objective of the
    education strategy is to enhance overall performance excellence in
    current and future joint operations and operations support by
    addressing the individual needs of those who are currently serving as
    well as the future force.
    Requirements to Develop 21st Century Leaders
        The challenges we face in shaping the force are considerable. We
    must deliver on the Strategy for our People.
        To develop 21st century leaders, we seek congressional support in
    the following areas:
      --Combat Casualty Care.--The objective of Navy's combat casualty care
            is to maximize the continuum of quality care with lifesaving
            interventions as close to the battle space as possible and with
            no decrease in quality of service during rehabilitation and
            recuperation. On the battlefield this includes forward surgical
            access and capabilities that have resulted in dramatically
            improved survival rates; diagnosis of mild/moderate traumatic
            brain injury/closed-head injury; improved patient care during
            transport; and, careful monitoring of mental health surveys
            administered during and after deployment to combat areas. After
            leaving the combat area, there is a 99.2 percent survival rate
            once an injured sailor reaches a Navy medical treatment
            facility. Navy supports the Secretary's ongoing review of
            Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical
            Center at Bethesda and is currently and separately evaluating,
            through our Inspector General, the material condition and
            quality of service at each of our Navy medical treatment
            facilities.
          Our highest priority is to win the global war on terror. Second
            only to this is our determination to take care of those wounded
            in this fight and their families.
      --Health Care Cost Control.--The Navy is committed to ensuring our
            sailors and their families receive top quality health care
            throughout the continuum of service. By 2009 our Navy will not
            only be smaller, it will be leaner. Health care costs continue
            to rise at a rate disproportionate to inflation. DOD TRICARE
            costs have more than doubled in 5 years from $19 billion in
            fiscal year 2001 to $38 billion in fiscal year 2006, and
            analysts project these costs could reach $64 billion by 2015--
            more than 12 percent of DOD's anticipated budget (versus 8
            percent today). Yet this problem extends beyond our active
            duty, or even our reserve, health care costs. One of the
            significant drivers of this increased cost is the TRICARE for
            Life program developed for the 2001 National Defense
            Authorization Act.
          We could not have anticipated the growing number of retirees and
            their dependents, not yet Medicare eligible, who have chosen or
            have been driven to switch from private/commercial health care
            plans to TRICARE in order to better cope with rising health
            care costs. Despite greatly increased utilization rates,
            TRICARE premiums have not changed with inflation since the
            program began in 1995, so that total beneficiary cost shares
            have declined substantially--27 percent of total benefit cost
            in 1995 while 12 percent in 2005. In fact, from fiscal year
            2008 to fiscal year 2013, Navy's accrual costs for future
            retirees alone are expected to increase by $4 billion (a 16
            percent increase) despite a flattened and stabilized end
            strength over that same period of time.
          There is no longer any tolerance for inefficiencies in our
            manpower system and very little flexibility in our MPN account.
            This has a carry-over effect by further pressurizing our
            procurement accounts. We again urge Congress to implement the
            initiatives and administrative actions that will restore
            appropriate cost sharing relationships between beneficiaries
            and the Department of Defense.
      --DOPMA Relief.--While Navy end strength is reduced and stabilizes
            across the FYDP, the demand continues to increase for
            experienced officers to fill joint requirements, core mission
            areas and jobs related to the war on terror. Navy is already
            operating at or near control grade limits imposed by title 10,
            resulting in billet-grade suppression. Navy currently
            suppresses 106 captain, 279 commander, and 199 lieutenant
            commander billets at a lower pay grade (a total of 584 control
            grade billets). If title 10 limits were increased by 5 percent,
            Navy would be authorized to grow 131 captains, 304 commanders,
            and 478 lieutenant commanders. Funding to current control-grade
            requirements would give Navy the authority to grow 25 captains,
            25 commanders, and 279 lieutenant commanders as future control-
            grade requirements emerge. This legislation is critical to
            Navy's ability to carry out the National Military Strategy.
      --Special Pay and Incentives.--Navy will continue to seek funding for
            special pay, recruitment and retention bonus to maintain the
            right balance of skills and workforce.
      --Sailor for Life.--Navy requires assistance in providing sufficient
            flexibility in transitioning between our active and reserve
            components as we pursue our sailor for life initiatives.
      --Path to Jointness.--The Navy is committed to pursuing a path to
            jointness--developing joint leaders both in the officer and
            senior enlisted communities. We are pursuing initiatives that
            will: establish the professional military education (PME)
            requirements for the ranks of E-1 through 0-8 across our active
            and reserve components; ensure that PME graduates are closely
            tracked and assigned to billets that exploit their education
            and accelerate their development as joint leaders; assess
            policy effectiveness by tracking the number and percentages of
            PME graduates assigned to career enhancing billets, and require
            100 percent fill of Navy resident student billets at all Joint,
            Service and foreign war colleges.
      --Tuition Assistance.--The Navy is committed to supporting its
            sailors who choose education as a path to personal and
            professional development. The Navy provides 100 percent
            reimbursement up to $250 and $50 per semester hour for up to 16
            credit hours. This is an increase from previous policy which
            only allowed reimbursement up to 12 credit hours. Tuition
            assistance is capped by DOD at $4,500 per person per fiscal
            year.
      --National Security Personnel System (NSPS).--NSPS is a new personnel
            system that will create new civil service rules for the 750,000
            Defense Department civilian workers. It strengthens our ability
            to accomplish the mission in an ever-changing national security
            environment. NSPS accelerates efforts to create a total force
            (active-duty military personnel, civilian personnel, Reserve,
            Guard, and contractors), operating as one cohesive unit, with
            each performing the work most suitable to their skills and the
            Department's priorities. The Department of the Navy needs a
            human resource system that appropriately recognizes and rewards
            employees' performance and the contributions they make to the
            mission. NSPS gives us better tools to attract and retain good
            employees.
          Department of the Navy deployment of the remaining portions of
            NSPS continues. Pay and performance provisions have so far been
            deployed to approximately 4,000 employees and another 16,000
            will be done by Spring, 2007. Further deployment of non-
            enjoined portions of the law will continue. Specifically, the
            pay, performance, recruiting, workforce shaping and other
            provisions of this new personnel system will be enacted
            throughout 2007-2008.
                                   conclusion
        Our Navy is truly a bargain, costing the taxpayers less than 1
    percent of the GDP. Though we are increasingly stretched, the Navy is
    in great shape and our people are remarkable. But as we strive to
    sustain combat readiness, build a fleet for the future and develop 21st
    century leaders we cannot allow ourselves to take this for granted. We
    must be mindful of the need to maintain a strong Navy now, with our
    ground forces stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also after
    they return home.
        Our Nation depends upon a strong Navy with the global reach and
    persistent presence needed to provide deterrence, access, and
    assurance, while delivering lethal warfighting capacity whenever and
    wherever it is needed. Our Navy is fighting the global war on terror
    while at the same time providing a strategic reserve worldwide for the
    President and our Unified and Combatant Commanders. As we assess the
    risks associated with the dynamic security challenges that face us, we
    must ensure we have the Battle Force, the people, and the combat
    readiness we need to win our Nation's wars.
        We have put the rudder over, and I believe we have the course about
    right. Simply reacting to change is no longer an acceptable course of
    action if our Navy is to successfully wage asymmetric warfare and
    simultaneously deter regional and transnational threats: Two
    challenges, one fleet. Our Nation's security and prosperity depend upon
    keeping our shores safe and the world's maritime highways open and
    free.
          Annex I.--Programs and Initiatives to Achieve CNO Priorities
                            sustain combat readiness
        Programs and practices of particular interest include (listed in
    order of fiscal year 2008 dollar value):
    Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)
        MUOS is the next generation Ultra High Frequency (UHF) narrowband
    satellite communications (SATCOM) system, replacing UHF Follow-On
    (UFO). MUOS supports communications-on-the-move to small and less
    stable platforms (handhelds, aircraft, missiles, UAVs, remote sensors)
    in stressed environments (foliage, urban environment, high sea state).
    UHF SATCOM provides critical command and control connectivity and is
    the essential common denominator for all forces. $828 million in fiscal
    year 2008 keeps MUOS funded to meet all threshold requirements and is
    on track to meet an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2010.
    NIMITZ-Class Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH)
        RCOH subjects Nimitz-class aircraft carriers to comprehensive
    modernization upgrades, maintenance work, and nuclear refueling to
    extend the service life of a Nimitz-class carrier out to approximately
    50 years, about 20 years longer than its originally planned service
    life. Execution of RCOH is required to maintain an 11 aircraft carrier
    force and provide naval tactical air with an overmatch capability
    against any potential adversary. A notional RCOH consists of 3.2
    million man-days and a 36-month execution period conducted at Northrop
    Grumman Newport News, Virginia facilities. While U.S.S. Carl Vinson
    (CVN 70) completes RCOH in fiscal year 2008-2009, the fiscal year 2008
    Ship Construction-Navy (SCN) funding of $297 million primarily supports
    the advance funding and sequencing of follow-on overhauls for CVNs 71-
    73.
    COBRA JUDY Replacement (CJR)
        $133 million in CJR funds the acquisition of a single ship-based
    radar suite for world-wide technical data collection against ballistic
    missiles in flight. This unit will replace the current Cobra Judy/USNS
    Observation Island, which is due to leave service in 2012. Upon
    achieving initial operating capability, Navy will transfer the CJR to
    the U.S. Air Force for operation and maintenance. The CJR program has
    entered production stage.
    Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
        CEC is an advanced sensor netting system enabling real-time
    exchange of fire-control quality data between Battle Force units. CEC
    provides the integrated, precision air defense picture required to
    counter the increased agility, speed, maneuverability, and advanced
    design of cruise missiles, manned aircraft; and in the future, tactical
    ballistic missiles. Funding requested for fiscal year 2008 is $123
    million.
        CEC's acquisition strategy implements open architecture based
    hardware with re-hosted existing software. A critical element is the
    P3I hardware that reduces cost, weight, cooling, and power
    requirements. The Integrated Architecture Behavior Model (IABM) will be
    implemented as a host combat system software upgrade replacing the
    cooperative engagement processor functionality enabling joint
    interoperability with common track management across the services.
    Distributed Common Ground/Surface Systems (DCGS)
        DCGS-N is the Navy's Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance,
    and Targeting (ISR&T) system. Funded at $107 million in fiscal year
    2008, DCGS-N will support the new Maritime Headquarters/Maritime
    Operations Center (MHQ/MOC). DCGS-N will receive and process multiple
    data streams from various ISR sources to provide time-critical aim
    points and intelligence products. It will enhance the warfighter's
    Common Operational Picture (COP) and Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA).
    Deployable Joint Command and Control (DJC2)
        DJC2 is a Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff priority transformation initiative providing Combatant Commanders
    (COCOMs) with a standardized, deployable, and scalable Joint C2
    headquarters capability tailored to support Joint Task Force (JTF)
    operations. DJC2 enables a COCOM to rapidly deploy and activate a JTF
    headquarters equipped with a common C2 package with which to plan,
    control, coordinate, execute, and assess operations across the spectrum
    of conflict and domestic disaster relief missions. This budget request
    of $31 million provides operations and sustainment for the six existing
    systems and continued development efforts.
    Navy Special Warfare (NSW) Support
        NSW programs provide critical service common support to eight Seal
    teams, two Seal delivery vehicle teams, three special boat teams and
    five NSW groups.
        During fiscal years 2007 and 2008, six pre-positioned operational
    stocks will be procured and staged, hundreds of common small arms,
    weapons mounts and visual augmentation systems will be provided to NSW
    combat elements, up to 20 standard boats will continue to replace an
    aging fleet of 61 NSW training support craft and 4 Navy-mandated
    management support systems will be funded. A total of $21 million in
    various procurement and operations support accounts is dedicated in
    fiscal year 2008.
    Navy Computer Network Attack (CNA)
        Navy Computer Network Attack (CNA) develops force structure for
    operations in the cyberspace environment. This is the programmatic
    continuation of Navy Cyber Attack Team (NCAT) initiative which is
    endorsed by several Combatant Commanders. Program focus is on unique
    capabilities to address Navy warfighting gaps. Our $11 million fiscal
    year 2008 investment is required to develop the capability to access
    adversary networks and enable Information Operations (IO) in asymmetric
    warfare.
    Marine Mammal Research/Sound in Water Effects
        The Navy is committed to following proactive compliance strategies
    to meet legal requirements and to identify and fund marine mammal
    research requirements--especially related to potential effects of mid-
    frequency active sonar. In support, Navy has requested $10 million in
    funding for these efforts in fiscal year 2008. Compliance with Marine
    Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Coastal
    Zone Management Act (CMZA), and National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) related to potential effects to marine animals from sound in the
    water are dependent on filling gaps in scientific data and continued
    research on acoustic criteria. However, increasing pressures related to
    restricting the use of active sonar are adversely impacting Navy
    training and readiness. Clearer, science-based standards are needed in
    future MMPA amendments to ensure environmental protection while not
    endangering our sailors.
    Forward Deployed Naval Forces (Japan)
        U.S.S. George Washington (CVN 73) will replace U.S.S. Kitty Hawk
    (CV 63) as the forward deployed aircraft carrier in Yokosuka, Japan in
    2008. The move represents a strong and continuing commitment to the
    security of the Asian Pacific region and our alliance.
        George Washington will be the first nuclear aircraft carrier to
    join the Navy's permanently forward deployed naval forces (FDNF),
    replacing the conventionally powered Kitty Hawk that will retire after
    47 years of superb service. Funding of $9 million in fiscal year 2008
    supports the final of several years investments for George Washington's
    anticipated 2008 FDNF arrival.
    TRIDENT
        TRIDENT is maritime intelligence production capability within the
    Office of Naval Intelligence providing tailored, focused, timely
    intelligence support to Naval Special Warfare (NSW) and other joint
    special operations forces operating in the maritime arena. For a
    relatively small investment in fiscal year 2008 of $9 million, TRIDENT
    production directly supports the global war on terror and is a response
    to ongoing initiatives to improve intelligence support to NSW. TRIDENT
    deployed its initial two Tactical Intelligence Support Teams (TIST) in
    support of Naval Special Warfare in the Spring and Fall of 2006. They
    are currently providing both forward deployed and reach back support to
    NSW forces.
    Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR)
        The proposed USWTR is a 500-square nautical mile instrumented
    underwater training range in shallow littoral waters on each coast.
    USWTR will support undersea warfare (USW) training exercises for the
    Atlantic and Pacific Fleet Forces. Undersea hydrophone sensors will
    provide a suite to deliver real time tracking and a record of
    participants' activities used to evaluate tactics, proficiency and
    undersea warfare combat readiness. The instrumented area would be
    connected to shore via a single trunk cable.
        Pending signature of the environmental Record of Decision (ROD) for
    the East Coast USWTR in April 2008, the Navy will commence hardware
    procurement and installation in fiscal year 2008. Supporting this, Navy
    has requested $7 million in fiscal year 2008. The West Coast ROD is
    scheduled for signature in September 2008. The shallow water ranges
    planned for both coasts will be completed in fiscal year 2013.
    Tactical Aircraft (TACAIR) Integration (TAI)
        Our TACAIR Integration initiative merges Navy and Marine Corps
    Tactical Aviation into a seamless naval aviation force at sea and
    ashore. This is an organizational change that ``buys'' increased combat
    capability without requiring additional investment. Naval aviation
    force projection is accomplished by increased integration of Marine
    tactical squadrons into Carrier Air Wings and Navy squadrons into
    Marine Aircraft Wings. Successful integration, also leveraging the
    common characteristics of the F/A-18s, further enhances core combat
    capabilities providing a more potent, cohesive, smaller and affordable
    fighting force.
                          build a fleet for the future
        Programs and practices of particular interest (listed in order of
    fiscal year 2008 dollar value):
    RDT&E Development and Demonstration Funds
        Navy's $15.9 billion investment in various technology, component,
    and system development funds, as well as our operational development
    and testing programs provide a balanced portfolio. Not only do they
    ensure successful development of programs for our fleet for the future,
    they also leverage the fleet, systems commands, warfare centers, and
    others to align wargaming, experimentation, and exercises in developing
    supporting concepts and technologies.
    DDG 1000
        This multi-mission surface combatant, tailored for land attack and
    littoral dominance, will provide independent forward presence and
    deterrence and operate as an integral part of joint and combined
    expeditionary forces. DDG 1000 will capitalize on reduced signatures
    and enhanced survivability to maintain persistent presence in the
    littoral. The program provides the baseline for spiral development to
    support future surface ships. Our fiscal year 2008 request is for $3.3
    billion in shipbuilding and research funds.
        With the Advanced Gun System (AGS) and associated Long Range Land
    Attack Projectile (LRLAP) DDG 1000 will provide volume and precision
    fires in support of joint forces ashore. A Global Positioning System
    (GPS) guided, 155 millimeter round, LRLAP will provide all weather
    fires capability out to 83 nautical miles. Its Dual Band Radar
    represents a significant increase in air defense capability in the
    cluttered littoral environment. Investment in open architecture and
    reduced manning will provide the Navy life cycle cost savings and
    technology that can be retrofit to legacy ships.
    Facilities Recapitalization and Sustainment
        Facilities recapitalization is comprised of modernization and
    restoration. Modernization counters obsolescence by renewing a facility
    to new standards or functions without changing the fundamental facility
    size. Restoration includes efforts to restore degraded facilities to
    working condition beyond design service life or to fix damage from
    natural disaster, fire, etc. Restoration and modernization funding in
    fiscal year 2008 is requested at $2.0 billion.
        Facilities sustainment includes those maintenance and repair
    activities necessary to keep facilities in working order through their
    design service life.
        Navy's sustainment rate, and fiscal year funding request of $1.1
    billion, is at the level at which facilities can be maintained and
    still remain mission capable. Navy's intent is to aggressively scrub
    requirements, reduce facilities footprint and drive down costs. Our
    goal is to provide the resources required to execute wartime missions.
    Our planning and footprint reduction initiatives are intended to ensure
    that adequate facilities are available to support our mission
    requirements.
    CVN 21
        The CVN 21 program is designing the next generation aircraft
    carrier to replace U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN 65) and Nimitz-class aircraft
    carriers. CVN 78-class ships will provide improved warfighting
    capability and increased quality of life for our sailors at reduced
    acquisition and life cycle costs. $2.8 billion in shipbuilding funds
    for fiscal year 2008 supports acquisition of U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN
    78), the lead ship of the class, scheduled for delivery in late fiscal
    year 2015. Additionally, the program has $232 million in research and
    development supporting work on the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch
    System and other warfighting capability improvements.
    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
        F-35 is a joint cooperative program to develop and field family of
    affordable multi-mission strike fighter aircraft using mature/
    demonstrated 21st century technology to meet warfighter needs of the
    Navy, Marines, Air Force, and international partners including the
    United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Norway, Australia,
    and Canada. Navy's fiscal year 2008 $1.2 billion in procurement buys
    six short take-off and landing variants. An additional $1.7 billion in
    research and development continues aircraft and engine development.
    Virginia Class Fast Attack Nuclear Submarine (SSN)
        Navy needs to maintain an SSN force structure to meet current
    operational requirements, prosecute the global war on terror, and face
    any potential future threats. The Virginia class emphasizes
    affordability and optimizes performance for undersea superiority in
    littoral and open ocean missions.
        Lead ship operational performance exceeded expectations. Follow-on
    submarine performance has been even better:
      --U.S.S. Texas (SSN 775) INSURV trial was best performance by the
            second SSN of any class.
      --Third ship (Hawaii, SSN 776) was the most complete submarine ever
            at launch (greater than 90 percent complete), had the best
            INSURV trial of the class, and was delivered on the original
            contract delivery date.
        $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2008 procures one submarine.
    Additionally, the budget requests $137 million for technical insertions
    and cost reduction developments. Navy is working closely with industry
    to bring the cost per hull down to $2 billion (in fiscal year 2005
    dollars) and increase the build rate to two ships/year starting in
    fiscal year 2012. Authorization of MYP will help facilitate this. This
    will help mitigate future force level deficiencies and achieve cost
    reduction goals through Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) savings and
    better distributed overhead costs.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
        The Navy's next generation, multi-mission Strike Fighter replaces
    aging F-14s, older model F/A-18s, and assumes the S-3 aircraft carrier-
    based aerial refueling role. F/A-18E/F provides a 40 percent increase
    in combat radius, 50 percent increase in endurance, 25 percent greater
    weapons payload, three times more ordnance bring-back, and is five
    times more survivable than F/A-18C models. Approximately 55 percent of
    the total procurement objective has been delivered (254 of 460). F/A-
    18E/F is in full rate production under a second 5-year multi-year
    contract (fiscal years 2005-2009). $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2008
    procures 24 aircraft as part of this contract.
    MV-22B Osprey
        MV-22 Osprey is the Marine Corps medium-lift assault support
    aircraft being procured to replace legacy CH-46Es and CH-53Ds. Current
    operational projections hold CH-46Es in service through fiscal year
    2018, and CH-53Ds through fiscal year 2013. The CH-46Es are playing a
    critical role in the war on terror, flying more than four times their
    peacetime utilization rate making delivery of the MV-22 even more
    critical. The MV-22's improved readiness, survivability and
    transformational capability (twice the speed, three times the payload
    and six times range of the airframes it is replacing) will vastly
    improve operational reach and capability of deployed forces. The
    aircraft is approved for full rate production and enters a
    congressionally approved joint 5-year, multi-year procurement in fiscal
    year 2008 with $2.0 billion procuring 21 aircraft. The total Marine
    requirement is 360 MV-22s; Navy 48 MV-22s; SOCOM 50 CV-22s.
    DON Science & Technology (S&T)
        The Department of the Navy S&T supports Navy/Marine strategy and
    guides the S&T investment portfolio to meet the future needs of the
    Navy, the Marine Corps, and Combatant Commands. The fiscal year 2008
    budget of $1.7 billion is a balanced portfolio comprised of discovery
    and invention, leap-ahead innovations, acquisition enablers, quick
    reaction S&T and Defense Department partnerships. A long term strategy
    will help balance future risks.
    EA-18G Growler
        The Growler is the Navy's replacement for the EA-6B. Inventory
    objective is 84 aircraft for test, fleet replacement squadron,
    attrition, pipeline and 10 operational carrier airwing squadrons to
    provide the Navy's carrier-based Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA)
    capability. The program is on schedule and budget. All Key Performance
    Parameter (KPP) and Technical Performance Measure (TPM) thresholds are
    being met or exceeded. Program achieved first flight in August 2006;
    one month ahead of schedule. $1.6 billion supports development and
    procurement of 18 aircraft in fiscal year 2008.
    MH-60R/S Multi-Mission Helicopter
        The MH-60R is a cornerstone of the Navy's Helicopter Concept of
    Operations (CONOPS), which reduces from six to two the helicopter
    variants in use today. The MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopter program will
    replace the surface combatant-based SH-60B, carrier-based SH-60F, and
    anti-surface capabilities of the S-3 with a newly manufactured airframe
    and enhanced mission systems. Sea control missions include undersea and
    surface warfare. The MH-60R provides forward-deployed capabilities to
    defeat area-denial strategies, allowing joint forces to project and
    sustain power. Full rate production was approved in March 2006. $998
    million in fiscal year 2008 procures 27 aircraft.
        The MH-60S is designed to support carrier and expeditionary strike
    groups in combat logistics, search and rescue, vertical replenishment,
    anti-surface warfare, airborne mine countermeasures, combat search and
    rescue, and naval special warfare mission areas. This program is in
    production. This fiscal year, block 2 of the program will see the IOC
    of the first of five Organic Airborne Mine Countermeasures (OAMCM)
    systems (AQS-20). The remaining four airborne mine countermeasure
    systems will IOC between fiscal years 2008-2010. An armed helicopter
    capability is also expected to enter IOC this year. $504 million in
    fiscal year 2008 procures 18 aircraft.
    LPD 17
        LPD 17 functionally replaces LPD 4, LSD 36, LKA 113, and LST 1179
    classes of amphibious ships for embarking, transporting and landing
    elements of a Marine landing force in an assault by helicopters,
    landing craft, amphibious vehicles, or by a combination of these
    methods. $1.5 billion in this budget's shipbuilding request procures
    LPD 25.
    LHA(R)
        LHA(R) replaces four aging LHA Class ships which are reaching the
    end of their administratively extended service lives. LHA(R) Flight 0
    is a modified LHD 1 Class variant designed to accommodate aircraft in
    the future USMC Aircraft Combat Element (ACE) including JSF and MV-22.
    The fiscal year 2008 request for $1.4 billion supports procurement of
    the lead ship in the class.
    Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
        Designed to be fast and agile, LCS will be a networked surface
    combatant with capabilities optimized to assure naval and joint force
    access into contested littoral regions. LCS will operate with focused-
    mission packages that deploy manned and unmanned vehicles to execute a
    variety of missions, including littoral anti-submarine warfare (ASW),
    anti-surface warfare (SUW) and mine countermeasures (MCM). LCS will
    possess inherent capabilities including homeland defense, Maritime
    Interception Operations (MIO) and Special Operation Forces support. LCS
    will employ a blue-gold multi-crewing concept for the early ships. The
    crews will be at a ``trained to qualify'' level before reporting to the
    ship, reducing qualification time compared to other ships.
        The Navy has recently identified significant cost increases for the
    lead ship in the LCS Class (Lockheed Martin variant). A series of
    increases in the contractor estimated cost of completion, the most
    recent in December, highlighted the problem and initiated a thorough
    analysis by both Navy and industry. After nearly 2 months of in-depth
    study, the Navy has revalidated the warfighting requirement and
    developed a restructured program plan for the LCS that improves
    management oversight, implements more strict cost controls,
    incorporates selective contract restructuring, and ensures delivery
    within a realistic schedule.
        Construction of LCS Hull #3 (Lockheed Martin) will be resumed under
    revised contract terms that rebalance cost growth risk between
    government and industry. Construction on LCS Hull #4 (General Dynamics)
    will continue as long as costs remain defined and manageable. This plan
    will provide for best value to the Navy for the completion of the first
    four LCS ships, procurement of existing designs in fiscal years 2008-
    2009 to fill critical warfighting gaps, and establishment of a sound
    framework for transition to a single design in fiscal year 2010. The
    Navy will work closely with Congress on reprogramming actions necessary
    to bring this program forward.
    P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA)
        The P-8A replaces the P-3C Orion on a less than 1:1 basis. This
    aircraft provides lethality against submarine threats, broad area
    maritime and littoral armed anti-submarine warfare patrol, anti-surface
    warfare, and intelligence surveillance reconnaissance. The P-8A is the
    only platform with this operationally agile capability set. It fills
    Combatant Commander requirements in major combat and shaping
    operations, as well as the war on terror and homeland defense. The
    program has been executed on time and on budget. Preliminary design
    review has successfully completed and is now in the detailed design
    phase. $880 million in research and development funds is included in
    the fiscal year 2008 budget. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is
    planned in fiscal year 2013.
    E-2D Advanced Hawkeye
        The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) program will modernize the current
    E-2C weapons system by replacing the 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 surveillance and
    theater air and missile defense capabilities against emerging air
    threats in the high clutter, electro-magnetic interference, and jamming
    environments. $866 million in fiscal year 2008 continues development
    work and procures three pilot production aircraft. The AHE will be one
    of the four pillars contributing to Naval Integrated Fire Control-
    Counter Air. The AHE program plans to build 75 new aircraft.
    ASW Programs
        The Navy continues to pursue research and development of
    Distributed Netted Sensors (DNS); low-cost, rapidly deployable,
    autonomous sensors that can be fielded in sufficient numbers to provide
    the cueing and detection of adversary submarines far from the sea base.
    Examples of our fiscal year 2008 request of $24 million in these
    technologies include:
      --Reliable Acoustic Path, Vertical Line Array (RAP VLA).--A passive-
            only distributed system exploiting the deep water propagation
            phenomena. In essence, a towed array vertically suspended in
            the water column.
      --Deep Water Active Distributed System (DWADS).--An active sonar
            distributed system optimized for use in deep water.
      --Deployable Autonomous Distributed System (DADS).--A shallow water
            array, using both acoustic and non-acoustic sensors to detect
            passing submarines. DADS will test at sea in fiscal year 2008.
      --Littoral ASW Multi-static Project (LAMP).--A shallow water
            distributed buoy system employing the advanced principles of
            multi-static (many receivers, one/few active sources) sonar
            propagation.
        Further developing the Undersea Warfare Decision Support System
    (USW-DSS) will leverage existing data-links, networks, and sensor data
    from air, surface, and sub-surface platforms and integrate them into a
    common ASW operating picture with tactical decision aids to better
    plan, conduct, and coordinate ASW operations. We are requesting $23
    million in fiscal year 2008 towards this system.
        To engage the threat, our forces must have the means to attack
    effectively the first time, every time. The Navy has continued a robust
    weapons development investment plan including $293 million requested in
    the fiscal year 2008 on such capabilities as:
      --High-Altitude ASW Weapons Concept (HAAWC).--Current maritime patrol
            aircraft must descend to very low altitude to place ASW weapons
            on target, often losing communications with the sonobuoy (or
            distributed sensor) field. This allows the aircraft to remain
            at high altitude and conduct an effective attack while
            simultaneously enabling the crew to maintain and exploit the
            full sensor field in the process. This capability will be
            particularly important in concert with the new jet-powered P-8A
            MMA. A test is scheduled for May 2007.
      --Common Very Lightweight Torpedo (CVLWT).--The Navy is developing a
            6.75 inch torpedo suitable for use in the surface ship and
            submarine anti-torpedo torpedo defense, and the offensive
            Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW) intended for the developing
            manned and unmanned aerial vehicles.
        Finally, to defend our forces, key defensive technologies being
    pursued include:
      --Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD).--Program delivers near term
            and far term torpedo defense. The planned fiscal year 2008 $16
            million R&D investment supports ongoing development of the 6\3/
            4\ inch Common Very Lightweight Torpedo (CVLWT) which supports
            both the Anti-Torpedo Torpedo (ATT) and the Compact Rapid
            Attack Weapon (CRAW). Also, several capability upgrades to the
            AN/SLQ-25A (NIXIE) are being incorporated to improve both
            acoustic and non-acoustic system performance to counter current
            threat torpedoes. These enhancements also support their use in
            the littorals and are scheduled to complete in fiscal year
            2009. The AN/WSQ-11 System uses active and passive acoustic
            sensors for an improved torpedo Detection Classification and
            Localization (DCL) capability, and a hard kill Anti-Torpedo
            Torpedo (ATT) to produce an effective, automated and layered
            system to counter future torpedo threats. DCL improvements
            include lower false alarm rates and better range determination.
      --Aircraft Carrier Periscope Detection Radar (CVN PDR).--An automated
            periscope detection and discrimination system aboard aircraft
            carriers. System moves from a laboratory model, currently
            installed on U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, to 12 units (1 per carrier, 1
            ashore) by fiscal year 2012. Fiscal year 2008 funds of $7
            million support this effort.
        Platform Sensor Improvements.--Against the quieter, modern diesel-
    electric submarines, work continues on both towed arrays and hull
    mounted sonars. Our $410 million request in fiscal year 2008 includes
    work on the following:
      --TB-33 thin-line towed array upgrades to forward deployed SSN's
            provides near term improvement in submarine towed array
            reliability over existing TB-29 arrays. TB-33 upgrades are
            being accelerated to Guam based SSN's.
      --Continued development of twin-line thin line (TLTL) and Vector-
            Sensor Towed Arrays (VSTA) are under development for mid-far
            term capability gaps. TLTL enables longer detection ranges/
            contact holding times, improves localization, and
            classification of contacts. VSTA is an Office of Naval Research
            project that would provide TLTL capability on a single array
            while still obviating the bearing ambiguity issue inherent in
            traditional single line arrays.
    Modernization
        Achieving full service life from the fleet is imperative.
    Modernization of the existing force is a critical enabler for a
    balanced fleet. Platforms must remain tactically capable and
    structurally sound for the duration of their designed service life.
    Cruiser (Mod)
        AEGIS Cruiser Modernization is key to achieving the 313 ship force
    structure. A large portion of surface force modernization (including
    industrial base stability) is resident in this modernization program.
    $403 million across several appropriations in fiscal year 2008 supports
    this program.
        A comprehensive Mission Life Extension (MLE) will achieve the
    ship's expected service life of 35+ years and includes the all electric
    modification (replacing steam systems), SMARTSHIP technologies, Hull
    Mechanical & Electrical (HM&E) system upgrades, and a series of
    alterations designed to restore displacement and stability margins,
    correct hull and deck house cracking and improve quality of life and
    service on board.
    Destroyer (Mod)
        The DDG 51 modernization program is a comprehensive 62 ship program
    designed to modernize HM&E and combat systems. These upgrades support
    reductions in manpower and operating costs, achieve 35+ year service
    life, and allows the class to pace the projected threat well into the
    21st century. Our fiscal year 2008 request contains $159 million for
    this effort.
        Key upgrades to the DDG 51 AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) include an
    open architecture computing environment, along with an upgrade of the
    SPY Radar signal processor, addition of BMD capability, Evolved Sea
    Sparrow Missile (ESSM), improved USW sensor, Naval Integrated Fire
    Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) and additional other combat systems
    upgrades.
    Lewis & Clark Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ship (T-AKE)
        T-AKE is intended to replace aging combat stores (T-AFS) and
    ammunition (T-AE) ships. Working in concert with an oiler (T-AO), the
    team can perform a ``substitute'' station ship mission to allow the
    retirement of four fast combat support ships (AOE 1 Class). $456
    million in fiscal year 2008 supports funding the 11th T-AKE (final
    price will be determined through negotiations expected to be completed
    during the summer 2007). Lead ship was delivered in June 2006 and has
    completed operational evaluation (OPEVAL).
    CH-53K
        The CH-53K Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) is the follow on to the
    Marine Corps CH-53E Heavy Lift Helicopter. The CH-53K will more than
    double the current CH-53E lift capability under the same environmental
    conditions. The CH-53K's increased capabilities are essential to
    meeting the Marine Expeditionary Brigade of 2015 Ship-to-Objective
    Maneuver vision. Fiscal year 2008 research and development funds of
    $417 million supports major systems improvements of the new helicopter
    including: larger and more capable engines, expanded gross weight
    airframe, better drive train, advanced composite rotor blades, modern
    interoperable cockpit, external and internal cargo handling systems,
    and survivability enhancements.
    Tomahawk/Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM)
        Tomahawk and Tactical Tomahawk missiles provide precision, all
    weather, and deep strike capabilities. Tactical Tomahawk provides more
    flexibility and responsiveness at a significantly reduced life cycle
    cost than previous versions and includes flex-targeting, in-flight
    retargeting, and 2-way communications with the missile.
        Our $383 million in this years request sustains the Tomahawk Block
    IV full-rate, multi-year procurement contract for fiscal years 2004-
    2008, yielding approximately 2,100 missiles. The projected inventory
    will accommodate campaign analysis requirements given historical usage
    data and acceptable risk.
    F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet
        The F/A-18 Hornet is naval aviation's principal strike-fighter.
    This state-of-the-art, multi-mission aircraft serves the Navy and
    Marine Corps, as well as the armed forces of seven allied countries.
    Its reliability and precision weapons delivery capability are
    documented frequently in news reports from the front lines. $331
    million in fiscal year 2008 supports improvements to the original
    Hornet A/B/C/D variants provide significant warfighting enhancements to
    the fleet. These improvements include the Global Positioning System
    (GPS), Multi-functional Information Distribution System (MIDS), AIM-9X
    Sidewinder Missile/Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), Combined
    Interrogator Transponder, Joint Direct Attack Munition/Joint Stand-Off
    Weapon delivery capability, and a Digital Communication System (DCS)
    for close-air support. Through these improvement and upgrades, the
    aircraft's weapons, communications, navigation, and defensive
    electronic countermeasure systems have been kept combat relevant.
        Although the F/A-18A/B/C/D are out of production, the existing
    inventory of 667 Navy and Marine Corps aircraft will continue to
    comprise half of the carrier strike force until 2013, and are scheduled
    to remain in the naval aviation inventory through 2022.
    CG(X)
        CG(X) is envisioned to be a highly capable surface combatant
    tailored for Joint Air and Missile Defense and Joint Air Control
    Operations. CG(X) will provide airspace dominance and protection to all
    joint forces operating in the sea base. Initial Operational Capability
    (IOC) is 2019. $227 million in research and development for fiscal year
    2008 supports CG(X) development. The ongoing analysis of alternatives
    is considering various propulsion options. CG(X) will replace the CG-47
    Aegis class and improve the fleet's air and missile defense
    capabilities against an advancing threat--particularly ballistic
    missiles.
    Standard Missile-6 (SM-6)
        The Navy's next-generation extended range, anti-air warfare
    interceptor is the SM-6. Supporting both legacy and future ships, SM-6
    with its active-seeker technology will defeat anticipated theater air
    and missile defense warfare threats well into the next decade. The
    combined SM-6 Design Readiness Review /Critical Design Review was
    completed 3 months ahead of schedule with SM-6 successfully meeting all
    entrance and exit criteria. Ahead of schedule and on cost targets, our
    fiscal year 2008 budget plan of $207 million will keep this development
    effort on track for initial operational capability in fiscal year 2010.
    Conventional TRIDENT Modification (CTM)
        CTM transforms the submarine launched, nuclear armed TRIDENT II
    (D5) missile system into a conventional offensive precision strike
    weapon with global range. This new capability is required to defeat a
    diverse set of unpredictable threats, such as Weapons of Mass
    Destruction (WMD), at short notice, without the requirement for a
    forward-deployed or visible presence, without risk to U.S. forces, and
    with little or no warning prior to strike. $175 million is included in
    the fiscal year 2008 request. The program and related policy issues are
    currently under review by the Office of the Secretary of Defense as
    part of the New Strategic Triad capability package.
    Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS)
        The former J-UCAS program transferred from Air Force to Navy lead.
    The Navy UCAS will develop and demonstrate low observable (LO),
    unmanned, air vehicle suitability to operate from aircraft carriers in
    support of persistent, penetrating surveillance, and strike capability
    in high threat areas. $162 million in fiscal year 2008 research and
    development funds advance the programs objectives.
    Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
        JSOW is a low-cost, survivable, air-to-ground glide weapon designed
    to attack a variety of targets in day/night and adverse weather
    conditions from ranges up to 63 nautical miles. All variants employ a
    kinematically efficient, low-signature airframe with GPS/INS guidance
    capability. JSOW is additionally equipped with an imaging-infrared
    seeker, Autonomous Targeting Acquisition (ATA) software, and a multi-
    stage Broach warhead to attack both hard and soft targets with
    precision accuracy. The $156 million in fiscal year 2008 funding
    continues production to build to our inventory requirements. A Block
    III improvement effort will add anti-ship and moving target capability
    in fiscal year 2009.
    Ohio-Class SSGN
        Ohio-Class SSGN is a key transformational capability that can
    covertly employ both strike and Special Operations Forces (SOF)
    capabilities. Ohio (SSGN 726) and Florida (SSGN 728) were delivered
    from conversion in December 2005 and April 2006 respectively and are
    conducting modernization, certification, and acceptance evaluation
    testing prior to deployment. Georgia (SSGN 729) is in conversion at
    Norfolk Naval Shipyard with delivery scheduled for September 2007. The
    $134 million in the fiscal year 2008 budget request is primarily for
    testing, minor engineering changes, and to procure the final
    replacement reactor core.
    Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)
        BAMS is a post-9/11, Secretary of the Navy directed
    transformational initiative. $117 million in research and development
    funding continues Navy's commitment to provide a persistent (24 hours/
    day, 7 days/week), multi-sensor (radar, electro-optical/infra red,
    electronic support measures) maritime intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance capability with worldwide access. Along with multi-
    mission aircraft, BAMS is integral to the Navy's airborne intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) recapitalization strategy. BAMS
    is envisioned to be forward deployed, land-based, autonomously operated
    and unarmed. It will sustain the maritime Common Operational Picture
    (COP) and operate under the cognizance of the Maritime Patrol and
    Reconnaissance Force.
    Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP)
        Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) is the primary munition
    for the DDG 1000 Advanced Gun System (AGS). AGS and LRLAP will provide
    Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) to forces ashore during all phases of
    the land battle. All program flight test objectives have been met. Six
    of nine guided test flights have been successfully completed. Test
    failures have been isolated and corrective actions implemented with
    successful re-tests fired.
        $74 million in fiscal year 2008 supports continued development.
    Current ammunition inventory estimates are based on conventional
    ammunition calculation methods. A pending ammo study will account for
    increased LRLAP range and precision to better inform decisions
    regarding procurement schedule and total inventory objective.
    MQ-8B Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff UAV (VTUAV)
        The Navy Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical UAV (VTUAV) is
    designed to operate from all air capable ships, carry modular mission
    payloads, and operate using the Tactical Control System (TCS) and
    Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL). VTUAV will provide day/night real
    time reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition capabilities
    as well as communications relay and battlefield management to support
    the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) core mission areas of anti-submarine,
    mine, and anti-surface warfare. It will be part of the LCS mission
    module packages supporting these warfare missions. $71 million in
    development and procurement funding supports engineering manufacturing
    development, operational testing and achievement of initial operational
    capability in fiscal year 2008.
    Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) (Future)
        $68 million in research and development in fiscal year 2008
    supports our first year of procurement with (4) MPF(F) ships in fiscal
    year 2009. MPF(F) provides a scalable, joint seabased capability for
    the closure, arrival, assembly, and employment of up to the Marine
    Expeditionary Brigade of 2015 sized force. It will also support the
    sustainment and reconstitution of forces when required. MPF(F) is
    envisioned for frequent utility in lesser contingency operations, and
    when coupled with carrier or expeditionary strike groups, will provide
    the Nation a rapid response capability in anti-access or denial
    situations.
    Direct Attack (DA) Munitions: JDAM, LGB, Dual Mode LGB, and Direct
            Attack Moving Target
        Inventories of direct attack munitions include Laser Guided Bombs
    (LGB) and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) weapons; both are
    guidance kits for general purpose bombs and strike fixed targets only.
    The LGB guides on a laser spot which provides precise accuracy in clear
    weather. JDAM provides Global Positioning/Inertial Guidance Systems
    (GPS/INS) giving accurate adverse weather capability ($34 million in
    fiscal year 2008). The Dual Mode LGB retrofit to LGB kits, procured in
    fiscal years 2006-2007, increases flexibility by combining laser and
    GPS/INS capabilities in a single weapon. The next evolutionary upgrade,
    Moving Target Weapon (MTW), will combine laser and GPS/INS guidance
    with moving target capability. Procurement is planned via a capability-
    based competition, with MTW upgrading existing JDAM and/or LGB kit
    inventories. $29 million supports this on-going MTW effort in fiscal
    year 2008.
    Harpoon Block III Missile
        Harpoon Block III represents the only long range, all weather,
    precise, ship and air launched, surface warfare anti-ship capability.
    $44 million in fiscal year 2008 supports development of a kit upgrade
    to existing Harpoon Block IC, the addition of a data link and GPS that
    will provide increased target selectivity and performance in the
    cluttered littorals.
    Pioneer Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Sensor (UAS)
        The Pioneer UAS System is a transportable Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) asset capable of providing
    tactical commanders with day and night, battlefield, and maritime
    reconnaissance in support of Marine expeditionary warfare and maritime
    control operations. The fiscal year 2008 budget requests $38 million in
    operations and maintenance sustainment and $90 million in procurement
    for the Army's Shadow RQ-7B UAS as an interim replacement for the
    currently fielded Pioneer.
    Language, Regional Expertise & Culture (LREC)
        Achieving Navy's global strategy depends in part on our ability to
    communicate with and comprehend adversaries, enduring allies, and
    emerging partners. To facilitate this capability, Navy has developed a
    way forward to transform LREC in the force. Consistent with the Defense
    Language Transformation Roadmap and the Navy Strategic Plan (NSP), the
    program incentivizes language proficiency, increases regional content
    in NPME, provides non-resident language instruction to all sailors and
    delivers in-residence training to more officers.
        Incentivization through higher foreign language proficiency pay
    rates began June 6. $33 million requested in fiscal year 2008 continues
    existing efforts and begins new initiatives of enhanced non-resident
    (on-line) and resident (for officers) language training.
    Extended Range Munition (ERM)
        The concept for expeditionary operations relies on sea-based
    surface fire support to aid in destruction and suppression of enemy
    forces. The Extended Range Munition (ERM) is a 5-inch rocket assisted
    guided projectile providing range and accuracy superior to that of
    conventional ammunition. The projectile uses a coupled GPS/INS Guidance
    System and unitary warhead with a height-of-burst fuze. $30 million in
    fiscal year 2008 research and development funding includes a 20-
    reliability demonstration before land-based flight and qualification
    testing. The program includes modifications to existing 5 inch guns and
    fire control systems. ERM will utilize the Naval Fires Control System
    as the mission planning tool.
    Automatic Identification System (AIS)
        AIS is a commercially available shipboard broadcast Very High
    Frequency (VHF) maritime band transponder system capable of sending and
    receiving ship information, including navigation identification, and
    cargo. AIS significantly increases the Navy's ability to distinguish
    between normal and suspicious merchant ships headed towards the United
    States and allied ports. Navy warships using AIS have observed dramatic
    increases in situational awareness, safety of ship and intelligence
    gathering capability. Programmed funding started in fiscal year 2007.
    Initially funded in fiscal year 2006 from ONR Rapid Technology
    Transition initiative and reprogramming, AIS shifted to programmed
    funding in fiscal year 2007, and with our request of $28 million in
    fiscal year 2008, it transitions to become a program of record.
    Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GHMD)
        Using an existing Air Force production contract, the Navy procured
    two GHMD Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and associated ground control
    equipment. GHMD will be used for developing concept of operations and
    tactics, training and procedures for a persistent ISR maritime
    capability in conjunction with the manned P-3 aircraft. The GHMD return
    on investment will be risk reduction for the BAMS UAS Program. GHMD
    provides a limited, high altitude, endurance UAV platform capability 8
    years before the planned fiscal year 2014 IOC of BAMS. $18 million in
    operations and maintenance and $6 million in procurement of spares
    sustains the program in fiscal year 2008.
    Remote Minehunting System (RMS)
        RMS utilizes a diesel-powered, high endurance, off-board, semi-
    submersible vehicle to tow the Navy's most advanced mine hunting sonar,
    the AN/AQS-20A. The system will be launched, operated, and recovered
    from surface ships. RMS will provide mine reconnaissance, detection,
    classification, localization, and identification of moored and bottom
    mines. $23 million in fiscal year 2008 supports the fielding plan
    commencing this year providing limited systems for use on select DDGs,
    48 RMSs for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mine warfare mission
    packages, and an additional 16 vehicles as part of the LCS anti-
    submarine warfare mission packages.
    Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV)
        Navy, along with the Army, SOCOM and Marine Corps, is working to
    acquire a Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) that provides the required
    intra-theater lift capability necessary to meet each service's
    requirements. The acquisition of JHSV will address high-speed, intra-
    theater surface lift capability gaps identified to implement Sea Power
    21, the Army Future Force operational concepts and SOCOM future
    operational plans. Additionally, it will improve intra-theater lift
    currently provided by Westpac Express and other leased vessels. JHSV is
    currently in the technology development phase with Joint Requirements
    Oversight Council (JROC) approval of the Capabilities Development
    Document (CDD) anticipated soon. Navy's research and development
    contribution in fiscal year 2008 is $19 million. Ultimate delivery of
    the first vessel is anticipated in 2010.
    Aerial Common Sensor (ACS)--Future EPX (EP-3E Replacement)
        Navy is on a path to recapitalize the EP-3 airborne electronic
    surveillance aircraft, and our $17 million in fiscal year 2008 research
    and development funding contributes to this effort. ACS is the Navy's
    premier manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaisance
    (AISR) platform tailored to the maritime environment. ACS will provide
    data fusion and a robust reach-back capability allowing onboard
    operators to push intelligence to tactical commanders and operators in
    mission support centers. With a network-centric approach, ACS
    represents a significant capability in the maritime patrol and
    reconnaissance force family of systems including MMA and BAMS UAS.
    Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)
        Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense is the sea based component of the
    Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
    It enables surface combatants to support ground-based sensors and
    provides a capability to intercept short and medium range ballistic
    missiles with ship-based interceptors (SM-3 missiles). The recently
    started Gap Filler Sea-Based Terminal Program will provide the ability
    to engage Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) with modified SM-2
    Block IV missiles from Aegis BMD capable ships. While all development
    funding is covered under the MDA budget, Navy has committed $13 million
    in fiscal year 2008 for operations and sustainment of Aegis BMD systems
    as Navy assumes operational responsibility.
        In May, 2006, U.S.S. Lake Erie (CG 70) successfully engaged and
    intercepted a LANCE short range test target with a modified SM-2 Block
    IV missile in a Navy-sponsored BMD demonstration. As a result, the Navy
    is modifying the remaining inventory of 100 SM-2 Block IV missiles, and
    MDA is modifying the Aegis BMD program to support sea-based terminal
    engagements.
        In June, 2006, Navy successfully achieved a second engagement of a
    separating SRBM target with the AEGIS BMD system. This successful
    engagement brings the tally to seven successful intercepts in nine
    flight tests as of December 2006. Aegis BMD has been installed on 3
    cruisers and 13 destroyers. All the cruisers and three destroyers are
    engagement capable. The balance of the destroyers are Long Range
    Surveillance and Track (LRS&T) capable. Additional installations are
    planned for 2007.
        In actual operations last July, the United States and Japanese
    Aegis radar-equipped destroyers successfully monitored North Korea's
    ballistic missile tests.
    21 Inch Mission Reconfigurable Unmanned Underwater Vehicle System
            (MRUUVS)
        21 inch MRUUVS is a submarine launched and recovered,
    reconfigurable UUV system that will improve current capabilities in
    enabling assured access. It will provide a robust capability to conduct
    clandestine minefield reconnaissance and general Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) in denied or inaccessible areas.
    The MRUUVS program has been restructured, moving Initial Operational
    Capability (IOC) from fiscal year 2013 to 2016 when clandestine mine
    countermeasure capability from Los Angeles Class submarines will be
    delivered. Accordingly, the fiscal year 2008 funding request has been
    adjusted to $13 million. ISR capability and Virginia Class host
    compatibility will arrive in follow-on increments approximately 2 years
    after IOC.
    Tactical Control System (TCS)
        Research and development funding of $9 million in fiscal year 2008
    continues work on the Tactical Control System. The program provides
    interoperability and commonality for mission planning, command and
    control, and interfaces for tactical and medium altitude UAV systems.
    TCS software provides a full range of scaleable capabilities from
    passive receipt of air vehicle and payload data to full air vehicle and
    payload command and control from ground control stations both ashore
    and afloat. TCS will be fielded with the Vertical Takeoff Unmanned Air
    Vehicle (VTUAV) system and key to supporting the LCS.
    Utilities Privatization (UP)
        The Navy and Marine Corps have 645 utilities systems eligible for
    privatization on 135 activities/installations worldwide. Of these, 394
    have been determined to be exempt, 22 have been awarded for
    privatization, and 95 have received a Source Selection Authority (SSA)
    decision and are being processed for exemption or award. 122 systems
    are still being reviewed for an SSA decision. $3 million requested in
    our fiscal year 2008 budget supports these ongoing initiatives.
                          develop 21st century leaders
        Programs and practices of particular interest include (listed in
    order of fiscal year 2008 dollar value):
    Health Care:
                Combat Casualty Care
        Combat casualty care is provided by Navy medical personnel assigned
    to and serving with Marine Corps units, in expeditionary medical
    facilities, aboard casualty receiving/treatment ships and hospital
    ships, and in military and VA hospitals. Recent advances in force
    protection, battlefield medicine, combat/operational stress control,
    and medical evacuation have led to improved survival rates and enhanced
    combat effectiveness.
        Since the start of OEF/OIF the Marine Corps has fielded new combat
    casualty care capabilities, including: updated individual first aid
    kits with QuikClot and advanced tourniquets, robust vehicle first-aid
    kits for convoy use, combat lifesaver training, and new systems to
    provide forward resuscitative surgery and en route care. Navy fleet
    hospital transformation is redesigning expeditionary medical facilities
    to become lighter, modular, more mobile, and interoperable with other
    Services' facilities.
        Naval S&T funds of $18 million in fiscal year 2008 in advanced
    technology and applied research for combat casualty care sustain our
    overall level of effort and focus on this mission. Additionally, mental
    health services have been expanded through post-deployment screenings,
    expanded briefings, and proactive interactions between providers and
    sailors and marines.
                Safe Harbor Program
        Our care for combat wounded does not end at the Military Treatment
    Facility (MTF). The Navy has established the Safe Harbor Program to
    ensure seamless transition for the seriously wounded from arrival at a
    Conus MTF to subsequent rehabilitation and recovery, whether through
    DOD or the VA. Since its inception, 114 sailors including 103 Active
    and 11 Reserve members have joined the program. Currently, 92 are being
    actively tracked and monitored including 34 severely injured last year
    in OIF/OEF. Senior medical staff personally visit and assist our
    seriously injured sailors and their families to ensure their needs are
    being met.
                Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain
                        Injury (TBI)
        The Navy has focused much attention on these complex conditions
    that have resulted from combat operations. With PTSD, early
    identification and intervention are critical elements of successful
    treatment and prevention. Closely aligned with war-fighters while in
    garrison, health-care providers instruct self-aid and buddy-aid
    training. When intervention is necessary, treatment occurs via embedded
    mental health personnel in deployed units (e.g. via USMC Oscar teams
    and carrier group clinical psychologists). All sailors receive in-
    theater assessment through a Behavioral Health Assessment Tool (BHAT)
    and receive a Post Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA) immediately
    following deployment, and again 90-180 days later. This treatment
    coverage is comprehensive for both Active and Reserve members.
        Navy is partnering with the other Services to establish a Center
    for Deployment Psychology to provide further education and training on
    PTSD treatment and other combat stress disorders. Our continuum of care
    in this area before, during, and after deployment, coupled with a
    review of policies and practices to ensure treatment for PTSD is
    ``destigmatized,'' are critical steps in addressing the health needs of
    our deployed sailors.
        The science associated with the diagnosis and treatment of
    traumatic brain injuries (TBI) is evolving and the military is at the
    leading edge in research and treatment. Military Acute Concussion
    Evaluation (MACE) has been developed as part of field assessments and
    all casualties transitioned to Bethesda receive neuro-psychological
    evaluations with database tracking and follow-up as required.
        When members with TBI transition from military service, they may be
    transferred to one of the four Veterans Administration (VA) poly-trauma
    centers in Palo Alto, California, Richmond, Virginia, Minneapolis,
    Minnesota and Tampa, Florida--whichever facility is closest to the
    member's home of record. The four VA poly-trauma centers are among the
    premier treatment facilities for TBI in the country. In addition to VA
    tracking, when service members are transferred to the VA, they are also
    tracked by case managers from the referring Navy MTF at least bimonthly
    by the MTF case manager to maintain a coordinated care effort.
    Occasionally, the medical case management team determines in
    consultation with an individual patient and their family that the
    patient's specific condition and/or family needs dictate that the best
    location for their continued care is at a civilian hospital rather than
    a VA or an MTF.
                Quality Medical Care
        While continuing to support OIF/OEF with medical personnel, Navy
    medicine remains committed to providing quality care for all
    beneficiaries, both in deployed settings and at home. One of the main
    challenges has been ensuring sufficient numbers of providers in
    critical specialties. We continue to focus on refining and shaping our
    force to recruit, train, and retain the right mix of uniformed and
    civilian health providers thus sustaining the benefits of our
    healthcare system and meeting our obligations during this time of war.
    Despite high demands, Navy medicine meets 100 percent of its
    operational commitments, and maintains quality care to our
    beneficiaries, without any sacrifice in quality.
                Post-Deployment Health Care
        Navy medicine has developed new delivery models for deployment-
    related concerns and is working with the Office of Seamless Transition
    to improve coordination with the Veterans Administration. These include
    13 Deployment Health Clinics in areas of fleet and marine concentration
    to support operational commands in ensuring medical care for those
    returning from deployment.
    Navy Education
                Professional Military Education (PME)
        Our professional military education continuum provides career-long
    educational opportunities for professional and personal development
    that supports mission capabilities. It supports development of 21st
    century leaders who have the capacity to think through uncertainty;
    develop innovative concepts, capabilities, and strategies; fully
    exploit advanced technologies, systems, and platforms; understand
    cultural/regional issues; and conduct operations as a coherently joint
    force. Navy PME provides a common core of knowledge for all sailors. A
    primary level program was implemented via distance learning in June
    2006. The initial targeted audience is junior unrestricted line
    officers and senior enlisted members. Additional content is in
    development for all junior officers. Introductory and basic levels for
    more junior sailors is also under development.
                Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)
        Joint professional military education provides an understanding of
    the principles of joint warfare. Our path is designed to create a
    change in Navy culture so that it values jointness and therefore
    systematically develops a group of Navy leaders who are strategically
    minded, capable of critical thinking, and skilled in naval and joint
    warfare. JPME Phase I is a requirement for screening unrestricted line
    officers for commander command beginning in fiscal year 2009. In August
    2006, Naval War College began in-residence instruction of JPME Phase
    II. The Naval War College has implemented a Joint Maritime Component
    Commander's Course to prepare future Flag Officers to serve as Maritime
    Component Commanders. $150 million requested in fiscal year 2008
    sustains our expanded commitment to this vital professional
    development.
                The Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps (NROTC)
        The NROTC Program comprises 59 active units at 71 host institutions
    of higher learning across the Nation. With $173 million requested in
    fiscal year 2008, the program is adequately funded to provide 4 and 2
    year scholarships to qualified young men and women to prepare them for
    leadership and management positions in an increasingly technical Navy
    and Marine Corps with service as commissioned officers. The program
    continues to be a key source of nuclear power candidates, nurses, and
    increased officer corps diversity. Focus is now on increasing strategic
    foreign language skills and expanding cultural awareness among
    midshipmen.
                The United States Naval Academy (USNA)
        USNA gives young men and women the up-to-date academic and
    professional training needed to be effective Navy and Marine officers
    in their assignments after graduation. Renowned for producing officers
    with solid technical and analytical foundations, the Naval Academy is
    expanding its capabilities in strategic languages and regional studies.
                The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS)
        NPS is the Navy's principal source for graduate education. It
    provides Navy and DOD relevant degree and non-degree programs in
    residence and at a distance to enhance combat effectiveness. NPS
    provides essential flexibility in meeting Navy and Department of
    Defense emergent research needs, and the development of warfighters
    with otherwise demanding career paths and deployment cycles making
    graduate education opportunities difficult to achieve. NPS also
    supports operations through naval and maritime research, and maintains
    expert faculty capable of working in, or serving as advisors to
    operational commands, labs, systems commands, and headquarters
    activities. The $84 million requested in fiscal year 2008 sustains this
    unique national asset and provides increases for lab upgrades, distance
    learning, and IT maintenance and support.
                The Naval War College (NWC)
        The Naval War College provides professional maritime and joint
    military education, advanced research, analysis, and gaming to educate
    future leaders. Its mission is to enhance the professional capabilities
    of its students to make sound decisions in command, staff and
    management positions in naval, joint, and multinational environments.
    The $56 million requested in fiscal year 2008 is a significant increase
    to support Joint Forces Maritime Component Command/Coalition Forces
    Maritime Component Command analysis and gaming capability, the China
    Maritime Studies Institute, initial investment for Maritime
    Headquarters (MHQ)/Maritime Operations Center (MOC), support for JPME
    II accreditation, funding for JPME I at Naval Postgraduate School, and
    for NWC Maritime Operations curriculum development.
                Enlisted Retention (Selective Reenlistment Bonus)
        Retaining the best and brightest sailors has always been a Navy
    core objective and key to success. Navy retains the right people by
    offering rewarding opportunities for professional growth, development,
    and leadership directly tied to mission readiness. Navy has experienced
    significant reenlistment improvement since a 20-year low in fiscal year
    1999, reaching a peak at the end of fiscal year 2003. This improved
    retention is part of a long-term trend, allowing us to be more
    selective in ensuring the right number of strong performers reenlist in
    the right ratings. Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs) are a key tool
    enabling us to offer attractive incentives to selected sailors we want
    to retain. $359 million requested in fiscal year 2008 will provide for
    nearly 79,000 new and anniversary payments helping ensure the Navy will
    be able to remain selective in fiscal year 2008.
                Sexual Assault Victim Intervention (SAVI)
        SAVI has three major components: (1) awareness and prevention
    education, (2) victim advocacy and intervention services, and (3)
    collection of reliable data on sexual assault. Per the Fiscal Year 2005
    National Defense Authorization Act requirements, the Navy SAVI Program
    was transitioned from a program management to case management focus.
    Existing installation program coordinator positions were increased and
    became Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs), which is a
    standard title and position across the Department of Defense. SARCs are
    accountable for coordinating victim care/support and for tracking each
    unrestricted sexual assault incident from initial report to final
    disposition. Navy also provides 24/7 response capability for sexual
    assaults, on or off the installation, and during deployment through the
    use of victim advocates who report to installation SARCs. The $3
    million requested in the fiscal year 2008 budget enables us to maintain
    this expanded SAVI program fleet-wide.
                Family Advocacy (FAP)
        The Family Advocacy Program addresses prevention, identification,
    reporting, evaluation, intervention and follow-up with respect to
    allegations of child abuse/neglect and domestic abuse involving active
    duty and their family members or intimate partners. Maintaining abuse-
    free and adaptive family relationships is critical to Navy mission
    readiness, maintenance of good order and discipline, and quality of
    service for our active duty members and their families.
                Sea Warrior Spiral 1
        Sea Warrior comprises the Navy's training, education and career
    management systems that provide for the growth and development of our
    people. The first increment, or ``Spiral 1'', of Sea Warrior is
    interactive detailing. This system allows sailors to have greater
    insight and engagement in identifying and applying for Navy positions
    of interest to them professionally and personally. Spiral 1 Sea Warrior
    is a funded Navy program and its develop follows the standard, rigorous
    acquisition engineering and program management processes. Additional
    Sea Warrior spirals will be developed in accordance with future
    capability needs and as clear requirements are defined.
        Because of Sea Warrior's complexity, many issues related to sea and
    shore connectivity are still being worked out. Further, before fielding
    a usable model, the Navy plans to conduct extensive beta testing of
    selected ratings. Sea Warrior is funded through the fiscal year DP and
    is not expected to reach FOC until 2016.

        Senator Inouye. May I now recognize the Commandant of the
    Marine Corps, General Conway.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES T. CONWAY, COMMANDANT,
                UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
        General Conway. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to report to you today on the status of our Marine
    Corps.
        In our recent meetings, as well as previous testimony
    before the Congress, I pledged throughout to give you frank and
    honest assessments, and I come here today again with that as my
    watch word.
        Over the past 5 years, your Marine Corps has been immersed
    in the first battles of a long war, a generational struggle
    against Islamic extremists. Our freedom is threatened, not by
    Nazis or Communists as it was in the past, but by terrorists
    who are now determined to destroy us and our way of life.
        Further, the full array of our security threats is
    daunting. But rest assured, this generation's young Americans
    are answering the call. Over two-thirds of our Corps enlisted
    or reenlisted since 9/11, knowing full well what the Nation
    expects of marines in a time of war.
        Our marines are being pushed hard by the high operational
    tempo and frequency of combat deployments. They've been
    operating at full-bore for, roughly, the last 5 years. Despite
    this, and, in fact, maybe because of it, I can report first-
    hand that the morale has never been higher. I attribute that to
    the fact that they believe they're making a difference. They
    see the evidence of your support everywhere, tangible support
    in feeling of new material, the latest equipment to protect
    them while in harm's way, and your support of the proposal to
    grow our end strength.
        Increasing the 202,000 marines will reduce the strain, both
    on the individual marine, and on our institution as a whole. It
    will require additional infrastructure, but more importantly,
    will gradually improve the deployment-to-dwell ratio in some of
    our most critical units. Currently, many of these units are
    deployed for 7 months and then home for 7, in some cases even
    less than that, before they return to combat.
        This end strength addresses much more that the current
    battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. It ensures your Corps will be
    able to deal with the uncertainties of a long war. Our Corps
    is, by law, to be the most ready when the Nation is least
    ready, the Nation's shock troops. Additional marines allow the
    dwell-time needed to train and sharpen the skills that will be
    required of us in the next contingency, reducing our
    operational and strategic risks.
        As over 70 percent of our proposed end strength increase is
    composed of first-term marines, we're making the necessary
    increases in recruiting and retention. This is a challenge, but
    our standards will remain high. We need your continued support
    for recruiting programs, such as advertising, which are
    essential for us to continue to bring aboard the best in
    America.
        Our Nation has an enduring commitment to her marines long
    after they've returned from the battle, particularly if they're
    physically or mentally scarred. Our moral imperative is to
    ensure that this support is seamless, even as marines leave our
    uniform ranks. To this end, we have formed a Wounded Warrior
    Regiment with battalions on each coast, that will hold true to
    the maxim that we never leave a marine behind.
        Ladies and gentlemen, your marines are honored to be
    serving this Nation during such an important time in our
    history. They are truly a special breed of patriots and it's on
    their behalf that I come before you today to answer your
    questions, and to help all understand how we can best support
    these tremendous young Americans.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I look forward to your questions, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, General.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of General James T. Conway
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to report to you the state
    of your Marine Corps.
        Your Marine Corps is currently engaged in what we believe to be the
    opening battles in a generational struggle against Islamic extremists.
    Our commitment is characterized by diverse and sustained employment
    around the globe, particularly the central campaigns in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Your Marines are fully engaged in this fight, and it is
    through their tremendous sacrifices--serving shoulder-to-shoulder with
    their fellow service men and women--that we will ultimately prevail. It
    is our moral imperative to support them to the hilt--always mindful
    that our forward-deployed Marines and Sailors in combat must be our
    number one priority.
        Though Marines in the operating forces have been pushed hard by the
    tempo and frequency of operational deployments, their morale has never
    been higher--because they believe they are making a difference. Thanks
    to you, Ladies and Gentlemen, your Marines know that the people of the
    United States and their Government are behind them. Support has been
    exceptional--from the rapid fielding of life-saving equipment to the
    proposed increase in end strength, and with your continued support,
    mission accomplishment will remain completely viable and achievable.
        The Long War is taking a considerable toll on our equipment and we
    have tough choices ahead of us--we must support our Marines and their
    families, while deciding whether to replace our rapidly aging equipment
    with similar platforms or to modernize with next generation equipment.
        We know these next few years will be challenging--not only in the
    immediate conflict in Iraq, but in subsequent campaigns of the Long
    War. Therefore, the Corps will balance our skill sets in order to
    remain prepared for crisis outside of Iraq and Afghanistan--to be where
    our country needs us, when she needs us, and to prevail over whatever
    challenges we face. I am confident that with your steadfast support,
    our Corps will continue to remain the Nation's force in readiness and
    fulfill its Congressionally mandated mission of being the most ready
    when the Nation is least ready.
                    marine corps commitments in the long war
        Over the past year, your Marines deployed to all corners of the
    globe in support of our Nation. With more than 24,000 Marines ashore
    throughout the U.S. Central Command's Area of Responsibility,
    Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM remain our largest
    commitment. In addition to those operations, the Marine Corps also
    deployed forces to: support humanitarian and disaster relief efforts in
    Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines; participate in over fifty
    Theater Security Cooperation events ranging from small Mobile Training
    Teams in Central America to the first deployment of the Marine Forces
    Special Operations Command's Foreign Military Training Unit supporting
    our African partner nations; protect our Embassies by providing Fleet
    Anti-Terrorism Security Teams to East Timor and Lebanon; and respond to
    a Non-Combatant Evacuation from Lebanon--the largest since Vietnam.
        Achieve Victory in the Long War.--The Defense Department's 2006
    Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) directed that we enhance our
    counterinsurgency capabilities. Our enhanced Marine Air Ground Task
    Forces and the Marine Corps component to Special Operations Command are
    part of this commitment. Other types of forces, unique to
    counterinsurgency operations, may also need to be formed. However, we
    will maintain robust contingency response forces satisfying the
    Congress' intent to be ``the Nation's shock troops''--always ready and
    always capable of forcible entry.
        I view the inherent power of the Marine Air Ground Task Force
    (MAGTF) as an irreplaceable component of this Nation's plan for success
    in the Long War. This war demands flexible organizations that apply a
    mix of combat and non-lethal actions; interagency capabilities and
    joint warfare applications; innovative use of airpower; and
    synchronization of intelligence activities. For rapid integration of
    these capabilities--as well as providing the critical boots on the
    ground--the MAGTF is better prepared than any other military formation
    to execute the full range of operations required by the current
    conflict. This is the Corps' fundamental fighting organization,
    providing the joint force a unique, additive capability--one that is
    much greater than the sum of its parts.
        To further expand the MAGTF's contribution to our Nation's
    security, I have directed my staff to develop a series of exercises
    that will further enhance the MAGTF's ability to integrate interagency
    and coalition operations throughout the spectrum of conflict. Our goal
    will be to provide a forum to develop diverse yet cohesive teams that
    can best overcome the challenges we are most likely to face in pre- and
    post-war phases of operations. These exercises will serve our Nation
    well in the Long War, in future conflicts, and in our ongoing security
    cooperation efforts.
        In February of 2006, we established Marine Corps Forces, Special
    Operations Command (MARSOC) within the U.S. Special Operations Command.
    MARSOC is already employing its five major subordinate elements: the
    Foreign Military Training Unit, two Marine Special Operations
    Battalions, the Marine Special Operations Support Group, and the Marine
    Special Operations School, and is on track to achieve full-operational
    capability by the end of fiscal year 2008. Its personnel and equipment
    assignment plan is designed to best support our Combatant Commanders in
    their prosecution of the Long War. The Foreign Military Training Unit
    was activated in 2005 and has been incorporated into MARSOC, the 2d
    Marine Special Operations Battalion was activated in May of 2006,
    followed by the 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion in October of
    2006.
        MARSOC deployed Foreign Military Training Unit teams to the
    European and Southern Command areas of responsibility last summer and
    fall. Through the end of fiscal year 2007, the Foreign Military
    Training Unit is scheduled to make twenty-seven deployments to twelve
    countries to conduct foreign internal defense and counter narcotics
    training to improve the indigenous military forces of those countries.
    Additionally, MARSOC began deploying Marine Special Operations
    Companies, associated with Marine Expeditionary Units and assigned to
    Expeditionary Strike Groups in January of this year. MARSOC provides a
    unique combination of land component and maritime expeditionary
    capabilities across a wide range of missions. As special operations
    forces continue to prosecute the Long War, MARSOC will be a significant
    partner in Special Operations Command.
        To aid in both the current execution of the campaign in Iraq as
    well as the long-term irregular warfare capability of the Marine Corps,
    we are establishing a Center for Irregular Warfare. This organization
    will serve as the focal point for integration of concepts, doctrine,
    training, education, and equipment capability development. This Center
    will also maintain close coordination with our sister Services and
    external agencies. Our goal is to enhance the Marine Air Ground Task
    Force's capabilities by training and equipping small-unit leaders to
    handle the demanding complexities and possess the adaptive mindset
    necessary to operate across the spectrum of conflict--empowering our
    ``strategic corporals'' as well as all of our junior leaders to fight,
    operate, and win in this challenging security environment.
        Supporting the Plus-up for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.--Currently, the
    Marine Corps has approximately 4,000 Marines affected by the pending
    plus-up operation in Iraq. The units affected will be extended for
    approximately 45-60 days. This change will impact our Marines and their
    families, but we believe that the support systems that we have in place
    within the units and family support systems back home will help our
    Marines and their families meet the challenges associated with this
    extension on deployment. Furthermore, between their return and next
    deployment, the addition of new infantry battalions will allow these
    units to lengthen the time at their home station.
        Battalions moved forward in the rotation cycle will complete all
    required pre-deployment training that fully qualifies them for
    employment. These battalions will be subject to the same pre-deployment
    training standards as their fellow Marines. We have accelerated the
    normal cycle through our main mission rehearsal exercise, Mojave Viper,
    to accommodate consistent training for all units rotating into theater.
        The accelerated battalions will deploy with equipment from their
    home stations, and the additional equipment required will be provided
    by cross-leveling assets in theater as well as leveraging equipment
    already positioned forward. This has resulted in some home station
    shortfalls and has hindered some stateside units' ability to train for
    other missions and contingencies. While the readiness of deployed units
    remains high, we have experienced a decrease in the readiness of some
    non-deployed units.
        There are no Marine Corps Reserve units involved in the plus-up
    operations.
                          right-size our marine corps
        To meet the demands of the Long War as well as the inevitable
    crises that arise, our Corps must be sufficiently manned in addition to
    being well trained and properly equipped. Like the Cold War, the Long
    War is a continuing struggle that will not be measured by the number of
    near-term deployments or rotations, and while we seek to capitalize on
    advances in technology, we know it is our magnificent Marines who
    invariably decide the outcome.
        In order to protect our most precious asset, the individual Marine,
    we must ensure that our personnel policies, organizational construct,
    and training are able to operate at the ``sustained rate of fire.''
    Operating at the ``sustained rate of fire'' means that the Corps will
    be able to maintain operations indefinitely without drastic changes to
    procedures, policies, organization, or operations. The proposed Active
    Component end strength increase will significantly enhance our ability
    to operate at the ``sustained rate of fire.''
        Strain on the Individual.--Despite an unparalleled Personnel Tempo,
    the morale of our Marines and their families remains high. To avoid an
    adverse toll on our Marines and their families, and to prevent a
    decrease in readiness, the former Secretary of Defense established a
    1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio goal for all active component forces.
    This ratio relates to how long our forces are deployed versus how long
    they are at home--the goal being for every seven months a Marine is
    deployed, they will be back at their home station for fourteen months.
    We need to relieve the strain on those superb Americans who have
    volunteered to fight the Nation's battles.
        Strain on the Institution.--The current deployment cycle requires
    commanders to focus solely on those skill sets required to accomplish
    the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. This deterioration of capabilities
    is exacerbated by individual augments and training team requirements
    and by many units being deployed for missions outside of their normal
    duties. The result of this strain is evident in the Marine Corps'
    limited ability to provide trained forces to project power in support
    of other contingencies. Reduced training time and a necessarily
    singular focus on current contingency requirements prevents significant
    opportunities for units to train to the full range of military
    operations in varied operating environments, such as jungle or mountain
    terrain. To fulfill our mandate to be ``most ready when the Nation is
    least ready,'' our deployment cycles must not only support training for
    irregular warfare, they must also provide sufficient time for recovery,
    maintenance, and training for other contingency missions. By increasing
    the dwell time for our units and allowing them additional time at home
    stations, we can accomplish the more comprehensive training needed for
    the sophisticated skill sets that have enabled Marine Air Ground Task
    Forces to consistently achieve success in all types of military
    operations and operating environments. Our goal is to increase dwell
    time and achieve a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio for our active
    forces--our Operating Forces are routinely falling short of this
    target.
        Reducing the Stress.--I would emphasize, the underlying requirement
    for an end strength increase is separate from, indeed it pre-dates, the
    plus-up operation in Iraq. The proposed increase to our Active
    Component end strength to 202,000 Marines will go a long way to
    reducing the strain on the individual Marines and the Institution. Our
    first task will be to build three new infantry battalions and their
    supporting structure--approximately 4,000 Marines. The resources for
    this force have been included in our fiscal year 2007 supplemental.
    These funds will pay for initial costs associated with the stand up of
    these infantry battalions as well as critical enablers, which are vital
    not only for the current fight, but are also critically needed to
    support long-term Marine Corps capabilities to accomplish other
    missions. These enablers include combat support and combat service
    support such as intelligence, military police, and civil affairs
    capabilities. We will systematically build the additional individuals
    and units on a schedule of approximately 5,000 per year. This plan will
    gradually increase the deployment-to-dwell ratio of some of our
    habitually high operational tempo units--enabling us to recover our
    ability to respond in accordance with timelines outlined in war plans
    for our Combatant Commanders; thereby, reducing future operational
    risks. We are initially funding this initiative with supplemental and
    baseline funding in fiscal year 2008, but have included all future
    costs in our baseline budget as of fiscal year 2009.
        Reserve Component End Strength.--Our efforts in the Long War have
    been a Total Force effort, with our Reserves once again performing with
    grit and determination. Recent policy changes within the Department of
    Defense match up very well with our existing policies and will allow us
    to use the Reserve forces as they were structured to be employed--to
    augment and reinforce our Active Component forces. To this end, my goal
    is to obtain a 1:5 deployment-to-dwell ratio within our Reserve
    Component. We currently believe our authorized Reserve Component end
    strength of 39,600 Selected Reserve Marines is adequate. As with every
    organization within the Marine Corps, we continue to review the make-up
    and structure of the Marine Corps Reserve in order to ensure the right
    capabilities reside within the Marine Forces Reserve units and our
    Individual Mobilization Augmentee program across the force. Finally, as
    our active force increases in size, our reliance on the Reserve forces
    should decrease--helping us achieve the desired deployment-to-dwell
    ratio.
        Manning the Force.--An equally important factor in sustaining a
    viable force is continuing to recruit and retain qualified young men
    and women with the right character, commitment, and drive to become
    Marines. With over 70 percent of the end strength increase comprised of
    first-term Marines, both recruiting and retention efforts will be
    challenged. A major part of this effort will involve programming
    increased funding for both the Enlistment Bonus and the Selective
    Reenlistment Bonus Programs. We will need the continued strong support
    of Congress to achieve ongoing success.
        Our recruiting standards will remain high. While exceeding DOD
    quality standards, we continue to recruit the best of America into our
    ranks--in fiscal year 2006, the Marine Corps achieved over 100 percent
    of our active component accession goal. The Marine Corps Reserve also
    achieved 100 percent of its recruiting goals, but reserve officer
    numbers remain challenging because our primary accession source is from
    officers who leave active duty. We appreciate the continued
    authorization for Selected Reserve Officer Affiliation Bonuses in the
    Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act--they continue to
    contribute in this crucial area.
        We forecast that both active and reserve recruiting will remain
    challenging in fiscal year 2007, particularly when viewed through the
    lens of accession missions to meet the increased end strength of the
    Marine Corps. We will need the continued support of Congress for
    programmed enlistment bonuses and other recruiting efforts, such as
    advertising, which will be essential to us continuing to meet these
    challenges.
        Retention is the other important part of manning the force. In
    fiscal year 2006, the Marine Corps exceeded its retention goals for
    both the First Term and Career Forces. For fiscal year 2007, we expect
    to exceed our goals again. This success can be attributed to the Marine
    Corps' judicious use of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus, and we now
    offer qualified first term and career enlisted Marines $10,000 in
    Assignment Incentive Pay to reenlist. To keep the very best of our
    Marines, we must increase the size of our reenlistment bonus program in
    order to ensure that we have the right grade and MOS mix to support the
    growing force. Not only will we have to retain more first-term Marines,
    but we will also have to increase the number of Marines reenlisting at
    the eight and 12-year mark. This will require a shift toward more
    programmed funding in targeted key areas in the career force.
        Military to Civilian Conversions.--Military-to-civilian conversions
    continue to provide a valuable source to send additional Marines back
    to the operating force in support of our warfighting initiatives and
    help reduce stress. We will continue to pursue sensible conversions and
    transfer Marines from non-essential billets.
        National Security Personnel System.--The Marine Corps is committed
    to successful implementation of the National Security Personnel System.
    The Marine Corps is actively participating with the Department of
    Defense in the development and implementation of this new personnel
    system and is cooperating with the sister Services so that our civilian
    employees receive the training opportunities and support necessary for
    a successful transition. The National Security Personnel System will
    enable the Marine Corps to better support the warfighter by providing a
    civilian workforce that is flexible, accountable, and aligned to the
    Marine Corps mission.
           resetting the force and preparing for the next contingency
        To meet the demands of the Long War, we must reset the force in
    order to simultaneously fight, train, and sustain our Corps. To support
    our Marines in combat, we have routinely drawn additional equipment
    from strategic stocks, which need to be replenished to remain
    responsive to emerging threats. The Congress has responded rapidly and
    generously to our requests for equipment and increased protection for
    our Marines and Sailors. It is our responsibility to manage these
    resources prudently as we transition to the modernization of our force.
        Equipment Readiness.--Extended combat operations have severely
    tested our materiel. While the vast majority of our equipment has
    passed the test of sustained combat operations, it has been subjected
    to more than a lifetime's worth of wear stemming from vehicle mileage,
    operating hours, and harsh environmental conditions. This increased
    maintenance requirement is a consequence of not only operational tempo
    and operating environments, but also the sheer amount of equipment
    employed in operations. Approximately thirty percent of all Marine
    Corps ground equipment and nearly twenty-five percent of our active
    duty aviation squadrons are currently engaged overseas. Most of this
    equipment is not rotating out of theater at the conclusion of each
    force rotation; it remains in combat, used on a near-continuous basis
    at an operating tempo that far exceeds normal peacetime usage.
        As our priority for equipment is to support Marines serving in
    harm's way, we have drawn additional equipment from the Maritime
    Prepositioning Ships and prepositioned stores from the caves in Norway;
    we have also retained equipment in theater from units that are rotating
    back to the United States. The operational results of these efforts
    have been outstanding--the average mission capable rates of our
    deployed forces' ground equipment remain above ninety-three percent--
    but there is a price.
        The cost of this success is a decrease in non-deployed unit
    readiness as well as an increase in the maintenance required per hour
    of operating time. Equipment across the Marine Corps is continuously
    cross-leveled and redistributed to ensure that units preparing to
    deploy have sufficient equipment to conduct our rigorous pre-deployment
    training programs. Because the stateside priority of equipment
    distribution and readiness is to units preparing to deploy, there has
    been a trade-off in unit training for other types of contingencies. The
    timely delivery of replacement equipment is crucial to sustaining the
    high readiness rates for the Marines in theater, as well as improving
    the rates for the forces here at home. Although funded, much of this
    equipment is still many months from delivery.
        Ground Equipment.--Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are placing
    demands on ground equipment far beyond what is typically experienced
    during training or home station operations. Some of these demands rise
    from higher usage rates, others from the rigors of extended operations
    in harsh environments. These higher demands increase the maintenance
    requirements for equipment employed in theater and continue when this
    equipment is redeployed to home stations.

              TABLE 1.--ABSOLUTE INCREASES IN UTILIZATION FOR SELECTED MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS EMPLOYED IN OIF
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Usage
                                Category                             --------------------------------  Optempo Ratio
                                                                          Pre OIF           OIF
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HMMWV...........................................................             183             550             3.0
    MTVR............................................................             500           2,000             4.0
    LVS.............................................................             375           1,500             4.0
    AAV.............................................................              83             417             5.0
    Rotary-Wing Aircraft............................................              18              41             2.2
    KC-130..........................................................              43              83             1.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOTE: Usage rates for ground vehicles are in miles per month; aircraft in flight hours per month.

        For example, in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) crews are driving
    Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) in excess of 8,700 miles per year--3.5
    times more than programmed annual usage rates of 2,480 miles per year.
    Our tactical vehicle fleet is experiencing some of the most dramatic
    effects of excessive wear, operating at five to six times the
    programmed rates.
        Aviation Equipment.--The operationally demanding and harsh
    environments of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Djibouti have highlighted the
    limitations of our aging fleet of aircraft. In order to support our
    Marines, sister Services, and coalition partners successfully, our
    aircraft have been flying at two to three times their designed
    utilization rates. Despite this unprecedented utilization, the yeoman
    efforts of our maintenance and support personnel have sustained an
    aviation mission capable rate for deployed Marine aircraft at 79
    percent over the past twelve months. The corresponding aviation mission
    capable rates for our units in garrison, who have either recently
    returned from deployment or are preparing to deploy again, have
    averaged 75 percent over the past twelve months. To maintain sufficient
    numbers of aircraft in deployed squadrons, our home squadrons have
    taken significant cuts in available aircraft and parts as they prepare
    for deployment. Reset funding has partially alleviated this strain, but
    continued funding is needed as we continue to recapitalize our aircraft
    fleets due to age, attrition, and wartime losses. Maintaining the
    readiness of our aviation assets while preparing our aircrew for their
    next deployment is and will continue to be a monumental effort and
    constant challenge for our Marines.
        We have mitigated aircraft degradation through specific aircraft
    modifications, proactive inspections, and additional maintenance
    actions enabled by reset programs. Sustaining aircraft material
    condition drives aircraft readiness and is the determining factor in
    combat aviation support provided to our Marines in harm's way. While
    these efforts have successfully bolstered aircraft reliability,
    sustainability, and survivability, additional requirements for depot
    level maintenance on airframes, engines, weapons, and support equipment
    will continue well beyond the conclusion of hostilities.
        Resetting Marine Aviation means not merely repairing and replacing
    damaged or destroyed aircraft, but getting more capable and reliable
    aircraft into the operational deployment cycle sooner. Your Marines
    rely on these aircraft on a daily basis to provide a wide array of
    missions including casualty evacuation for our wounded and timely close
    air support for troops in contact with the enemy. Production lines to
    replace legacy aircraft lost in support of the Long War are no longer
    active; therefore, it is urgent and imperative for the Marine Aviation
    Plan to remain fully funded and on schedule. Additionally, to ensure
    Marine aviation is postured to support the current needs of our
    country, the Marine Corps is working to restore war reserve aircraft
    and accelerate the upgrades of pre-production aircraft to help maintain
    aircraft inventories at minimal acceptable operating levels. For
    example, the Marine Corps is modifying pre-production MV-22s to ensure
    the transition schedule meets operational demands and deployment
    timelines. Resetting our full aviation capability will require a
    significant increase in programmed funding for repair, restoration, and
    upgrades of destroyed or damaged airframes, recovery of Pioneer
    unmanned aerial vehicle components, refurbishment of air traffic
    control equipment, replacement of targeting pods, and numerous other
    efforts to restore capability degraded in support of the Long War.

        Reset of Prepositioning Programs.--Eleven Maritime Prepositioning
    Force (MPF) vessels from all three Maritime Prepositioning Force
    Squadrons (MPSRON) were downloaded and used in theater during initial
    Operation IRAQI FREEDOM operations. As these operations concluded, the
    Marine Corps reconstituted two of three MPSRONs to meet potential
    contingencies in other areas of the world. This reconstitution was
    conducted both in theater and at the USMC facilities in Jacksonville,
    Florida. In February 2004, MPSRON-2 was downloaded in support of
    Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II and has been partially reconstituted.
        Since the MPF offloads in support of Operations IRAQI FREEDOM I and
    II, MPSRON-1 and MPSRON-2 have gone through a complete maintenance
    cycle for attainment and supply rotation. Attainment for major end
    items is 91 percent and 48 percent respectively. Some of our major end
    item shortfalls are a result of ongoing Operation IRAQI FREEDOM/
    Operation ENDURING FREEDOM equipment requirements and availability from
    the manufacturer. Our end item shortfalls in the MPF program will be
    reset during the ship's maintenance cycle as equipment becomes
    available. Readiness for all equipment loaded aboard the MPS is
    historically 98 percent or better. MPSRON-3 is currently undergoing its
    maintenance cycle and we project an attainment above 98 percent for
    equipment when completed in June 2007. MPSRON-2's maintenance cycle
    should begin in April 2008 and be completed by June 2009.
        Equipment from Marine Corps Prepositioning Program--Norway (MCPP-N)
    was used in support of Long War operations and to reset other Marine
    Corps shortfalls with a higher operational priority. The USMC will
    reset MCPP-N as soon as practical in line with USMC operational
    priorities.
        Costs of Resetting the Force.--Last year, our cumulative reset cost
    estimate was $11.7 billion, of which the Congress appropriated $5.1
    billion toward that amount. To date, Congress has appropriated a total
    of $10.2 billion for GWOT reset costs. The $11.7 figure is based on a
    point in time (October 1, 2005) snapshot of the funding necessary to
    refit the Marine Corps to a pre-Long War level of equipment readiness.
    During the summer of 2006, the Secretary of Defense standardized the
    definition of reset costs across the Services. As a result, the Marine
    Corps stopped identifying two major expenses--depot maintenance and
    attrition losses--as ``Cost of War'' and moved them into our reset the
    force estimate. This definitional change and some additional
    requirements have changed our estimate as noted in Table 2.
        The first expense to be re-categorized is the estimated cost of
    residual depot maintenance after the termination of hostilities. Our
    analysis shows that we will require at least four to six years of post-
    conflict depot maintenance to bring our force to a fully reset state.
    Given the status of our equipment at this time, we estimate additional
    programmed funding will be required for post-conflict ground and
    aviation depot maintenance costs.
        The second item re-categorized because of definition changes is
    attrition losses. Prior to the re-definition, the Marine Corps had
    considered replacement and repair of attrition losses to be a cost of
    war, and had not included them in our reset estimate. We have increased
    our reset estimate to include forecasted attrition losses.
        The net effect is that the Marine Corps reset estimate, once a
    fixed point in time estimate, has now become a rolling estimate that
    includes future attrition losses and future depot maintenance
    estimates. The following table (Table 2) depicts the definitional
    changes:

                      TABLE 2.--CHANGES TO RESET DEFINITION
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Traditional Marine
              Category                    Corps          New OSD Definition
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Depot Maintenance...........  Reset...............  Reset
    Additional 4-6 yrs after OIF  Not Included........  Reset
     I.
    Field Level Maintenance.....  Cost of War.........  Cost of War
    Consumables.................  Cost of War.........  Cost of War
    Combat Losses...............  Cost of War.........  Reset
    Annually Expended Munitions.  Cost of War.........  Cost of War
    T/E Recapitalization........  Reset...............  Reset
    Prepositioning Assets.......  Reset...............  Reset
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Not all of the reset the force requirement can be executed in a
    single fiscal year. Some items such as attack and utility helicopters
    cannot be replaced until acquisition production decisions are made.
    Other requirements such as light armored vehicles cannot be fulfilled
    in a single year due to production capacity issues. Resourcing costs
    must be phased over several years. The table (Table 3) below highlights
    specific examples of this challenge.

                                                              TABLE 3.--EQUIPMENT DELIVERY LAG TIME
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      First Loss                                                      Replacement
               Capability            --------------------------------------------       Funding       ------------------------------------------    Delay
                                              Equip                 Date              Appropriated            Equip                 Date          Months \1\
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Utility Helo....................  UH-1N...............  Dec 2001............  Oct 2006...........  UH-1Y..............  Apr 2009...........           88
    Transport.......................  KC-130R.............  Jan 2002............  Oct 2006...........  KC-130J............  Apr 2010...........           99
    Attack Helo.....................  AH-1W...............  Jan 2003............  Oct 2006...........  AH-1Z..............  Apr 2009...........           75
    Medium Lift Helo................  CH-46E..............  Mar 2003............  Jul 2006...........  MV-22..............  Sep 2009...........           78
    Wheeled Recon...................  LAV-25..............  Apr 2003............  May 2005...........  LAV-25.............  Dec 2007...........           56
    Medium Wheeled Transport........  MTVR................  May 2003............  May 2005...........  MTVR...............  Apr 2006...........           35
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    modernize for tomorrow, to be ``the most ready when the nation is least
                                    ready''
        As prudent stewards of our Nation's resources, we must decide the
    most effective way to modernize the Total Force. We are actively
    working through the tough decisions of whether to replace aging
    equipment with similar platforms or to procure next generation
    capabilities--such as cutting edge platforms like the STOVL Joint
    Strike Fighter, the MV-22 Osprey, and the Expeditionary Fighting
    Vehicle (EFV). Foremost and throughout our modernization efforts, we
    will maintain our Congressionally mandated contingency response forces
    to be always ready and always capable of forcible entry.
        Marine Aviation Plan.--The Marine Aviation Plan is designed to
    posture Marine Corps Aviation for future warfighting requirements in
    the near term (2007-2009), the mid-term (2010-2012) and the long term
    (2013-2015). The Marine Aviation Plan addresses these challenges by
    restructuring the force and managing current aircraft procurement
    Programs of Record.
        We will rebalance our existing Assault Support and Tactical
    Aircraft (TACAIR) structure in the reserve and active components in
    order to boost future HMH (heavy lift CH-53), HMLA (light attack UH-1
    and AH-1), and VMU (unmanned aerial vehicle) capacity. Increases to
    aviation manpower structure at the squadron, group, and wing levels
    will enhance operational readiness and better posture these units for
    combat operations and their transitions to the new H-1s, MV-22, F-35,
    KC-130J, and CH-53K. We will incorporate a fully functional and
    resourced Aircrew Training System that will align a new Training
    Transformation Plan to each Assault Support and TACAIR community as
    they transition to new aircraft in the coming years. Marine aviation
    command and control modernization will leverage our new aircraft
    capabilities by streamlining command and control functions and radar
    inventory to ensure aviation command and control remains agile,
    efficient, and responsive to the needs of the Marine Air Ground Task
    Force (MAGTF) across the spectrum of conflict. Marine aviation
    logistics process modernization applies an overarching approach to
    understanding readiness, related costs, and the removal of performance
    barriers with the goal of enhancing our warfighting capabilities while
    husbanding resources.
        The Marine Aviation Plan shapes the future of Marine Aviation to
    meet the diverse missions of today's and tomorrow's battlefields, and
    provides the Marine Air Ground Task Force with improved capabilities,
    unit manning, and a thorough safety training system to better overcome
    known and foreseeable challenges. This plan sets in place tomorrow's
    Marine Aviation as a viable and efficient force in support of the MAGTF
    on the battlefield.
        Joint Strike Fighter.--F-35 development is on track, and will act
    as an integrated flying combat system in support of our ground forces
    and will be the centerpiece of Marine Aviation. The manufacture of the
    first test aircraft (Conventional Take-off and Landing [CTOL] variant)
    is well underway, assembly times are much better than planned, and
    exceptional quality has been demonstrated in fabrication and assembly.
    The first CTOL aircraft flew in December of 2006. Five STOVL and six
    CTOL aircraft are currently in production. The JSF acquisition
    strategy, including software development, reflects a block approach.
    The F-35B Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant is a fifth
    generation aircraft that will provide a quantum leap in capability,
    basing flexibility, and mission execution across the full spectrum of
    warfare. The Marine Corps remains committed to its vision of an all
    STOVL tactical aircraft force. Fulfilling this vision will best posture
    the Marine Corps to support our Nation and the combatant commanders, by
    enabling the future Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) to accomplish
    its expeditionary warfighting responsibilities.
        MV-22.--The MV-22 is replacing the CH-46E and CH-53D aircraft. The
    CH-46E is over forty years old, with limited lift and mission
    capabilities to support the MAGTF and the Long War. In September 2005,
    the V-22 Defense Acquisition Board approved Full Rate Production. To
    date, twenty-nine Block A and fifteen Block B aircraft have been
    delivered. Much like the F-35, the MV-22 program uses a three-block
    strategy in its procurement. Block A aircraft are training aircraft.
    Block B are operational aircraft. Block C aircraft are operational
    aircraft with mission enhancements. To date, the one V-22 Fleet
    Replacement Training Squadron, one test squadron, VMX-22, and two
    tactical VMM squadrons have stood up with the third tactical MV-22
    squadron scheduled for March 2007. MV-22 Initial Operational Capability
    is scheduled for the summer of 2007 with a continued transition of two
    CH-46E squadrons per year thereafter. The MV-22's revolutionary assault
    support capability allows the MAGTF to maximize our capstone concept of
    Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare. Our forces in harm's way deserve the
    best assault support aircraft in the world--without question, the MV-22
    is that aircraft.
        KC-130J.--The KC-130J has continuously deployed in support of OIF
    since February 2005 and has provided the warfighter a state-of-the-art,
    multi-mission, tactical aerial refueling, and fixed wing assault
    support asset. The introduction of the aerial refuelable MV-22,
    combined with the forced retirement of the legacy KC-130F/R aircraft
    due to corrosion, fatigue life, and parts obsolescence, significantly
    increases the requirement for accelerated procurement of the KC-130J.
    Twenty-five new aircraft have been delivered, and the Marine Corps is
    contracted to procure a total of forty-five aircraft by the end of
    fiscal year 2013, with four KC-130J aircraft requested in the fiscal
    year 2008 budget. This is six aircraft less than the inventory
    objective of the fifty-one aircraft needed to support the operational
    requirements of MAGTF, joint, and combined forces. As the aviation
    workhorse of the MAGTF, the KC-130J's theater logistical support
    reduces the requirement for resupply via ground, limiting the exposure
    of our convoys to IEDs and other attacks.
        CH-53K.--The CH-53K program has reached ``Milestone B'' status-
    initiation of system development and demonstration. The current fleet
    of CH-53E Super Stallion aircraft will reach its fatigue life during
    this decade. The CH-53K will deliver increased range and payload,
    reduced operations and support costs, increased commonality with other
    assault support platforms, and digital interoperability for the next
    twenty-five years. The CH-53K is one of the elements that will enable
    the MAGTF and joint force to project and sustain forces ashore from the
    sea. A post Milestone B System Development and Demonstration contract
    was awarded in April 2006 and IOC is planned for fiscal year 2015.
        H-1 Upgrade.--The H-1 Upgrade Program (UH-1Y/AH-1Z) is a
    comprehensive program to resolve existing operational power margin
    issues, while significantly enhancing the tactical capability,
    operational effectiveness, and sustainability of the attack and utility
    helicopter fleet. The Corps' fleet of UH-1N Hueys is reaching the end
    of their useful life. Due to airframe and engine fatigue, the Vietnam-
    era Huey routinely takes off at maximum gross weight with no margin for
    error. This aircraft is long overdue for replacement; degrading our
    ability to support our Marines in harm's way. Due to significant GWOT
    operational demands on the existing squadrons and aircraft attrition,
    the Marine Corps has adapted the ``build new'' strategy for the UH-1Y
    in fiscal year 2006 and our first two production aircraft have now been
    delivered. We are also examining a ``build new'' strategy for the AH-1Z
    to preclude significant inventory shortfalls. The H-1 Upgrade Program
    will be restructured pending a Defense Acquisition Board in March 2007.
        Command and Control (C2) Harmonization.--The C2 harmonization
    strategy incorporates joint integrating concepts and C2 mandates, and
    is a holistic approach that integrates warfighter requirements into a
    common capability to deliver an end-to-end, fully integrated, cross-
    functional set of capabilities including forward-deployed and reach-
    back functions. The strategy's end state is a seamless capability that
    crosses warfighting functions and supports Marines from the supporting
    establishment to our Marines in contact with the enemy, taking the best
    of emerging capabilities and joint requirements to build a single
    solution.
        The first step in this direction is the ongoing development of the
    Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S). CAC2S fuses data
    from sensors, weapon systems, and C2 systems into an integrated
    display. It allows rapid, flexible operations in a common, modular, and
    scalable design by reducing the current five stovepipe systems into one
    hardware solution with streamlined equipment training. CAC2S will
    enable MAGTF commanders to control timing of organic, joint, or
    coalition effects, assault support, and ISR in their battlespace while
    operating within a joint task force. With CAC2S and C2 harmonization, a
    joint task force commander will discover that his MAGTF's battlespace
    offers maximum flexibility due to its seamless integration with joint
    and coalition partners.
        Persistent Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance.--The
    Persistent Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) strategy is
    a component of the Marine Corps ISR-enterprise supporting Marines
    across the spectrum of military operations. Its focus is the capability
    to integrate the network of air, ground, and space sensors with
    sufficient fidelity to detect, locate, identify, track, and target
    threats. This capability also reduces the effectiveness of improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs) through the identification of personnel,
    activities, and facilities associated with the manufacture and
    emplacement of IEDs. The network is enabled through unmanned aerial and
    ground systems, human intelligence exploitation teams, ground signals
    intelligence/electronic warfare, tactical fusion centers, and pre-
    deployment training programs. We continue to develop capabilities in
    coordination with the Joint IED Defeat Organization's point, route, and
    area targeting concepts. Some capabilities under development include
    unmanned aerial systems, unmanned ground sensors, wide field of view
    persistent surveillance (ANGEL FIRE), and the Ground Based Operational
    Surveillance System (GBOSS). ANGEL FIRE provides enhanced situational
    awareness and support to urban warfare, disaster relief, and other
    operations. The initial deployment of this capability is scheduled for
    late spring/summer 2007. G-BOSS is a force protection camera system
    that provides a twenty-four hour day/night persistent surveillance
    capability. The G-BOSS System of Systems concept is to integrate
    command and control; commercial off the shelf and government off the
    shelf sensors to ground, airborne, and space-based platforms. The
    military objective of G-BOSS is to detect, identify, and track
    insurgent activities, specifically associated with the emplacement of
    IEDs. The initial employment of autonomous camera tower systems has
    performed admirably in theater. The integration of a fully networked G-
    BOSS system of systems is anticipated to begin in spring/summer 2007.
        Ground Mobility.--The Army and Marine Corps are leading the
    Services in developing tactical wheeled vehicle requirements for the
    joint force. The defined capabilities reflect an appropriate balance in
    survivability, mobility, payload, network enabling, transportability,
    and sustainability for the light tactical wheeled vehicle supporting
    the future joint force. The Army/Marine Corps Board has proven a
    valuable forum for coordination of tactical wheeled vehicle development
    and fielding, the production of Central Command armoring kits and up-
    armored HMMWVs, and rapid response to Combatant Commander's requests
    for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. Additionally, the Army/
    Marine Corps Board has been the focal point for development of the
    joint requirements for a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle focused on
    providing protected, sustained, networked, and expeditionary mobility
    to the joint force in the light tactical vehicle weight class.
        Mine Resistant Ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles.--MRAP vehicles are
    designed with a ``V'' shaped hull and are employed to protect against
    the three primary kill mechanisms of mines and improvised explosive
    devices--fragmentation, blast overpressure, and acceleration. These
    vehicles provide the best available protection against improvised
    explosive devices and experiences in theater have shown that a Marine
    is four to five times safer in a MRAP than in an up-armored HMMWV.
    There will be three categories of new near-term MRAP vehicles. Category
    I, a Mine Resistant Utility Vehicle, will accommodate up to six
    personnel and will be employed in urban operations. Category II
    vehicles are similar to Cougar/Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid
    Response Vehicles, and will accommodate up to ten personnel, and will
    be multi-mission capable. Category III, Buffalo vehicles, will be used
    for route clearance and explosive ordnance disposal missions.
        The MRAP is an example of our adaptation to evolving threats. It is
    an attempt to acquire the very best technology available in the
    shortest amount of time in order to protect our Marines. The USMC
    requirement is 3,700 MRAP vehicles and we are aggressively pursuing the
    acquisition of this rapidly emerging requirement.
        Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).--In November 2006, the Army's
    Training and Doctrine Command and Marine Corps Combat Development
    Command, in collaboration with Navy, Air Force, and Special Operations
    Command representatives, received Joint Staff approval of the Ground
    Combat Forces Light Tactical Mobility Initial Capability Document,
    documenting joint forces' capability needs for the light tactical
    wheeled vehicle fleet. During December 2006, Army and Marine Corps
    combat developers staffed the JLTV Capability Development Document,
    defining requirements for the long-term HMMWV replacement.
        Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC).--MPC development is on schedule. In
    January 2007, the Marine Corps staffed the Initial Capabilities
    Document, framed the Capabilities Development Document and initiated
    planning for the Analysis of Alternatives leading to a Marine Personnel
    Carrier material solution, moving toward an Initial Operational
    Capability in the 2012 timeframe. The MPC will possess a balance
    between performance, protection, and payload and will increase infantry
    battalion protected mobility and light armored reconnaissance battalion
    striking power. It will serve as a balanced expeditionary armored
    personnel carrier easily optimized for irregular warfare, but effective
    across the range of military operations.
        M1114 HMMWV--Upgrade via Fragmentation Kit 2 and Fragmentation Kit
    5.--The Corps' already fielded M1114 fleet is undergoing an upgrade
    with Fragmentation Kits 2 and 5. Fragmentation Kit 2 enhances ballistic
    protection in the front driver and assistant driver wheel-well.
    Fragmentation Kit 5 degrades improvised explosive device effects and
    reduces armor debris that results from overmatch. Installation of both
    Fragmentation Kits is underway, with anticipated completion in March
    2007. We will continue to evaluate the U.S. Army's objective kit
    development and share information and lessons learned. All new Marine
    Corps deliveries of M1114, M1151, M1152, and M1165 HMMWV's will have
    Fragmentation Kits 2 and 5 level capability integrated.
        MAGTF Fires.--Several innovative systems related to fire support
    significantly enhance the warfighting efficiency and effectiveness of
    the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). Such systems include the M777
    Lightweight Howitzer, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System,
    Expeditionary Fire Support System, Advanced Field Artillery Tactical
    Data System, and the Target Location, Designation, and Handoff system.
        M777 Lightweight Howitzer.--The new M777 lightweight howitzer
    replaces the M198 howitzers. It can be lifted by the MV-22 Osprey and
    the CH-53E helicopter and is paired with the Medium Tactical Vehicle
    Replacement truck for improved cross-country mobility. The M777,
    through design innovation, navigation, positioning aides, and digital
    fire control, offers significant improvements in lethality,
    survivability, mobility, and durability over the M198 howitzer. The
    Marine Corps began fielding the first of 356 new howitzers to the
    operating forces in April 2005 and expects to complete fielding in
    calendar year 2009.
        High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).--The HIMARS fills a
    critical range and volume gap in Marine Corps fire support assets by
    providing 24-hour, all weather, ground-based, indirect precision and
    volume fires throughout all phases of combat operations ashore. We will
    field forty HIMARS (eighteen to the active component, eighteen to the
    reserve component, and four to the Supporting Establishment). When
    paired with the acquisition of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System
    rockets, HIMARS will provide a highly responsive, precision fire
    capability to our forces in conventional as well as unconventional
    operations.
        Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS).--The EFSS will be the
    principal indirect fire support system for the vertical assault element
    of MAGTFs executing Ship-to-Objective Maneuver. It is a towed 120 mm
    mortar and when paired with an internally transportable vehicle, will
    be 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
    during calendar year 2007, and full operational capability is planned
    for fiscal year 2010.
        Target Location, Designation, and Handoff System (TLDHS).--TLDHS is
    a modular, man-portable equipment suite that will provide the ability
    to quickly acquire targets and digitally transmit data to supporting
    arms elements for attack, as well as designate targets for laser-
    seeking precision guided munitions and laser spot trackers. The system
    will be capable of providing target location within fifty meters and
    designating targets at 5,000 meters. TLDHS will be fielded to forward
    observer teams, naval gunfire spot teams, tactical air control parties,
    and reconnaissance teams. Block II, scheduled for fielding in late
    fiscal year 2007, will communicate with all Naval Strike aircraft, the
    AFATDS, and the Naval Fire Control System.
        Counter-Sniper technology.--The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory
    is leading a four-pronged approach to counter the sniper threat.
    Focused on increasing our ability to sense and warn, deny, protect, and
    respond, we are leveraging the cooperative efforts of Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency, our sister Services, the Marine Corps
    Intelligence Activity, and the National Ground Intelligence Center.
        Future sense and warn capabilities may include optical, acoustic,
    and infrared detection and location. We are examining different
    obscurant technologies, while our protection effort focuses on
    improving individual armor and new tactics, techniques, and procedures.
    Detection of threat optics will provide indications and warning of
    impending sniper or IED attacks, and a predictive capability to avoid
    or engage prior to sustaining friendly casualties. One potential denial
    method is through use of glare aversion devices which apply a non-
    injurious, but discomforting, bright light. Assessment of the response
    can help determine hostile intent, and the glare aversion effect may be
    effective in prohibiting a sniper from visually targeting friendly
    forces. Our response capability efforts include examination of counter-
    sniper vehicles and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's
    sniper rifle program. Finally, we are using experimentation to combat
    the sniper threat through advanced equipment and improved tactics,
    techniques, and procedures. Ongoing joint and interagency cooperation,
    coupled with industry collaboration, will shape our future experiments.
        Secure Internet Routing Protocol Network.--The continuing evolution
    and maturation of network threats, along with the asynchronous nature
    of network intrusions and vulnerabilities, requires the Marine Corps to
    seek improvements in network defense. The Secure Internet Routing
    Protocol Network, SIPRNET, is a highly secure network, physically and
    logically separate from unclassified networks and the Internet. In the
    near future, we foresee greater reliance on the SIPRNET to enhance the
    security of Marine Corps war fighting and business operations. This
    effort will require additional resources, which will prove well worth
    the investment as we secure our networks and provide for better
    operational and force protection.
                      naval operating forces and concepts
        As the ``Arc of Instability'' is substantially a maritime domain, a
    naval force is uniquely suited to respond and provide forward-deployed
    expeditionary combat forces in response to crises. It is the Marine
    Corps' obligation to provide our Nation a naval force that is fully
    prepared for employment as a Marine Air Ground Task Force operating
    across the spectrum of conflict. The Nation invests tremendous
    resources knowing that the ability to project power from the sea is a
    prerequisite for defending our sovereignty. To maneuver from the
    freedom of the seas provides timely and reliable response solutions to
    our Nation. In concert with the U.S. Navy, we support the law of the
    sea convention, which preserves our ability to maneuver from the sea.
        As demonstrated by the Navy-Marine Corps responses to hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita, tsunami relief in southern Asia, and noncombatant
    evacuation operations in Lebanon, maneuvering from the sea is a
    relevant capability possessing the flexibility to meet our country's
    needs both around the world and at home. Marines and Sailors embarked
    from amphibious platforms provide asymmetric, sustainable, and rapidly
    responsive solutions to our Combatant Commanders.
        Working closely with our Navy and Coast Guard partners, we will
    advance the amphibious and expeditionary capabilities the Combatant
    Commanders rely on to meet their emerging challenges, strengthen
    concepts and training that enhance naval contributions to the Long War,
    and provide a naval force that is fully prepared for employment across
    the full spectrum of conflict.
        Concepts to Capabilities.--In September 2006, the Navy and Marine
    Corps published a new Naval Operations Concept (NOC), which provides
    our unified vision for the future and broadly describes how naval power
    and influence can be applied at and from the sea, across the littorals,
    and ashore. In tandem, we revised our Marine Corps Operating Concepts
    (MOC) for a Changing Security Environment, incorporating our lessons
    learned and the unified vision provided in the NOC. Building on the
    conceptual foundation for littoral power projection provided in
    Operational Maneuver from the Sea, the Naval and Marine Corps Operating
    Concepts call for more widely distributed forces to provide increased
    forward presence, security cooperation with an expanding set of
    international partners, preemption of non-traditional threats, and a
    global response to crisis in spite of challenges to access.
    Collectively, these concepts provide the foundation for selectively
    conducting either distributed or aggregated operations.
        Due to changes to the security environment and the effects of
    globalization, the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps have all
    concurred with the need to reexamine our maritime strategy. Early this
    summer, we intend to produce a new maritime strategy in order to
    articulate the ways and means by which maritime forces will support the
    Nation's strategic ends in the new security era.
        Amphibious Warfare Ships.--Amphibious warfare ships are the
    centerpiece of the Navy-Marine Corps' forcible entry and Seabasing
    capability, and have played an essential role in the Long War. These
    ships are equipped with aviation and surface assault capabilities,
    which coupled with their inherent survival and self-defense systems,
    makes them ideally suited to support a broad range of mission
    requirements. This survivability is critical to ensure the Nation has
    the widest range of response options. Not only must our naval forces
    maintain the ability to rapidly close, decisively employ, and
    effectively sustain Marines from the sea, they must also respond to
    emerging Long War requirements, crisis response, and humanitarian
    assistance missions on short notice around the world.
        For forcible entry, the Marine Corps' requirement is a single,
    simultaneously-employed two Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault
    capability. One MEB requires seventeen amphibious warfare ships;
    however, given the fiscally constrained environment, the Navy and
    Marine Corps have agreed to assume risk by only using fifteen.
    Historical amphibious ship availability rates dictate a minimum of
    eleven ships of each of the current types of amphibious ship--a minimum
    of thirty-three total ships--resulting in a Battle Force that provides
    thirty operationally available amphibious warfare ships. In that Battle
    Force, ten aviation-capable big deck ships (LHA/LHD/LHA(R)) and ten LPD
    17 class ships are required to accommodate the MEB's aviation combat
    element.
        Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD).--The LPD 17 San Antonio class of
    amphibious warfare ships represents the Department of the Navy's
    commitment to a modern expeditionary power projection fleet that will
    enable our naval force to operate across the spectrum of warfare. The
    Navy took delivery of the first LPD 17 in the summer of 2005 and
    operational evaluation is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2007. The
    LPD 17 class replaces four classes of older ships--the LKA, LST, LSD
    36, and the LPD 4--and will have a forty-year expected service life.
    LPD 17 class ships will play a key role in supporting the ongoing Long
    War by forward deploying Marines and their equipment to respond to
    crises abroad. Its unique design will facilitate expanded force
    coverage and decreased reaction times of forward deployed Marine
    Expeditionary Units. In forcible entry operations, the LPD 17 will help
    maintain a robust surface assault and rapid off-load capability for the
    Marine Air Ground Task Force far into the future.
        Amphibious Assault Ship (Replacement) (LHA(R)).--The Tarawa class
    amphibious assault ships reach the end of their service life during the
    next decade (2011-2015). An eighth Wasp class LHD (multi-purpose
    amphibious assault ship) is under construction and will replace one
    Tarawa class ship during fiscal year 2008. In order to meet future
    warfighting requirements and fully capitalize on our investment in the
    MV-22 and Joint Strike Fighter, ships with enhanced aviation
    capabilities will replace the remaining LHA ships. These ships will
    provide enhanced hangar and maintenance spaces to support aviation
    maintenance and increased jet fuel storage and aviation ordnance
    magazines. The lead ship, LHA 6, is on track for detailed design and
    construction contract award during fiscal year 2007, with advanced
    procurement funds already provided in the fiscal year 2005 and 2006
    budgets.
        The Maritime Prepositioning Force.--Our proven Maritime
    Prepositioning Force--capable of supporting the rapid deployment of
    three Marine Expeditionary Brigades--is an important complement to our
    amphibious warfare capability. Combined, these capabilities provide the
    Marine Corps the ability to rapidly react to a crisis in a number of
    potential theaters and the flexibility to employ forces across the
    battlespace. The natural progression of this capability set, the
    Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF(F)), is a key enabler of
    Seabasing and will build on the success of the legacy Maritime
    Prepositioning Force program. MPF(F) will provide support to a wide
    range of military operations with capabilities such as at-sea arrival
    and assembly, selective offload of specific mission sets, and long-
    term, sea-based sustainment. The squadron will be capable of
    prepositioning the Marine Expeditionary Brigade's critical equipment
    and sustainment; but this capability does not constitute a forcible
    entry capability. The MPF(F) squadron composition decision was made by
    the Acting Secretary of the Navy in May 2005; the program is currently
    in the technology development phase of acquisition, with a Milestone B
    decision planned in fiscal year 2008.
        High Speed Connectors.--High-speed connectors will facilitate the
    conduct of sustained sea-based operations by expediting force closure
    and allowing the persistence necessary for success in the littorals.
    Connectors are grouped into three categories: inter-theater, the Joint
    High Speed Sealift (JHSS), which provides strategic force closure for
    CONUS-based forces; intra-theater, the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV)
    that enables rapid closure of Marine forces and sustainment; and the
    Joint Maritime Assault Connector, to move troops and resources from the
    sea base to shore. These platforms will link bases and stations around
    the world to the sea base and other advanced bases, as well as provide
    linkages between the sea base and forces operating ashore.
        Ship-to-Shore Mobility.--For decades, Marine power projection has
    included a deliberate buildup of combat power ashore. Only after naval
    forces fought ashore and established a beachhead would the MAGTF begin
    to focus its combat power on the joint force's operational objective.
    Advances in mobility, fires, and sustainment capabilities will enable
    greater penetration and exploitation operations from over the horizon,
    by both air and surface means, with forces moving rapidly to
    operational objectives without stopping to seize, defend, and build up
    beachheads or landing zones. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, MV-22
    Osprey, and CH-53K heavy lift helicopter are critical to achieving the
    necessary forcible entry capabilities of the future.
        Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.--The Marine Corps provides the
    Nation's joint warfighting forces with a unique, flexible, and
    effective capability to conduct forcible entry operations from the sea.
    The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), the Corps' largest ground
    combat system acquisition program, is the sole ground combat vehicle
    that enables projection of combat power from a sea base. It will
    replace the aging Assault Amphibious Vehicle that has been in service
    since 1972 and will become a complementary component of our modernized
    fleet of tactical vehicles that include the Joint Light Tactical
    Vehicle, the Marine Personnel Carrier, and the Internally Transportable
    Vehicle. The EFV's amphibious mobility, day and night lethality,
    enhanced force protection capabilities, and robust communications will
    help the joint force meet security challenges across the spectrum of
    conflict. The over-the-horizon capability of the EFV will also enable
    amphibious ships to increase their standoff distance, no longer
    requiring them to close within the striking distance of many coastal
    defense systems in order to launch their amphibious assault platforms.
    The EFV will be specifically well suited to maneuver operations
    conducted from the sea and sustained operations in the world's littoral
    regions.
        The Marine Corps recently conducted a demanding operational
    assessment of the EFV. It successfully demonstrated most critical
    performance requirements, but the design complexities are still
    providing challenges to system reliability. To that end, we conducted a
    comprehensive requirements review to ensure delivery of the required
    capability while reducing complexity of the system where possible. For
    example, the human stresses encountered during operations in some high
    sea states required us to reevaluate the operational necessity of
    exposing Marines to those conditions. Based upon this review, and a
    subsequent engineering design review, we will tailor final requirements
    and system design to support forcible entry concepts while ensuring the
    EFV is a safe, reliable, and effective combat vehicle.
        Supporting Capabilities.--Logistics Modernization is the largest
    coordinated and cross-organizational effort ever undertaken to
    transform Marine Corps logistics. A three-pronged improvement and
    integration initiative focusing on Marine Corps personnel, processes,
    and technology, Logistics Modernization is integrating and streamlining
    supply, maintenance, and distribution. As our roadmap for more
    effective and efficient expeditionary logistics, Logistics
    Modernization is multiplying our ability to support the Marine Air
    Ground Task Force across the spectrum of conflict, in all environments
    and across all levels of theater maturity.
         beyond the horizon--posturing the marine corps for the future
        History has proven that we cannot narrowly define the conditions
    for which our military must be ready. With little warning, our Nation
    has repeatedly called its Corps front and center--in the southern
    Pacific after Pearl Harbor, in Korea after the communist invasion in
    1950, in the mountains of Afghanistan after 9/11, and in southern Asia
    in the wake of the catastrophic tsunami of 2004. Each of these
    strategic surprises demonstrates the broad range of possibilities for
    which the Marine Corps must be prepared.
        The Long War requires a multi-dimensional force that is well
    trained and educated for employment in all forms of warfare.
    Historically, our Corps has produced respected leaders who have
    demonstrated intellectual agility in warfighting. Our current
    deployment tempo increasingly places our Professional Military
    Education (PME) programs at risk. No level of risk is acceptable if it
    threatens the steady flow of thinkers, planners, and aggressive
    commanders who can execute effectively across the entire spectrum of
    operations.
        The Future of Training and Education.--Looking ahead to the
    challenges of the Long War, we have enhanced our counterinsurgency
    capabilities while remaining vigilant that our Marine Air Ground Task
    Forces must remain ready to launch robust forcible entry operations and
    succeed across the spectrum of conflict with our naval partner. With
    Marine forces so closely engaged in an irregular fight, we will have to
    take extraordinary steps to retain this ability to serve as the
    Nation's shock troops during major conventional combat operations. Your
    support of our training and education needs will allow us to remain
    faithful to our enduring mission: to be where the country needs us,
    when she needs us, and to prevail over whatever challenges we face.
        The Training Continuum.--Some things remain constant--we continue
    to ensure that all Marines, regardless of occupational specialty, gain
    the self-confidence and skills derived from our warrior ethos ``Every
    Marine a Rifleman.'' The experience at boot camp remains legendary;
    this transformation of young Americans is a national treasure--one that
    we must preserve and guard carefully. The core values of Honor,
    Courage, and Commitment--imprinted on their souls during recruit
    training and strengthened thereafter--mark a Marine's character for a
    lifetime. To reinforce this transformation, we have focused the
    emphasis of our officer and enlisted professional military education on
    combat leadership.
        Marine training is built along a continuum that is well defined,
    well structured, and of which we are extremely proud. Marines are
    forged in the furnace of recruit training and tempered by shared
    hardship and tough training. This transformation process begins the day
    they meet their recruiter, who introduces them to the concept of total
    fitness: body, mind, and spirit. It continues through their common
    experiences at Recruit Training and its Crucible, and Marine Combat
    Training. It moves on to skill training at one of our schools or at a
    sister Service school. It culminates with assignment to an operational
    unit with its own demanding training, where a powerful bond of trust
    develops between fellow warriors as they experience the rigors of
    combat against a diverse and adaptive foe.
        The Infantry Battalion Enhancement Period Program (IBEPP).--Long
    War operations have significantly increased our training requirements.
    Marines must now train to a broader range of skills; however, due to
    high operational tempo, we face ever-decreasing timetables for Marines
    to achieve mastery of these skills. Our first major initiative to
    maximize effective use of available time was the establishment of a
    standardized and well-defined Pre-deployment Training Program. To
    bolster home station training, we took an additional step by
    establishing the Infantry Battalion Enhancement Period Program (IBEPP).
    The primary goal of the IBEPP is to facilitate better small unit leader
    training within the infantry battalion. Highlights of the IBEPP include
    expanded quotas for rifle squad leader courses (sergeants) and a new
    tactical small unit leader course focused on fire team leaders
    (corporals). Additionally, we have updated our School of Infantry
    curriculum to incorporate the additional equipment added to our new
    infantry battalion table of equipment and increased the instructor base
    at our Schools of Infantry to support the new IBEPP.
        Expansion of our Weapons and Tactics Training Program.--We find
    ourselves in a cycle of rapid innovation of weapons and tactics with
    our enemies. This cycle challenges the creativity and knowledge of
    staff officers in our ground and combat logistics battalions who must
    direct training programs or staff combat operations. Our aviation
    squadrons experienced this during the Vietnam conflict. To address
    those challenges, we created the Weapons and Tactics Training Program
    to develop and field a cadre of aviators with advanced understanding of
    weapon and tactical innovations as well as the concepts and
    requirements to train other aviators to adapt to these trends. This
    program placed prestige on training expertise and now provides an
    effective means by which Marine Aviation stays current on battlefield
    innovations. We will soon apply the fundamentals of that program to our
    ground staffs. The ground and logistics Weapons and Tactics Training
    Program will produce ground Marines expert in training and warfighting
    functions who will improve their units' ability to fight. Though we are
    assessing detailed requirements, we anticipate this effort could
    require up to 150 instructors, and increased demands on combined arms
    ranges, artillery and aviation units, simulation centers, and suites of
    operations center equipment.
        Marine Corps Lessons Learned Management System.--This adaptive
    enemy requires us to have a responsive and collaborative dialogue
    across the Corps. Our interactive and effective lessons management
    system promptly captures and disseminates the lessons being learned by
    our Marines and Sailors in complex combat actions around the globe. Our
    web-based lesson input support tool--selected by the Joint Staff last
    year to serve as the Department standard--guides this learning process.
    Capitalizing on the institutional agility that has been a hallmark of
    our success, last year we implemented changes in such areas as crew-
    served weapons use, tactical questioning, evidence gathering
    procedures, command and control equipment training and procedures,
    civil-military operations, and detainee handling.
        Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning.--An example of
    adaptation for the Long War includes our Center for Advanced
    Operational Culture Learning, which we established during May 2005 and
    recently reached its full operational capability. Both officer and
    enlisted Marines now receive education in the operational aspects of
    culture at nearly every phase of their career development. This year,
    the Center is establishing Language Learning Resource Centers at our
    eight largest bases and stations. These centers provide language
    instruction using mobile language training shelters and contracted
    professional language trainers. These efforts support the Defense
    Language Transformation Roadmap increasing our interoperability with
    partner nations around the globe. We are also expanding our Foreign
    Area Officer program, creating language and culture experts from all
    occupational specialties who can be integrated into Marine units
    deployed worldwide. We thank the Congress for its support in this
    venture, as recent supplemental funding has proved instrumental to this
    effort.
        Advisor Training.--During 2006, we institutionalized the structure,
    resources, and equipment to advance the individual skills and education
    of Marines selected to serve as advisors to partner military units. Our
    Security Cooperation and Education Training Center had already trained
    over fifty deploying advisor teams during 2004 and 2005. This formal
    establishment allowed us to increase our efforts, as we trained
    seventy-seven advisor teams during 2006. Additionally, we expanded
    advisor skills with upgrades to training in such areas as foreign
    weapon handling, medical procedures and survival, evasion, resistance,
    and escape. This year we are establishing a Civil Military Operations
    Center of Excellence within this Center, as the Marine Corps' focal
    agency for civil-military operations training and education.
        Training Marine Air Ground Task Forces.--Our continuing adaptations
    and investments in Core Values are checked once more prior to
    deployment with a series of unit mission rehearsals. These exercises
    occur during the culminating block of our formal Pre-deployment
    Training Program, which we expanded during 2004 to serve all deploying
    Marine Air Ground Task Forces. These mission rehearsals present all
    deploying personnel with increasingly complex situations designed to
    replicate the confusing swirl of combat on a complex battlefield. Role
    players, many of whom are Iraqi-Americans, portray battlefield
    civilians and insurgents alike, presenting exercise-worn Marines with
    sudden ``shoot-don't shoot'' decisions and forging within our Marines a
    sense of common cause with the civilians they will soon protect. The
    culmination of our pre-deployment training consists of three distinct
    exercises: Mojave Viper, Desert Talon, and Mountain Warrior--each
    specifically tailored to the deploying unit's destination combat
    environment.
        During 2006, we continued to modify this program with expanded
    training in force escalation and with increased integration of
    logistics combat units. To better prepare Marines to counter the threat
    of improvised explosive devices, we added more training devices, built
    new ranges, and employed electronic warfare specialists at our
    rehearsal sites. This year we are focusing our enhancements on the
    training of advisor teams and of Marine Air Ground Task Force staffs by
    increasing the use of simulation. Our planned improvements promise to
    deliver Marine forces ready to more effectively meet the emerging
    challenges faced by the Combatant Commanders as a naval force in
    readiness in joint, combined, and interagency operations.
        Modernization of Training Ranges.--With the support of the
    Congress, we also recently began the most ambitious modernization of
    our training ranges since World War II. From larger and more realistic
    urban training facilities to increased opportunities to evaluate
    advanced air-ground coordination, we have significantly improved the
    realism, safety, and capacity of our ranges and training areas. While
    our immediate focus has been to acquire infrastructure and modern
    technology, our long-term investment is in people, largely civilian, to
    both operate and maintain these facilities and to form the critical
    training cadres capable of maintaining the realism our Marine Air
    Ground Task Forces require. Your continued support of our range
    modernization efforts, as well as the support for the Department's
    programs to ensure future access to adequate sea, air, and land space
    for our training ranges, remains vital to our ability to prepare for
    the challenges of the future with our joint, coalition, and interagency
    partners.
        Marine Aviation Training Systems Program.--The Aviation Training
    Systems Program (ATSP) plans, executes, and manages Marine Aviation
    Training to achieve individual and unit combat readiness through
    standardized training across all aviation core competencies. Through
    the ATSP, Marine Aviation develops aircraft systems that enhance
    operational readiness, improve safety through greater standardization,
    and significantly reduce the life cycle cost of maintaining and
    sustaining aircraft.
        Core Values and Ethics Training.--During this past year, we also
    reviewed our efforts to instill in Marines those core values necessary
    to guide them correctly through the complex ethical demands of armed
    conflict. We have ensured that every Marine, at every phase of the
    training continuum, studies ethical leadership, the Law of War,
    escalation of force, and Rules of Engagement. Our entry-level training
    first presents these concepts in the classroom, and then tests for
    proper application of these principles under stressful field exercises.
    We further reinforce confident, ethical decision-making through the
    Marine Corps Martial Arts Program that teaches our Core Values and
    presents ethical scenarios pertaining to restraint and proper
    escalation of force as the foundation of its curriculum. We imbue our
    Marines with the mindset that ``wherever we go, everyone is safer
    because a U.S. Marine is there.''
        Building Esprit and Warrior Pride.--The Marine Corps dress blue
    uniform is as legendary as the Marines who wear it. However, while this
    well-known uniform is one of the most admired uniforms in the world,
    owning one is out of the reach of most enlisted Marines--it simply
    costs too much for them to buy on their own.
        No Marine should be denied the honor of wearing this symbol of more
    than two centuries of bravery and sacrifice. Therefore, I have ordered
    that every Marine recruit now be issued a dress blue uniform before
    they graduate from Boot Camp, and all enlisted Marines are to receive
    an appropriate clothing allowance so that they are able to purchase and
    maintain a dress blue uniform. They have earned this privilege.
          improve the quality of life for our marines and our families
        Enhancing Individual Survivability--Personal Protective
    Equipment.--The Corps will continue to pursue technological
    advancements in personal protective equipment--our Marines deserve
    nothing less. Fully recognizing the trade-off between weight,
    protection, fatigue, and movement restriction, we are providing Marines
    the latest in personal protective equipment--such as the Modular
    Tactical Vest, Quad Guard, Lightweight Helmet, and Flame Resistant
    Organizational Gear.
        Body Armor.--Combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have
    highlighted a need to evolve our personal protective vest system.
    Therefore, in February, we started transitioning to a newly designed
    Modular Tactical Vest or MTV. This vest is virtually the same weight as
    its predecessor, the Outer Tactical Vest, but it more easily integrates
    our other personal protection systems. It provides greater comfort
    through the incorporation of state-of-the-art load carriage techniques
    that better distributes the combat load over the torso and onto the
    hips of the Marine. The acquisition objective for the Modular Tactical
    Vest is 60,000 systems, with anticipated completion of deliveries in
    December 2007. The MTV also incorporates our existing Enhanced Small
    Arms Protective Inserts, or E-SAPI, and Side SAPI plates. These plates
    are currently provided to every Marine in theater. The E-SAPI provides
    the best protection available against a wide variety of small arms
    threats, to include protection against 7.62 mm ammunition threats.
        QuadGard.--The QuadGard system is designed to provide ballistic
    protection for a Marine's arms and legs when serving as a gunner on
    convoy duty. This system, which integrates with other personal
    ballistic protection equipment such as the Modular Tactical Vest,
    Enhanced SAPI, and Lightweight Helmet, reduces minimum standoff
    distances from the Marine to ballistic threats, particularly improvised
    explosive device fragmentation.
        Lightweight Helmet.--We are committed to providing the best head
    protection available to our warfighters. The Lightweight Helmet weighs
    less than its predecessor, and provides a high level of protection
    against fragmentation threats and 9 mm bullets. We now require use of
    the pad system as study results demonstrated it provides greater
    protection against non-ballistic blunt trauma than the sling suspension
    system. We are retrofitting more than 150,000 helmets with the pad
    system and have already fielded enough helmet pads for every deployed
    Marine. Beginning in January, all Lightweight Helmets produced by the
    manufacturer are now delivered with the approved pad system installed.
        Flame Resistant Organizational Gear (FROG).--In February, we began
    fielding FROG to all deployed and deploying Marines. This life saving
    ensemble of clothing items--gloves, balaclava, long-sleeved fire
    resistant shirt, combat shirt, and combat trouser--is designed to
    mitigate potential injuries to our Marines from flame exposure. These
    clothing items provide protection that is comparable to that of the
    NOMEX combat vehicle crewman suit/flight suit.
        With this mix of body armor, undergarments, and outerwear,
    operational commanders can determine what equipment their Marines will
    employ based upon mission requirements and environmental conditions.
        Taking Care of our Marines and Their Families.--Just as every
    Marine makes a commitment to the Corps and the Nation when they earn
    the title Marine, we make an enduring commitment to every Marine and
    Marine family. Marines are renowned for ``taking care of our own.''
    Part of taking care of our own means we will provide for Marines and
    their families through appropriate pay and compensation, housing,
    health care, infrastructure, and community services. Strong
    Congressional support for many Administration initiatives has made
    possible the significant investments required to improve each of the
    components of quality of life. This support requires continuous
    assessment to ensure that it is both sufficient and relevant,
    particularly during war. These programs must be on a wartime footing to
    seamlessly sustain our Marines and their families for the duration--
    long past the redeployment of our Marines and Sailors.
        We are scrutinizing the support for our Marines and their families
    to ensure our family support programs remain on a wartime footing--
    particularly those that assist in integrating civilian, military,
    charitable, and Veterans Affairs programs. This support targets both
    Marines who suffer from the physical costs of this war, and those who
    carry unseen scars--those suffering from Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
    and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). As I testified in my
    confirmation hearing, I feel strongly that these wounds of war should
    be characterized as any other wound--and our commitment to those
    Marines who suffer from these ailments will not falter.
        We continue to aggressively monitor post-deployment mental health
    screenings, suicides, domestic violence, and divorce rates. Marine
    commanders and noncommissioned officers at every level are charged to
    monitor these indications closely and to stay engaged on these issues.
    Our Casualty Assistance, Marine For Life, and Combat/Operational Stress
    Control Program continue to be the frontline of support to our wartime
    efforts.
        Casualty Assistance.--Each fallen Marine is a tragic loss to the
    survivors, the Corps, and our Nation. We endeavor to honor their
    sacrifices with sincerity and commitment. Our Casualty Assistance Calls
    Officers are trained to treat next of kin and other family members as
    they would their own family. Rendering casualty assistance begins with
    the basic tenet that there is no standard casualty call; each case is
    distinct, as families grieve in different ways. Assistance to surviving
    families is individually tailored to facilitate their transition
    through the stages of grief and the completion of the casualty
    assistance process.
        Wounded Warrior Regiment.--While the support to our Marine Corps
    and families has been exceptional, I intend to increase this support
    through the creation of a Wounded Warrior Regiment. This new regimental
    headquarters will provide centralized oversight of the care for our
    wounded Marines and assist in the integration of their support with
    military, Department of Veterans Affairs, charitable, and civilian
    systems. The regiment will have a battalion headquarters on each coast,
    commanded by officers personally selected by me. My criteria for this
    leadership will be rigorous, as I will seek to select only those
    officers with previous command experience. My staff is reviewing the
    fiscal program requirements for this unit now--to include facilities,
    manning, and support requirements. I view this initiative as a personal
    priority to fulfill our commitment to these valiant Americans.
        Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).--As the quality of individual combat
    armor has increased, so have the number of blast survivors and Marines
    with Traumatic Brain Injury. Mild to moderate traumatic brain injuries
    can be difficult to diagnose and yet can cause changes in personality,
    cognition, and memory that significantly impair a service member's
    ability to make the life and death decisions required of them while in
    a combat environment. TBI and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
    have many symptoms in common, and TBI can co-occur with PTSD. Recent
    measures to mitigate the impact of traumatic brain injuries to
    individual Marines and their units include the release of a medical
    guidance letter from the Medical Officer of the Marine Corps outlining
    proper diagnosis and treatment strategies.
        Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).--The science of diagnosing
    and treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder continues to evolve. The
    Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Training and Education
    Command, Naval Health Research Center, and others are studying ways to
    identify risk and protective factors for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
    and to increase our resilience to stress. By improving the awareness of
    both individuals and our leaders, we can provide early identification
    and psychological first aid to those who are stress-injured. Better
    screening and referral of at-risk Marines is underway via pre- and
    post-deployment standard health assessments that specifically screen
    for mental health problems. Navy Medicine has established new
    Deployment Health Centers with additional mental health providers
    readily available to treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other
    combat stress injuries. The Department of Veterans Affairs and the
    Department of Defense have established comprehensive guidelines for
    managing Post-Traumatic Stress, which are available to all services.
    The Marine Corps, Navy Medicine, and Veterans Affairs have coordinated
    a Seamless Transition program to help our Marine veterans move smoothly
    into the Veterans Affairs treatment system to get the help they need
    and deserve. In addition, Veterans Affairs Readjustment Centers at 209
    communities around the country now provide mental health services for
    eligible active and discharged veterans and their families.
        Combat/Operational Stress Control (COSC).--Battlefields are
    familiar territory for Marines--we train Marines to excel in chaotic
    and unpredictable surroundings. Yet all Marines will experience combat/
    operational stress to some extent, as transient symptoms for most, but
    as persistent stress injuries for others. Managing combat stress is
    vital to the operation of the Marine Corps as a fighting force and the
    long-term health and well-being of Marines and their families. All
    deploying Marines receive warrior preparation, transition briefs, and
    health assessments. In addition, mental health professionals or
    specially trained medical officers brief Marine leaders on the
    prevention and management of adverse stress reactions. We have also
    implemented the innovative Operational Stress Control and Readiness
    (OSCAR) program, which embeds mental health providers with ground
    forces. Operational Stress Control and Readiness provides early
    identification and treatment of combat/operational stress problems,
    attempts to defeat the stigma of combat stress, and overcomes the
    barriers to care.
        The Combat/Operational Stress Control deployment cycle resources
    for families include the Family Deployment Support Program. The
    program's components consist of Family Readiness Days, family crisis
    support services, Return and Reunion Briefs for spouses, and building a
    sense of community among our military families.
        Marine For Life.--The Marine For Life Injured Support program
    assists seriously and very seriously injured Marines, Sailors who
    served with Marines, and their families. This program bridges the gap
    between military medical care and the Department of Veterans Affairs by
    providing individualized support through the transition period.
        Individual case tracking and enduring support for our injured
    Marines and Sailors complements the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense's Military Severely Injured Center, which enables the program
    to provide around-the-clock injured support service. Marine For Life
    provides support tailored to an individual's needs, including pre- and
    post-service separation case tracking, assistance with the physical
    evaluation board process, and an interactive website that acts as a
    clearinghouse for all disability and benefit information. The program
    also provides employment assistance through a preexisting Marine For
    Life network that establishes local coordination with veterans, public,
    private, and charitable organizations that provide support to our
    injured warriors.
        In April 2005, Marine For Life integrated Marine Corps and
    Department of Veterans Affairs' handling of Marine cases by assigning a
    Marine field grade officer to the Department of Veterans Affairs
    Headquarters' Seamless Transition Office. This integrates Marines into
    the Department of Veterans Affairs system and provides service
    oversight of Veterans Health Administration care and Veterans Benefits
    Administration benefits delivery. The Marine For Life program provides
    the direct point of contact for problem resolution for Marines within
    the Veterans Administration system.
        Military Construction--Bachelor Enlisted Quarters Initiative.--
    Bachelor housing is my top military construction priority for Program
    Objective Memorandum 2008. Barracks are a linchpin in the quality of
    life for our single Marines. With the help of Congress, we have tripled
    the funding for bachelor housing from fiscal year 2006 to 2007, and if
    the President's request is funded, we will double the 2007 funding in
    fiscal year 2008. We are funding barracks' furnishings on a seven-year
    replacement cycle and prioritizing barracks repair projects to preempt
    a backlog of repairs. Our $1.7 billion barracks investment plan in
    support of a 175,000 Marine end strength provides adequate billeting
    for our unmarried junior enlisted and non-commissioned officer Marines
    by 2012.
        Public Private Venture Family Housing.--Our efforts to improve
    housing for Marines and their families continue. Thanks to continuing
    Congressional support, the Marine Corps will have contracts in place by
    the end of fiscal year 2007 to eliminate all inadequate family housing.
                                   conclusion
        This Nation has high expectations of her Corps--as she should. Your
    Marines are answering the call around the globe, performing with
    distinction in the face of great hardships. As they continue to serve
    in harm's way, our moral imperative is to fully support them--we owe
    them the full resources required to complete the tasks we have given
    them. Now more than ever they need the sustained support of the
    American people and the Congress to simultaneously maintain our
    readiness, reset the force during an extended war, modernize to face
    the challenges of the future, and fulfill our commitment to Marine
    families. On behalf of your Marines, I extend great appreciation for
    your support to date and thank you in advance for your ongoing efforts
    to support our brave countrymen and women in harm's way. I promise you
    that the Corps understands the value of each dollar provided and will
    continue to provide maximum return for every dollar spent.

                                  DEPLOYMENTS

        Senator Inouye. I note that, Admiral, in the deployment of
    sailors, the rotation lasts for 6 months, in the case of
    marines, for 7 months. What are the factors that are used to
    determine the appropriate length of rotation?
        Admiral Mullen. The planning factors that drive us the
    most, Mr. Chairman, are the requests or the requirements from
    the combatant commanders. And in fact, while Navy deployments
    are notionally 6 months, we have started to move away from
    that. We've actually had ships which are extended well beyond 6
    months to 7 and sometimes as long as 8. We also are conducting
    deployments which are shorter than that now.
        It's really driven, more often, it's driven very strongly
    by the requirements to have a certain capability in the
    theater. And, it's also designed to, at least our scheme is
    designed, to also provide for, in the time that, through a
    cycle that a sailor is in their home port at least 50 percent
    of their time. So, it is that balance.
        We also have invested heavily in readiness in the last
    several years and we are trying to make sure we maximize the
    return on that investment, to achieve that balance.
        General Conway. Sir, our rigor goes back to late 2003,
    early 2004 when we first started to realize we were going to be
    sending marines back into Iraq after OIF. And, initially our
    comparison was with that of the United States Army, who had
    judged that they would be doing 12 month tours. Our component
    commander in the Pacific--General Grayson at the time--applied
    a great deal of rigor to the issue with his staff. And, based
    upon how long we have young marines for, tours of duty, based
    upon our culture of traditionally 6-month deployments and so
    forth, we arrived at 7 months as being the sweet spot for us in
    terms of retaining our culture, not being in theater too long
    with units, and at the same time being able to maintain a very
    effective rotation.
        Senator Inouye. I would assume that the length of the tour
    has some impact upon families and on the effectiveness of the
    troops. Is that under consideration, too?
        General Conway. Sir, it's absolutely the case, at least in
    the case of the Marine Corps. And, I can tell you my
    predecessor, General Hagee, was initially of the mind that
    perhaps 12 months would be good for us. We convinced him
    through the rigor and through discussion that 7 months was
    right. He told me afterwards, that he went both to Camp Lejeune
    and to Camp Pendleton to speak to the families and if there was
    ever any doubt in his mind, it was completely removed by his
    discussions with the families. They were very supportive of 7-
    month deployments.
        Senator Inouye. Navy?
        Admiral Mullen. I would echo that, as well, Mr. Chairman.
    I, and this goes back to when I was very young as an officer
    and we were doing 9, 10, 11, 12 month deployments to Vietnam.
    And, so, certainly willing to support deployment lengths, as I
    discussed earlier, out to seven, and sometimes beyond that.
    Anything beyond that, I have to personally approve.
        And, there is a great concern for making sure we support
    the needs of our families in that regard. They have been
    incredibly supportive my whole career, but I have seen a level
    of support since 9/11 that truly has been extraordinary, and
    we've worked very hard to meet their needs in this very
    challenging time, as well.

                                  SHIPBUILDING

        Senator Inouye. Admiral, in the fiscal 2008 budget request,
    you're asking for the procurement of seven new ships. There
    have been press reports coming out from the House suggesting
    that they want to add five more. Considering the cost of
    additional submarines and additional littoral combat ships,
    what number is prudent?
        Admiral Mullen. I think it would be, in responding to this,
    we look at the possibilities of being able to actually build
    ships. One of the--and it's on my unfunded priority list--the
    number one ship is an LPD, LPD-17, which would be the 10th one
    and it's a required LPD, but it's not been affordable. But, the
    ability to actually do that, I think--and, in fact, because of
    the challenges we've had as a result of Katrina with the
    shipyard in that area--it would be very challenging. And, it
    could well just, if it were added, result in essentially
    booking a ship, not really being able to build it.
        That said, it clearly would relieve some financial pressure
    that I've got in the SCN, on the, in the program in later
    years.
        To add a submarine now would be equally challenging. It
    certainly could be done, but a submarine, basically you fund in
    3 years. You fund about $200 or $400 million, $450 million in
    the first year, $250 million in the second, and then the
    remaining amount gets funded in the year that you actually
    count it. So, the earliest, theoretically, we could get two
    submarines in would be fiscal year 2010.
        That is just one submarine, and that would leave a hole of
    somewhere between $5 or $6 billion to fill out the two per year
    in 2011 and 2012, or in 2011, and right now it's scheduled for
    2012. So, it could be done.
        Another area we could add ships would be littoral combat
    ships, that said, I think you're very much aware that that's a
    program that's undergone a great deal of scrutiny. We know
    where we stand with it, and so there would certainly be some
    risk associated with that.
        DDG-1000, you could add that, however, we're at an early
    stage in the program and there's certainly risk associated with
    that. I've been very clear about not wanting to go back and
    build DDG-51s. Some have talked about that as well. It took me
    a number of years to really move away from that program.
        And so, we've built our industrial base down to such a
    level that it's a challenge, it's a significant challenge to
    try to do this. I believe it could be done, but it's a
    challenge.
        Then one other ship that probably is less riskier than any
    other would be the T-AKE, to be able to add that would be
    something that we could do, relatively easily in fiscal year
    2008.

                                INDUSTRIAL BASE

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, as the Admiral pointed out,
    the many challenges faced by the shipyards. What plans do you
    have to reinvigorate the industry?
        Mr. Winter. Well, sir, Mr. Chairman, we've put forward a
    plan here that really has three major components associated
    with that. One of which, is to try to maintain the stability of
    a plan, so that the individual shipyards are able to plan
    appropriately for the future in terms of their workforce and in
    terms of the capital investments that they make. The stability
    gives them that possibility of being able to build an
    appropriate business case.
        We've also worked very hard to be able to stabilize the
    requirements. And, I think stabilizing the requirements is very
    critical to us in terms of being able to ensure that the
    construction of ships is maintained in a cost-effective manner.
    Requirements changes have had a terrible impact in a number of
    cases, in terms of the overall cost of ship development.
        And the last thing is to be able to develop a partnership
    with the industrial base to be able to motivate the contractors
    through cost-sharing mechanisms and appropriate contract
    incentives, to be able to make the type of investments that we
    both believe is necessary in terms of technology, in terms of
    the workforce, and in terms of the capital investments that
    will serve us well in the future.
        Senator Inouye. Does your process show promise?
        Mr. Winter. I think it shows promise. I have to say I'm
    very concerned about the extent to which we have found that the
    industrial base has been impacted, as CNO just commented, by
    Katrina. And, also when I compare what I see in our industrial
    base, to what has transpired overseas in foreign shipyards and
    take a look at technology infusions that have been made there,
    it is very apparent that we lag in a considerable amount, the
    capabilities of many shipyards around the world.
        And, I think we're going to have to take another look at
    it. One of my objectives for this year is to take another look
    at our plan for the shipyards, and in particular, to take a
    look at other opportunities to appropriately motivate
    appropriate investments in these yards, and in the personnel
    that work there.
        Senator Inouye. I'd like to turn the questioning to the co-
    chairman. I have a few more questions, but----

                              LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP

        Senator Stevens. Picking up on that, Mr. Secretary, you did
    tell us about the cancellation of the fourth, the fifth, and
    sixth littoral ships, and we're really proceeding with the
    construction of four. It's my understanding that the Admiral
    would be happy to settle for 10 and the commandant settle for
    12. How are we going to get to that if we continue to have
    these cost overruns?
        Mr. Winter. Well, sir, I think that managing the programs
    to avoid the cost overruns is a critical objective. I think
    that we need to be able to ensure that the requirements process
    is properly mature before we initiate the actual construction
    activities. I believe that we also have to take a good hard
    look at the contract type that we use in the actual contracting
    for the ships, and make sure that we have the opportunity to
    transfer those contracts to move from cost-reimbursable
    contracts into fixed price incentive contracts at an
    appropriate time where we can, in fact, stabilize the
    requirements and motivate the contractors appropriately to
    control their costs.
        Senator Stevens. What's the total cost overrun now?
        Mr. Winter. On the littoral combat ships, sir? Depending
    upon the reference point, it's in the 50 to 75 percent range.
    And, that's on the first two vessels.
        Senator Stevens. I hope we can find some way to get that
    straightened out, because it doesn't sound to me like you're
    going to get 10 or 12 the way it's going right now.
        Mr. Winter. We're working very hard at that, sir. We've got
    a very significant effort ongoing, to both understand how we
    got where we are right now, and what we need to do to proceed
    forward to be able to prosecute this program in a cost-
    effective manner.
        One of the opportunities that we have here is that, given
    the large number of ships that we're looking at for the long
    term, a total fleet size of 55 littoral combat ships. If we're
    able to get the ship down into a cost-effective production rate
    and also a cost-effective design, we should have the ability to
    affect some significant cost savings as we get into that large
    production run.
        Senator Stevens. Tell us, we're all aware of what went on
    with Iran seizing those British, that British crew. I
    understand that we've moved a task force into that area. Is
    that right?

                                  PERSIAN GULF

        Admiral Mullen. Sir, we've had, we deployed the second, at
    the direction of the President, the second carrier strike group
    earlier this year, the John C. Stennis. And, she's been in the
    area for several weeks right now, and so----
        Senator Stevens. That's not a new deployment?
        Admiral Mullen. That's not a new deployment, no, sir. We
    did it, very important to provide, to support our friends and
    allies in that area, to provide for the kind of stability that
    that area clearly needs. It's been reported in the press today,
    and I think accurately, that--both yesterday and today--there's
    an exercise, a training exercise that's ongoing in the middle
    of the gulf, which is pretty natural in terms of these kinds of
    strike groups, in terms of their operations in order to fine
    tune being able to work together.
        So, it is specifically directed at training, and it's very
    important to send a signal of both strength, while at the same
    time, no intent to escalate things in any way, shape, or form
    at this point in time.

                        WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

        Senator Stevens. Let me turn, then, to the Walter Reed
    situation. We have had the disagreement in Congress concerning
    the base realignment and closure (BRAC) proposal to close
    Walter Reed and to combine it with the naval facility at
    Bethesda. As I understand it, the House has added money to
    continue the use of Walter Reed. What's the position of you,
    Mr. Secretary, concerning the Walter Reed proposal to keep it
    open longer?
        Mr. Winter. Well, sir, our role in this activity is very
    limited. We are currently engaged in the environmental impact
    analysis that is associated with the additional construction
    activities and also in terms of the planning for the new
    facility. I think the, I would prefer to defer the questions on
    Walter Reed's operation and how that would be used for the
    Army, to the Department of the Army.
        One note I would try to make here is, that I recognize that
    one of the options under consideration is the possible
    acceleration of the construction of the new facility, and to
    that end, I would just request that as we go through that type
    of consideration that we ensure that we don't give short
    shrift, if you will, to the requirements development process. I
    want to make sure that as we go through this, what is perhaps a
    once in a lifetime opportunity to set up a new national medical
    facility here, that we do it right, and consider all the
    potential requirements in the future.
        Senator Stevens. Then turning to another, you're not
    supporting the action of the House and increase funding for
    Walter Reed, and delay the modernization of the naval facility?
        Mr. Winter. Sir, I have no specific position on that
    matter. I view that as really a Department of the Army
    consideration, not a Department of the Navy consideration.
        Senator Stevens. Well, it is delaying the facilities at
    Bethesda, as I understand it.
        Mr. Winter. Sir, I'm familiar with several different
    options there, including just deferring the consolidation and
    also accelerating that. Depending upon which option is chosen,
    it could delay it. I will note that we do believe that the
    concept of consolidation is a good one, being able to provide
    the critical mass, if you will, particularly as it relates to
    some of the unique specialties that are required for casualty
    care, has significant advantages. So, that said, I would prefer
    not to delay the process, but to engage in it in an appropriate
    and timely manner.

                       MARINE CORPS END STRENGTH INCREASE

        Senator Stevens. Another subject, General, you mentioned
    the increase in the number of marines. I'm told that's 27,000
    additional marines. Is that what you're seeking?
        General Conway. That's correct, sir, 27,000 over a 5-year
    period.
        Senator Stevens. Have you defined the additional equipment
    and facilities that are needed in that same timeframe for those
    people?
        General Conway. Yes, sir. Our command at Quantico is
    specifically tasked with that requirement and we're looking to
    determine what should be the development and the creation of
    those units. We would like, in the early going, to try to
    create additional units for those that are stressed most by the
    deployment tempo, and we think we can do that.
        We see some narrow neck in the hourglass, if you will, at
    our entry-level training, the ability of our boot camps at
    Parris Island and San Diego and in our marine combat training
    to be able to facilitate those additional numbers, so we're
    looking at that requirement, in addition to the billeting
    requirements based on where these people would be assigned.

                            UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE

        Senator Stevens. Admiral, we--staff and I--have taken two
    trips to view the facilities for the Air Force operation of the
    unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). It's my understanding that now
    that the Air Force Chief of Staff wishes that the Air Force be
    deemed the executive exclusive agent for the medium and high
    altitude UAVs. Has that been discussed with you?
        Admiral Mullen. I've seen the memorandum. I've discussed it
    briefly with General Mosley. It's not an issue that I, that
    memorandum as I think you know, sir, was sent to Deputy
    Secretary of Defense England. And, we, the two services have
    not had a robust discussion about this.
        The way we operate now, however, is one that I'm very
    supportive of, which is essentially, the, you know, the Air
    Force writes, owns the airspace and writes the instructions on
    where we fly, but we all fly our own airplanes. Right now
    they're manned, I'm not sure that should change in the future.
    So, I've talked to General Mosley about this--we really do need
    to sit down and discuss the whys and the wherefore here. As I
    read it, I'm not supportive.
        Senator Stevens. General, what about the marines, are you
    involved in that discussion?
        General Conway. Sir, we will be involved in it, I trust,
    when it goes to the tank for discussion amongst the Joint
    Chiefs. There has been no outward discussion of it to date. As
    a former J-3, I'm aware of the fact that the Air Force sees
    some need for efficiency in theater, where there are large
    numbers of UAVs employed, and I think that's--at least a part
    of--the motivation to accomplish that.
        Our actual systems would be less involved than, probably,
    the Navy and the Air Force. We would only have one, I think,
    that probably qualifies against what the letter has stated.
    But, I'm anxious to join the discussion, as well.
        Senator Stevens. Well, as a pilot, I was really very
    interested and amazed at the large staff that's involved in the
    operation of those vehicles, particularly when they're doing,
    going into a 24-hour concept with three different ships dealing
    with one aircraft, and the basic backup staff being so large. I
    do think that, if we replicate that in all three services, or
    four services, we're going to have an enormous duplication of
    effort.
        I don't know where it should end up, but I do hope we find
    some way to eliminate the redundancy that might come from
    multiple ownership of those vehicles.

                    MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTECTED VEHICLE

        My last question, Mr. Chairman, is about the mine resistant
    ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles. We understand, General, that
    you have expressed some great interest in these vehicles, and
    you have an almost immediate need for this. Can you tell us
    more about that?
        General Conway. Sir, I can. The vehicle--first of all, to
    describe it--it has a higher center of gravity, a higher
    chassis than the vehicles that we use right now in theater. It
    also has a V-shaped hull, or a boat-shaped hull. We've had
    significant experience now out West with underbody explosions.
    The enemy has gone significantly to mines and pressure plate
    devices that cause explosion from underneath. What we have
    found, is that the gold standard there right now, the up-
    armored Hummer vehicle, is susceptible to that.
        We had a few of these initially sent to the theater to work
    with our EOD types--it's basically a South African design--but
    what we discovered is that the same blast under these MRAP
    vehicles were having much less impact on marines and sailors
    that were riding in the vehicles. About 400 percent more likely
    to survive a blast that would, literally, take out an up-
    armored Humvee.
        Our initial request was for something over 1,000 vehicles.
    Our component commander, with further review of the statistics,
    looking at the increasing potential for those types of weapons,
    has decreed that he would like to see every marine and sailor
    that goes outside the wire in the Al Anbar Province riding in
    these vehicles. We think it will significantly cut our
    casualties, to this particular form of attacks, and so we've
    gone after some 3,700 of the vehicles, sir. And the Secretary
    of the Navy, his procurement people have very much facilitated
    that effort, through opening up to other industrial capability
    and the testing that would go with rapid procurement.
        Senator Stevens. Have you determined whether it's possible
    the terrorists could just modify their improvished explosive
    devices (IED) and find a way to damage these, just like they've
    damaged the Humvees? Up-armored Humvees--that's what you're
    using now is up-armored Humvees, aren't you?
        General Conway. Yes, sir. We are following those tests, as
    well. Probably we don't need to talk too much about the
    susceptibility of the vehicle in open session, except to say
    there is some technology out there that looks like it may
    defeat the most advanced enemy capability, and we certainly
    want to make sure that the vehicle will include those kinds of
    technologies, as well.
        Senator Stevens. And what's the timeframe for your need on
    this?
        General Conway. Well, sir, we would say sooner is better.
    We see that we have a moral imperative to get these things to
    the field as soon as we can. Now, understanding their enhanced
    protection capability, part of it is commensurate on the
    ability of industry to come through with promises made that
    they think they can develop a vehicle that will sustain our
    examination, our tests--both with regard to durability, miles
    that they'll provide over time, but also, again--the force
    protection facets. Those experiments, if you will, are ongoing
    right now, as we speak, at Aberdeen.
        But, if they can do what they promise they can do at this
    point, we would like to very much expedite the procurement of
    these vehicles, and get them to the field as soon as we can.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.

                                     VH-71

        Mr. Secretary, I was surprised to learn that the Navy is
    considering building their entire fleet of Presidential
    helicopters overseas? I would assume that you must be having
    some problems with the production, and why this decision?
        Mr. Winter. Sir, we are not considering producing these
    vehicles overseas--one of the activities that we typically
    engage in, in terms of all-acquisition programs, especially
    those in which we are having some issues, in this case schedule
    for the delivery of the increment to aircraft--is to take a
    look at alternatives. Some alternatives were looked at, at a
    low level within the program office, associated with overseas
    production, do not believe that those alternatives are
    appropriate, and we will not be pursuing them.

                                ROLE OF MARINES

        Senator Inouye. General, in chatting with some of the old
    timers in the Marine Corps--retired officers--they've expressed
    some concern that never occurred to me. That, in this global
    war on terrorism, the role of the marines have changed from the
    traditional role of amphibious landing and jungle-fighting and
    all of that, and I gather that your focus is primarily on the
    Iraqi-type war. Is that good or bad?
        General Conway. Sir, it causes us significant concern. And,
    as I alluded to in my opening statement, we have the
    responsibility to be the Nation's first to fight. We take that
    very seriously, and I would agree with you, at this point, when
    you're back for 7 months, and getting ready to go again, most
    of our combat formations are simply preparing for the counter-
    insurgency environment.
        We used to do 10 combined arms, live-fire maneuver
    exercises a year at Twentynine Palms--we don't do any of those
    now. We do very little mountain warfare training, very little
    jungle or amphibious training--which again, is our true forte.
    So, it does cause me concern. We are endeavoring to expand the
    amount of dwell-time that we have at home, so that we can
    accomplish some measure of this training, so as not to lose the
    expertise, or potentially a generation of officers and marines
    who just aren't experienced in those types of operations.
        So, we're focused on it. We're looking toward the day when
    we can get back to our more traditional form of training, but
    right now, we're simply stressed to the point where that's not
    feasible.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Senator Inouye. Admiral and General, although the morale
    among the troops may be high, I note signs of your having
    problems with retention and recruiting. What can this
    subcommittee do to help you in this area?
        Admiral Mullen. Mr. Chairman, you've been very supportive
    of resourcing the incentivized bonuses, if you will, as has the
    Department of Defense with you--in creating authorizing
    opportunities for these, so that's been critical. And of all of
    the things that we do, we clearly are able to focus the kinds
    of re-enlistment incentives we need.
        For instance, we're struggling right now with some of our
    doctors, specialties in the medical field--and you've
    authorized us to be able to create a fairly significant bonus,
    up to--in one case that I'm aware of--up to $400,000--to
    attract a specialist--radiologist, in this particular case--who
    is clearly, you know, that's the market. So, you've allowed us
    to compete in the market, which I think is very important in
    these particular skills.
        You've been very supportive of our recruiting efforts, and
    resourcing that, as well. I'm adding recruiters right now, I
    actually have been for the past year, to hedge against the
    general concern that these things are cyclical, and that our
    good recruiting may go down in the future, and have also
    supported recruiting bonuses in specific areas that we're
    hurting in right now, particularly for our explosive ordinance
    personnel, our SOF forces, some of our Reserve, and Seabee
    ratings, for example--so, continuing that support is really
    critical. Both for the near term, and really for the long term.
    As you know, Mr. Chairman, once we create a hole, it lasts
    sometimes, a couple of decades, and that's what we really want
    to avoid.
        General Conway. Sir, our recruiting and retention is still
    pretty good. In fact, in order to be able to grow the force in
    those increments of about 5,000 a year, we've expanded our
    retention--from what is, traditionally about 25 percent--to
    about 33 percent of our requirement. And, we think we're going
    to be able to keep those great young marines aboard.
        We prefer, as a service, to incentivize on the end of a
    tour, as opposed to up-front. We want to incentivize
    established performance. And your support, thus far, has
    enabled us to do that.
        Recruiting is good right now, but I'm also pragmatic enough
    to realize that there are some danger signs out there. And as
    the Army grows, as the Navy puts more recruiters in the field--
    we're essentially still going after the same set of young
    individuals.
        We, too, are going to add to our numbers of recruiters. We
    will need, I think, to enhance our advertising, and I can
    predict it will be difficult to bring in the numbers that we
    need, maintaining our standards as we feel we must. Our
    standards are even higher than DOD standards, and we are not
    willing to sacrifice those, even as we grow.

                              RECRUTING STANDARDS

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, at the hearing with the
    Army, it was noted that they've lowered their standards of
    recruiting. Up until recently, 90 percent of the recruits had
    to have a high school diploma--10 percent did not. Now, that
    number has increased to, I think, 20 percent. Are you having
    that problem with the Navy and Marine Corps?
        Mr. Winter. Sir, right now, we've been able to maintain our
    standards. The only specific category of reconsideration, if
    you will, that would be in the educational domain that's come
    to me, of late, is consideration of home schooling--whether or
    not we would treat individuals with a home-schooled experience
    and the high school equivalency exam in the same way that we
    would treat current high school graduates. That's under
    consideration right now, and relative to the principle of
    requirements, that is the only one that we're looking at, at
    this time.
        Commandant, if you want to?
        General Conway. No, that's right, sir.
        Sir, the DOD standard for high school graduates, as you
    enunciated, is 90 percent. The Marine Corps standard is 95,
    we're recruiting 96, and we want to keep it there.
        On the other end of the scale, DOD allows for what they
    call 4 percent CAT-4 Alpha Mentality Group--these, fortunately
    or unfortunately--are some young Americans who have graduated
    high school, but then can't pass our entry examinations, the
    ASVAB, if you will. We recruit 1 percent of those individuals,
    but in some cases it breaks my recruiter's heart, because they
    look at these kids and say, ``That would be a great young
    marine in 3 years, he just can't pass the test.'' Some have
    English as a second language. So, in some cases I think we're
    testing language skills, not intelligence.
        So, that's where we are. If we were to ever consider coming
    to the Secretary for an adjustment of our standards, it would
    probably be some of those young Americans, not those who fail
    to graduate high school.

                              JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, all of us have been
    discussing the Joint Strike Fighter. What's the latest status?
        Mr. Winter. Well, the latest status, sir, is that we've had
    the initial flights of the conventional takeoff and landing
    version of that. The next major milestone, and one of
    particular concern to me in tracking is the STOVaL version, the
    short takeoff and landing capability. That is currently
    scheduled for June of next year, about 15 months off. We're
    tracking that very carefully. Last several months--I would say,
    the last quarter--that date has held. So, I'm starting to get a
    little bit encouraged that that date is going to wind up being
    a good date.
        The carrier version of the JSF--the first flight there--is
    scheduled for roughly 2 years from now, and we're also tracking
    that very carefully, as well.
        Senator Inouye. Next question?
        Senator Stevens. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 HOME SCHOOLING

        Going back to this home schooling--we have a tremendous
    number of our young people that are home-schooled in Alaska.
    One of my junior partners when I had a law firm back in the
    last century--let's put it that way--I was amazed to find one
    of my finest young lawyers, first time he ever entered a school
    was when he went to Harvard Law School and became number one in
    his class. I think you should look at these home-schoolers--
    there's a tremendous number of them now, particularly in rural
    America.

                       JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER SECOND ENGINE

        The problem I'd like to talk to you about, though, is the
    problem of the engines on the Joint Strike Fighter. I note
    we're still appropriating money for a second version of that
    engine. I'm personally, very much against having two engines
    for the same single-engine plane. You're going to end up by
    getting one in some remote part of the world, and find out that
    the only parts they have are the parts for the one that's a
    major version of the Joint Strike Fighter. I hope that you will
    really reconsider this concept of having two engines for the
    same plane. It's one thing to have competition for the engine,
    it's another thing to award the loser a percentage of the
    engines. I just don't see that at all.
        Mr. Winter. Well, sir, I tend to agree with you, one of my
    personal concerns here is the difficulty of providing a full-up
    logistical support capability at sea--on our amphibs and on our
    carriers. And, quite frankly, the difficulty of providing all
    of the parts and the spares, the documentation and the full-up
    proves that we'd have to maintain both versions of the engine,
    would be rather problematic. So, I do agree with you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Good. Thank you.

                     DETENTION FACILITIES AT GUANTANAMO BAY

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, we've been receiving reports
    of an internal debate in the administration on the future
    detention facilities at Guantanamo. What is the present status?
        Mr. Winter. Sir, from the Navy point of view, our
    responsibility is limited to providing the facilities down
    there, I will say that I have been down to inspect those
    facilities, and I think that the Navy has done a good job of
    providing the necessary facilities, both for the detainees
    themselves, as well as the support facilities, including, in
    particular the medical support facilities. Outside of that, I
    would defer questions to those that are responsible for the
    actual detention activities, in particular, Southern Command.

                                MISSILE DEFENSE

        Senator Inouye. Admiral, congratulations on the successes
    you have experienced with the aegis missile defense system.
    What's the next step?
        Admiral Mullen. Thank you, sir. We have enjoyed--and it has
    not come without considerable work, as I know you are aware--
    successes in seven of the last nine tests. And there's another
    test that's on the horizon this summer.
        I've been a very strong proponent of sea-based missile
    defense for some time. My immediate concern is at the
    operational level, the theater level, and that I'm able to
    provide some capabilities to protect those ships, and other
    capabilities who would be in the sea base. We continue to have
    a strong relationship with the Japanese in terms of missile
    development in particular, and that--I think--will get stronger
    over time. We are fielding a tracking capability in upwards of
    15 of our aegis destroyers, we've got that capability in three
    of our cruisers. We are going to expand the number of ships
    that can shoot, that can essentially launch the SM-3. I'm
    concerned about the expansion of the threat, we have a tendency
    to focus a great deal--and rightfully so--on the western
    Pacific, because of what the North Koreans did this year,
    clearly the developments in China. But I am also concerned
    about the developments in the Middle East. And you look at what
    Iran is routinely testing--not just tests going ashore, but
    also at sea.
        And so, because of the strength of what a naval capability
    brings, in terms of maneuverability, I think we need to
    continue to invest in that. We've got a terrific cadre of Navy
    people in the Missile Defense Agency, I would look to--over
    time--be able to expand that to ensure that we are well
    supported there in its development. And, obviously its focus
    has been heavily on the national missile defense side, and
    that's an important capability.
        We believe we have an awful lot to offer--very involved in
    the Korean, the most recent shots out last year that North
    Korea generated, and continued investment here, I think, is
    very, very important.

                                 BUDGET PROCESS

        Senator Inouye. Gentlemen, Senator Stevens and I are well
    aware of the budgetary process that you have to go through to
    come up with your budget requests. And we know that the initial
    requests that may have come from a battalion or squadron, by
    the time it reaches the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    is a vastly different document. There are a lot of areas that
    are cut off. And I was listening to your statement, Admiral,
    and you said that some of the holes that we develop may take
    decades to fill up. I would like to know what your request
    would be like if you didn't have funding problems?
        Admiral Mullen. In my statement, Mr. Chairman, I alluded
    to, or spoke to where we were in fiscal year 2004. And as I
    looked at the 2008 column in that FYDP, and we thought we had
    it about right, as best we could tell with the analysis that we
    were doing, in the world that we were living in then, and then
    the world has continued to evolve. And I spoke specifically
    about the top line, the top line we didn't reach, in 2008,
    upwards of almost $7 billion.
        In doing that, and this is not--I've been very open about
    this--the Navy has chosen to accept some risk to support what's
    going on as part of the joint force. But it is risk. I have
    some fairly significant readiness challenges in the out-years
    that I'm going to have to figure out how to get at--the length
    of the problem, though, is really in the future development,
    because it takes so long to develop these systems, to buy these
    systems. Years to buy them. So, recovering from something like
    this can offer a great challenge.
        That is--and we've worked hard on efficiencies, we're
    working hard on the business side to understand where our money
    is and what it's doing, and we've made great progress there.
    We're much more efficient than we used to be. But when I
    submitted this 30-year ship building plan, and the analysis
    that underpinned it, it was an analysis that said, ``This is
    the minimum number of submarines, this is the minimum number of
    surface combatants, this is the minimum number of amphibious
    ships, and aircraft carriers and support ships.'' So, just in
    that word alone, there is inherent risk, particularly with
    respect to operations as we understand them now, and can
    project them over the next 10 to 20 years, much less those that
    we couldn't anticipate in a pretty rapidly changing world. So,
    there's risk associated with that. And that's really what I'm
    talking about, as I indicated in my statement.

                             MARINE CORPS EQUIPMENT

        Senator Inouye. General, the marines who fought in World
    War II and the Army infantry who did the same in World War II
    had the steel helmet, boots, rifle, gun belt, grenades, and I
    think the cost was about $175 in today's dollars.
        Today it's over $17,000. But the marines and the Army
    personnel carry a load into combat something like 90 pounds, is
    that correct?
        General Conway. Sir, we calculated it at 80 pounds.
        Senator Inouye. They tell us now that the future combat
    marine or combat infantryman, the cost will be in excess of
    $50,000, and the weight will be much heavier. Can the marine be
    effective with 120 pounds on his back?
        General Conway. Absolutely not, sir. There's no way. We
    have marines, in some cases, that barely weigh 125 pounds, sir.
    So, we--that's an unrealistic expectation.
        Everything that we do, Mr. Chairman, is intended to try to
    make the equipment load lighter. We just have started to put
    into theater a tear-away type of armored vest, if you will. So
    that, if a marine gets in trouble in the water, or in a vehicle
    that's submersed, he's got a way to get that load off of him.
        But, you're exactly right, sir, and your personal
    experience will tell you that the endurance factor is just
    significantly impacted if you're expected to carry that weight
    over a period of time.
        So, we've got to continue to work with industry, with the
    technology, to try to come up with lighter systems as opposed
    to heavier systems, that ideally give us the same level of
    protection, if we're going to continue to see, essentially, the
    same kinds of threats.

                                 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Inouye. Is there anything else you'd like to add on
    to your budget request?
        General Conway. Sir, I thought about the question as the
    CNO was responding. I think there's probably three areas where
    we see some risk. We need to, ideally, get the dollars into the
    top line as soon as we can, I think, for our growth. I'm
    concerned that we not try to manage people who are enlisting on
    4-year contracts with year-to-year types of allocations or
    resources.
        A second area that we see, and it's in the out-years some,
    but we're going to experience a bit of a risk with our fixed-
    wing as Joint Strike Fighter is potentially pushed to the
    right. We're going to be short 45 to 50 aircraft around 2010 or
    so, that would ordinarily be in our squadrons and able to
    respond to these contingencies. And CNO referenced it, our
    other concern, I suppose, is in the numbers of amphib ships.
        We are talking about it, we are trying to come to grips
    with how we solve the issue, but we feel that in order to
    provide the Nation a forced-entry capability of two brigades--
    that's 30 operational ships should a contingency occur--in the
    out-years, unfortunately, based on affordability at this point,
    we have 30 ships available. And, at the standard rate of 85
    percent availability, that won't give us what we need. So,
    we're negotiating for 33 ships, which we think would be,
    reasonably make 30 available at all times. So--were I to say,
    not in the Marine Corps budget, but see an enhancement in the
    DON budget, it would be toward those three areas.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Oh, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

                              LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP

        Mr. Secretary, I'm very concerned about the recent
    decisions of the Navy regarding the littoral combat ship. Now,
    no one likes to see cost overruns, but in this case, I believe
    it was not surprising. According to some observers, not only
    was the original price tag of $220 million for a ship
    unrealistically low, but I understand it that the first ship of
    any series is always more expensive than the following ships.
        To make matters worse, this ship was not even completely
    designed when Marinet Marine began construction; in fact, even
    today with the ship over 70 percent built, the design is still
    not totally complete, as I'm sure you know.
        Question, while I do not understand--what I do not
    understand is that the Navy is taking the unusual step of
    asking Lockheed Martin and Marinet Marine to settle on a fixed
    price for this first ship, even though the design--as I said--
    is not complete. Marinet is not afraid of a fixed-price
    contract, it does plenty of business with the private sector
    and the Government on a fixed-price basis, but always with a
    completed and a proven design. I understand the appeal of a
    fixed-price contract, but isn't this asking the contractors to
    shoulder an unacceptable amount of risk? As a businessman,
    would you ever agree to produce a product for a certain price,
    when you were not even sure what the product would look like in
    the end?
        So, my question is--will the Navy drop its request for a
    fixed-price contract on this first ship, and settle for a
    fixed-price contract on the second ship, which should have, I'm
    sure by then, a completed design?
        Mr. Winter. Well, sir, we're right now in the middle of
    negotiations with Lockheed Martin, who is the prime contractor
    on this, relative to completion of both the first two ships
    that they have, which is LCS-1 and LCS-3. As you noted, LCS-1
    is over 70 percent complete. There are a few minor areas where
    there are some corrective actions that are being taken in terms
    of the design, but given that the first ship is very well on
    its way to completion, and the second ship also has some
    significant activities that have been taken in terms of parts
    procurement and the like, we believe that the overall risks
    associated with the cost of completion for both ships should be
    well-contained.
        What we've asked for here is not a firm fixed price, but
    what is known as a fixed-price incentive contract, where any
    overruns or underruns would be shared between the contractor
    and the Navy. And, we've agreed to sit down and negotiate the
    share ratios there--the extent to which both parties would be
    able to share in those cost risks--and we've also been willing
    to make some changes in terms of the way in which the ship is
    specified and bought off, which, we believe, would go a long
    way to mitigating the risks that Lockheed would take on.
        Senator Cochran. Well, it's my understanding that it
    usually takes about 90 days in the best of situations to
    negotiate a fixed price on a ship. And yet, I believe you're
    asking for negotiations to be completed in 30 days. Those 30
    days will run out soon--wouldn't it be fair and reasonable to
    ask Lockheed and Marinet to work with you over the course of 90
    days to come up with a new contract?
        Mr. Winter. Well, sir, we've asked to get to the point of a
    meeting of the mind, if you will, on the basic principles to
    ensure that we have a reasonable course forward, and a good
    likelihood of being able to reach an amicable agreement here
    between the parties within the time period of the 90 days that
    we are allowed within the FAR associated with the ongoing stop
    work order.
        If we're able to get to that point where we're both
    comfortable that we're going to be able to work out any of the
    residual arrangements, there are several options available to
    us, subject to mutual consent that we could follow to deal with
    that, clean up matters, and final definitization of the
    contract.
        Senator Cochran. I didn't--I'm not sure if I heard your
    answer, maybe I heard it, but not clearly enough. Will the Navy
    drop its request for a fixed-price contract on the first ship,
    and settle for a fixed-price contract on the second ship?
        Mr. Winter. Sir, right now we have one contract which
    includes both ships, and we've asked for a fixed-price
    incentive on both ships, and that's our current position.
        Senator Cochran. Last question, Mr. Secretary, I've read it
    in the press that the General Dynamics LCS is 41 percent over
    their original bid price, and that they're about 40 percent
    complete. Was the Lockheed Martin costs and overrun similar to
    that same point in construction? At that same point in
    construction? If so--and if you believe fixed-price contracts
    are not the solution to control cost growth--why have you not
    put General Dynamics under a fixed-price contract?
        Mr. Winter. Well, sir, we're looking at the General
    Dynamics activity very closely, and as we have noted to General
    Dynamics, if we see continuing cost growths there that
    replicate those that we saw at Lockheed Martin, we would seek
    the same remedy relative to General Dynamics.
        Senator Cochran. Well, Mr. Secretary, I'm not opposed to
    using fixed-price contracts; however, I am concerned that they
    are being misapplied in this case, where Marinet is building a
    first-of-its-kind vessel, from a design that is constantly
    being changed, altered, and even tweaked. Some of the cost
    growth may be the contractor's fault, but responsibility, I
    believe, also rests with the Navy. It is not fair for the Navy
    to now try and place all of the blame at the feet of Lockheed
    and Marinet, when the Navy knew it was risky to start building
    a ship that had only been in the design stages for 7 months.
    So, I believe no one should be surprised that this has not
    worked exactly according to plan.
        I believe Marinet can build its vessel at a reasonable
    price with the capabilities that will make the Navy proud, and
    I would encourage you to continue to use Marinet and negotiate
    a solution that will give them every opportunity to show you
    how they can contribute to our national security. I would
    appreciate your consideration.
        Mr. Winter. We will continue to work this, sir. And we will
    continue to work it through our prime contractor, as we are
    required to do, given the privity of contract selections.
        Senator Cochran. I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Winter. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Mr. Secretary and gentlemen, members of the subcommittee
    have submitted a request to send you questions for your
    responses, and will be doing that. And I want to thank you, all
    three of you--Admiral, Secretary, and General--for your service
    to our country, and thank you for your testimony this morning.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                    Questions Submitted to Donald C. Winter
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming
    Secretary Winter, Admiral Mullen, and General Conway to our
    subcommittee.
        This has been a challenging year for our military forces. We
    appreciate the role the Navy and Marine Corps play in protecting the
    United States in the Global War on Terrorism. The all-volunteer active
    and reserve forces and their families have performed with a high degree
    of professional distinction, and our Nation is thankful for their
    service.
        We are aware of the importance of the need for appropriate levels
    of funding to ensure that the men and women in uniform have the
    equipment and training they need to succeed and to return home safely.
    Monday, we began floor consideration of the bill Making Emergency
    Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
    2007, and for Other Purposes.
        During your testimony, I would like you to provide this
    subcommittee with an indication of what you judge to be the latest date
    those Emergency Appropriations must be available to the Navy and Marine
    Corps.
        Answer. Based on cash-flowing GWOT Operation and Maintenance,
    Marine Corps (O&MMC) obligations with baseline funds, the Marine Corps
    would run out of funds in mid-July. The latest dates the Navy could
    receive supplemental funding, by appropriation and month follow:
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), Operation and Maintenance, Navy
    Reserve (OMNR) and Military Personnel, Marine Corps (MPMC) in August;
    Military Personnel, Navy (MPN), Reserve Personnel, Navy (RPN) and
    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps (RPMC) in September.
              naval flight officer strike syllabus--budget savings
        Question. Secretary Winter, the Naval Flight Officer Strike
    syllabus is currently conducted on T-2C aircraft at Pensacola which
    will be replaced with T-45s before December 2008. I have been informed
    that at least 19 T-45 Goshawk aircraft are required if the NFO Strike
    syllabus is continued at NAS Pensacola Naval Air Station in addition to
    adding simulator, infrastructure, qualified maintenance personnel and a
    costly Air Installation Compatible Use Zone study.
        Mr. Secretary, I understand Naval Air Station Meridian has excess
    capacity with its fleet of the new T-45 aircraft along with simulators,
    infrastructure, qualified instructors, and maintenance personnel. I am
    informed the Naval Air Systems Command program manager for the T-45
    concluded in a 2006 study that the Navy could save millions by
    transferring the Naval Flight Officer Strike syllabus to Naval Air
    Station Meridian. Does the budget request before us today take
    advantage of these savings identified by Naval Air Systems Command?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget request does not include funds
    to move Naval Flight Officer Strike training from NAS Pensacola to NAS
    Meridian. It funds investments that comply with BRAC 2005 language
    consolidating Navy and Air Force Flight Officer training in Pensacola.
    The Navy command charged with all Undergraduate Military Flight Officer
    (UMFO) training, Training Air Wing SIX (TRAWING-6), and all
    infrastructure required to conduct the entire UMFO training syllabus is
    currently in-place at NAS Pensacola.
        2005 BRAC legislation directed the realignment of Randolph Air
    Force Base by relocating Undergraduate Navigator Training (UNT) to
    Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida. Specific justification included
    enhancing jointness for UNT/Naval Flight Officer (NFO) training,
    reducing excess capacity, and improving military value. Further BRAC
    guidance indicated that training resources; to include aircraft,
    simulators, personnel, and classrooms; should be shared to the maximum
    extent possible, and that similar overhead functions will be
    consolidated and unnecessary billets/positions eliminated. A single-
    site UMFO training program at NAS Pensacola best meets these
    Congressionally-approved criteria.
                       littoral combat ship cost overruns
        Question. Secretary Winter, you have provided me updates on the
    cost growth of the Littoral Combat Ship program for the Lockheed Martin
    and General Dynamics ships along with actions you have taken and
    propose to take to control cost. You issued a stop work order in
    January on the third Littoral Combat Ship to analyze and identify the
    root causes of the cost growth to the program. I understand that
    analysis has been completed, the warfighting requirement for the
    Littoral Combat Ship has been reconfirmed, and you are working with
    industry to get the program back on track.
        Mr. Secretary, have you determined the root cause of the cost
    overruns. If so, what is the root cause? Mr. Secretary, I have read in
    the press that the General Dynamics LCS is 41 percent over their
    original bid price and they are about 40 percent complete. Was the
    Lockheed Martin cost overrun similar at that same point in
    construction?
        Answer. We have completed our analysis of the root cause for both
    cost drivers and cost overruns. The results of this analysis and the
    Program Management Assist Group (PMAG) identified several root causes
    that lead to cost and schedule growth in the LCS program. These factors
    include:
      --Pressure to build to schedule was strongly emphasized and generated
            cost growth.
      --The ambitious schedule relied upon concurrent design and
            construction that was not achieved.
      --For LCS 1, the deadline for LM's bid was prior to the finalization
            of Naval Vessel Rules and resulted in the company
            underestimating the scope of effort required to design and
            build the ship.
      --The competitive environment created a disincentive for the
            contractor to report challenges to the Department of the Navy.
        Lockheed Martin was experiencing cost overruns on LCS 1 at 40
    percent complete. However, performance deteriorated significantly later
    in construction, during the period leading up to and after launch.
        We will continue to closely monitor the cost performance on the
    General Dynamics ships, LCS 2 and 4, and will assess the need for
    further action.
                              shipboard materials
        Question. Secretary Winter, for several years now, including the
    fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Conference
    Report, this committee has expressed the view that the Navy should
    carefully review new materials considered for ship insulation and
    ensure that they are ``as safe as'' the materials currently in use.
        I understand there may be some concern regarding the insulation
    material being used on board the LCS-1, specifically with regards to
    its biopersistence, according to a February 9, 2007 report by the
    Institute of Occupational Medicine in the United Kingdom.
        Unlike most civilian, Army or Air Force jobs, our sailors' and
    Marines' work often requires them to live and work on a ship 24 hours a
    day, seven days a week. So, it is with the utmost care that the
    materials and equipment are selected for inclusion in their working and
    living environment.
        Will you take a look at the recent Institute of Occupational
    Medicine (IOM) study to ensure the materials being used are safe for
    our sailors and Marines?
        Answer. The Bureau of Navy Medicine and Surgery (BUMED),
    specifically the Environmental Health Effects Laboratory and the Navy
    Environmental Health Center (NEHC), reviewed the safety of the
    MasterGlas insulating material used on LCS-1 in 2003 and concluded that
    use of the product would create no more risk than use of standard
    military specification fiberglass insulation. Manufactured in the
    United States, MasterGlas is in accordance with all worker health and
    safety laws and has been installed on commercial aircraft for decades.
        NEHC reviewed the February 9, 2007, IOM study, which was ordered
    and funded by the manufacturer of a competing material, InspecFoam. The
    study concluded that MasterGlas fibers may be more biopersistent than
    the MIL-I-742 Fiberglass Hullboard. This means that the fibers are not
    dissolved in body fluids nor cleared from the body as readily. However,
    the study did not take into consideration other factors, such as work
    processes, ventilation, personal protective equipment worn, thermal
    decomposition products, and others. In addition, this single study has
    not been subjected to an independent scientific peer review process.
        MasterGlas insulation is no more harmful than other fiberglass
    products already in use by the Navy. Therefore, it would be
    inappropriate for the Systems Commands to arbitrarily prohibit the use
    of the MasterGlas product based on this one study. Nonetheless, the
    Navy will carefully monitor its use.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to Admiral Michael G. Mullen
                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                       u.s.s. ``carl vinson's'' homeport
        Question. What is the Navy's schedule for determining the new home
    port of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson?
        Answer. The Navy announced on March 30, 2007 that the Nimitz-class
    aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN 70) will conduct a homeport
    change to the West Coast and intends to relocate to Naval Air Station,
    North Island in early 2010. Currently U.S.S. Carl Vinson is undergoing
    a maintenance period at the Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipyard in
    Norfolk, VA. When the Carl Vinson returns to an operational status, it
    will relocate to the West Coast. Family notifications will start 12
    months prior to the planned arrival. Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
    moves will be conducted six months prior to and six months after the
    homeport shift.
        The Navy prefers to homeport the Carl Vinson at Naval Air Station,
    North Island. This preference is consistent with the Navy's record of
    decision in 2000 to create capacity to homeport three nuclear powered
    aircraft carriers at Naval Air Station, North Island. The final
    decision on a homeport for the U.S.S. Carl Vinson will be made after
    completion of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
    This SEIS is scheduled to be completed in January 2009 and will examine
    any changes that may have occurred since the Navy completed its
    original environmental analysis in 2000.
        Question. Does Naval Air Station, North Island remain the leading
    candidate?
        Answer. The Navy announced on March 30, 2007 that Naval Air
    Station, North Island will be the planned homeport for the U.S.S. Carl
    Vinson.
        The Navy prefers to homeport the Carl Vinson at Naval Air Station,
    North Island. This preference is consistent with the Navy's record of
    decision in 2000 to create capacity to homeport three nuclear powered
    aircraft carriers at Naval Air Station, North Island. The final
    decision on a homeport for the U.S.S. Carl Vinson will be made after
    completion of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
    This SEIS is scheduled to be completed in January 2009 and will examine
    any changes that may have occurred since the Navy completed its
    original environmental analysis in 2000.
                            city of coronado traffic
        Question. I am aware that the City of Coronado has a very
    significant traffic congestion problem with sailors entering and
    leaving the base and that home porting a third carrier at North Island
    will further exacerbate this problem. The City has expressed concerns
    that the Navy is not adequately participating in the effort to mitigate
    this problem.
        What assurances can you give the City of Coronado that the Navy
    will participate in identifying an appropriate mitigation plan to
    address traffic congestion near North Island?
        Answer. The Navy analyzed impacts to traffic associated with
    homeporting three CVNs at Naval Air Station, North Island prior to
    making a decision in 2000 to develop the capacity to homeport three
    Nimitz Class aircraft carriers there. Prior to making a final decision
    regarding the U.S.S. Carl Vinson's homeport, the Navy will complete a
    supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that will focus on
    issues such as traffic that may have changed since completion of the
    original analysis in 2000.
        The Assistant Secretary of the Navy sent a letter dated March 15,
    2007, to the Mayor of Coronado expressing the Navy's commitment to work
    with the City of Coronado and appropriate regional, state, and federal
    agencies to find ways to relieve current and forecasted travel
    congestion in Coronado. The Navy will continue to support comprehensive
    analyses of traffic volume and flow in an effort to assist those
    agencies in identifying viable, affordable traffic improvements. The
    Navy is currently serving as a cooperating agency on the environmental
    review of alternatives to relieve current and forecasted congestion in
    the State Route 75/282 Transportation Corridor.
                    infrastructure improvements for carrier
        Question. Once this mitigation plan is finalized, I understand the
    funding will be required from Federal, state and local sources to
    complete the project.
        What is the Department of the Navy's position on providing funding
    for any infrastructure improvements necessitated by the home porting of
    a third nuclear carrier at North Island?
        Answer. After extensive operational, environmental, and cost
    analysis, the Navy decided in 2000 to create the capacity to homeport
    three nuclear powered aircraft carriers at Naval Air Station, North
    Island. While not all of the construction to implement that decision
    has been completed, Naval Air Station, North Island currently has most
    of the requisite infrastructure and facilities to host three Nimitz-
    class aircraft carriers. The estimated cost of additional required
    military construction is $43 million. The Department of the Navy will
    address these requirements through the normal budget process.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                              global fleet station
        Question. Admiral Mullen, I understand the United States has Navy
    Frigate and Coast Guard cutter in the Gulf Guinea, off the coast of
    Nigeria, and an amphibious ship is slated to arrive in the Gulf this
    fall.
        I have been informed this ship deployment is part of a ``global
    fleet station'' pilot project, and that the goal of this project is to
    provide support of foreign military training units, Marines, special
    forces, non-governmental organizations and medical experts in the area
    to promote stability in the region. As I understand it, this Global
    Fleet Station is a relatively new concept to our Naval Operations.
        Could you please elaborate on this type of operation (GFS) and tell
    the subcommittee about how your fiscal year 2008 budget request
    supports these types of operations?
        Answer. Global Fleet Station (GFS) is a persistent sea base of
    operations focusing on Phase 0 (shaping) operations, theater security
    cooperation, and global maritime awareness. As a pilot initiative, GFS
    represents a form of adaptive force packaging to achieve a more widely
    distributed force and an increased forward presence with the forces
    already at the Navy's disposal. This will increase regional maritime
    security through the cooperative efforts of joint, interagency, and
    multinational partners, as well as non-governmental organizations
    without imposing a footprint ashore.
        As a new concept, GFS funding is not tied to any specific budget
    line item. Additionally, GFS is intended as an operational usage of
    existing assets, utilizing operational Navy funding for support. While
    no specific line item in the budget request directly supports GFS, all
    operations and maintenance funding in the fiscal year 2008 Budget
    Request support ongoing Navy Operations of which GFS is a part. No
    additional O&M,N funding is required to execute current GFS pilots in
    the U.S. Southern Command and the U.S. European Command areas of
    responsibility.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
                       national surface treatment center
        Question. In my home state of Kentucky, some of my constituents
    operate the National Surface Treatment Center and technology center.
    Their expertise is applied toward helping the Navy resolve shipboard
    problems through the application of innovative products and
    technologies. This Center has helped the U.S. Navy resolve recurrent
    and costly shipboard problems through the insertion of commercial
    products and technologies.
        As you may also be aware, the National Surface Treatment Center's
    Fleet Maintenance Reduction Program has significantly reduced shipboard
    maintenance time and costs for the U.S. Navy. In fact, the work
    currently being performed by the National Surface Treatment Center has
    had a significant and positive impact on the Navy's $4 billion per year
    corrosion problem. In addition, I am informed that these projects save
    the Navy a net of $75 million every year, thus freeing up scarce
    resources for other programs that are critical to our national defense.
        Given the cost savings achieved by the work performed at the
    National Surface Treatment Center and technology center, and given the
    increased pressure placed on the defense budget, this program is a
    strong candidate for inclusion in the annual President's budget. Please
    provide some additional reasons in support of this program's inclusion
    in the President's annual budget.
        Answer. The National Surface Treatment Center (NST Center) partners
    with the Navy, Department of Defense, and industry to fight corrosion
    and solve coating problems. Since 2005 the NST Center has hosted an
    annual conference, which rotates between Louisville, KY, Norfolk, VA,
    and San Diego, CA, bringing together industry leaders in preservation
    technology to collaborate on improving corrosion control efforts.
        The President's budget represents the Navy's attempt to best
    balance scarce resources to requirements. If additional resources
    become available, the Department of the Navy (DON) would review all
    requirements and recommend funding the highest priority items
    identified on the Unfunded Program Requirements List maintained in the
    DON. Support of the NST Center is not currently listed on the UPL,
    however, the NST Center has received Congressional plus ups for the
    last four years.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted to General James T. Conway
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
              mine resistant and ambush protected (mrap) vehicles
        Question. General Conway, I observed there is $1.8 billion for mine
    resistant and ambush protected vehicles in the fiscal year 2007
    supplemental and that the top item on the Marine Corps 2008 Unfunded
    Programs List is a requirement to rapidly field 2,700 of these
    vehicles. This is also the number one equipment item on the Army's
    Unfunded Programs List. There appears to be limited funding in the
    fiscal year 2008 budget request. How important are these vehicles and
    is this a fiscal year 2007 or 2008 issue?
        Answer. Government sponsored testing along with operational events
    have clearly demonstrated that the MRAP provides a superior level of
    protection over the M1114/51/52 Up-Armored HMMWV. The levels of
    protection provided by this family of vehicles against threats being
    encountered in both Iraq and Afghanistan has and will continue to save
    the lives and limbs of service members. Without these vehicles our
    soldiers and Marines will continue to conduct operations in the best
    vehicle provided to them (i.e. M1114/51/52 HMMWV). We however, will not
    have provided them the best vehicle available today.
        As a service we have worked diligently to rapidly validate the
    requirement and develop an acquisition strategy that delivers these
    vehicles to our forces in the most expeditious manner. In doing so we
    requested funding at different increments (i.e. fiscal year 2007 Bridge
    Supplemental and fiscal year 2007 Main Supplemental) to support the
    requirements as they existed at the time. In February 2007, we
    solidified our requirement for 3,700 MRAPs. Funding requests/provisions
    at that time (i.e. fiscal year 2007 Bridge Supplemental and fiscal year
    2007 Main Supplemental) did not support the final requirement. Based on
    the unit and total cost, the Marine Corps was precluded from internally
    funding the total remaining requirement and requested additional
    funding in order to meet the total requirement. This request is the
    amount currently seen in the 2008 Unfunded Programs List. A
    reprogramming action for $427.9 million (07-08 PA) was forwarded to
    Congress on March 28th for consideration. This reprogramming would
    accelerate the purchase of MRAP vehicles.
        It is accurate to say that the procurement of these vehicles is not
    an issue associated with fiscal years. It is an urgent requirement that
    we have requested funding for as the requirements process ran its
    course. Ideally, all procurement funding would be available in fiscal
    year 2007 to ensure that maximum production rates are maintained. Short
    of acceleration of funding to the fiscal year 2007 Main Supplemental,
    the 2008 Unfunded Program List is our earliest window for gaining the
    remaining funding necessary to procure these vehicles.
                       marine corps lightweight howitzers
        Question. General Conway, this budget request contains $93 million
    to complete the Marine Corps acquisition objective for lightweight
    howitzers. How does this capability enhance the operational
    effectiveness of the Marine Corps and does this funding request provide
    for the complete Marine Corps requirement?
        Answer. The M777 Lightweight 155 mm towed howitzer replaces the
    aging M198 155 mm towed howitzer which has passed its expected service
    life. It incorporates innovative designs to achieve light weight
    without sacrificing range, stability, accuracy or durability. The M777,
    with its technologically-advanced digital fire control system (DFCS),
    enhances the Marine Air Ground Task Force Commander's ability to
    provide close, supporting indirect fires through improved accuracy and
    responsiveness. In addition, the DFCS enables the employment of the
    precision munitions required on today's battlefield. The new howitzer's
    lighter weight increases its deployability and mobility, providing the
    warfighter a persistent, all-weather fire support asset throughout the
    full range of military operations.
        The current approved Marine Corps acquisition objective is 356
    howitzers. The $93 million in the fiscal year 2008 budget request will
    procure forty-seven howitzers which meets the objective of 356. The
    fiscal year 2008 Marine Corps Grow the Force initiative includes an
    additional $107.5 million to fund the increased requirement of 43
    howitzers.
                   marine corps amphibious ship requirements
        Question. General Conway, President Bush requested Congress
    increase the end strength of the Army and Marines by 92,000 in 5 years
    to support the Global War on Terrorism. Obviously with this increase,
    in particular for the Marines, there will be an increased need for
    amphibious ships supporting these additional troops. The President's
    fiscal year 2008 budget proposal requests one LPD-17 amphibious ship,
    however the Navy Unfunded Programs List shows an additional LPD as
    being unfunded at the top of the list. General Conway, can you talk
    more about your future amphibious ship requirements?
        Answer. Amphibious warfare ships are the centerpiece of the Navy-
    Marine Corps' forcible entry and Seabasing capability, and have played
    an essential role in the Global War on Terrorism. These ships are
    equipped with aviation and surface assault capabilities, which coupled
    with their inherent survival and self-defense systems, makes them
    ideally suited to support a broad range of mission requirements. This
    survivability is critical to ensure the Nation has the widest range of
    response options. Not only must our naval forces maintain the ability
    to rapidly close, decisively employ, and effectively sustain Marines
    from the sea, they must also respond to emerging Global War on
    Terrorism requirements, crisis response, and humanitarian assistance
    missions on short notice around the world.
        For forcible entry, the Marine Corps' requirement is a single,
    simultaneously-employed two Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault
    capability. One MEB requires seventeen amphibious warfare ships;
    however, given the fiscally constrained environment, the Navy and
    Marine Corps have agreed to assume risk by only using fifteen.
    Historical amphibious ship availability rates dictate a minimum of
    eleven ships of each of the current types of amphibious ship--a minimum
    of thirty-three total ships--resulting in a Battle Force that provides
    thirty operationally available amphibious warfare ships. The three
    types of ships comprising the Battle Force are aviation capable big-
    deck ships (LHA/LHD/LHA(R)), LPD17 class ships, and LSD 41/49 or
    equivalent ships; therefore, in that Battle Force, ten aviation-capable
    big deck ships (LHA/LHD/LHA(R)) and construction of ten LPD 17 class
    ships are required to accommodate the MEB's aviation combat element.
        Given the recognized flexibility of these platforms and requirement
    to enhance their power projection capabilities to support stability
    operations and sustained counter-terrorism efforts, many of our
    coalition partners are planning to acquire amphibious ships that can
    support both surface and aviation maneuver elements. Such efforts
    acknowledge the great utility of a robust amphibious warfare capability
    in the face of growing anti-access threats.
                          marine corps seabasing plan
        Question. General Conway, the Navy's fiscal year 2008 budget
    requests supports Research and Development of the Joint High Speed
    Vessel with acquisition beginning in fiscal year 2008 for the Army and
    2009 for the Navy. I understand these vessels are highly flexible,
    adaptable to a variety of payloads, much faster, and can operate in
    shallower ports than traditional larger vessels. I understand the Joint
    High Speed Vessels will be an important connector for the Marine Corps
    Seabasing plan. Can you provide the subcommittee with an overview of
    the important role of the Joint High Speed Vessel in the Marine Corps
    Seabasing plan?
        Answer. The Joint High Speed Vessel or JHSV is part of a family of
    vessels and craft that support Seabasing operations by connecting the
    various components of the Sea Base together and to the surrounding
    theater architecture. In major contingency operations, the JHSV self-
    deploys to the theater of operations where it supports force Closure,
    Arrival (and assembly), Employment, Sustainment, and Reconstitution
    (CAESR). The following paragraphs briefly describe that support.
        Closure.--JHSVs pick up arriving Flow-in Echelon Marines and their
    equipment at Advance and/or Intermediate Staging Base(s) for transport
    to and rendezvous with the ships of the Sea Base.
        Arrival (and assembly).--As the force arrives and assembles at sea,
    JHSVs are used to move Marines and their equipment between the various
    ships constituting the Sea Base (an intra-Sea Base connector.
        Employment.--In the permissive threat ``lee'' created by assault
    echelon forces and Sea Shield, JHSVs transport units and their
    equipment from the Sea Base into austere offload ports ashore.
        Sustainment.--JHSVs move sustainment from theater logistics nodes
    to the Sea Base, within ships of the Sea Base, and from the Sea Base to
    Marines employed ashore.
        Reconstitution.--In addition to recovering Marines employed ashore
    back to the ships of the Sea Base, the JHSV moves replacement
    personnel, repair supplies, and replacement equipment to and from
    theater Advance and Intermediate Staging Bases.
        Not only do JHSVs enable support to Seabasing operations, they
    address Geographic Combatant Commanders' requirements for an intra-
    theater connector in support of their Theater Security Cooperation
    Plans, Global War on Terrorism operations, theater logistics needs, and
    humanitarian assistance/disaster relief contingencies. JHSVs are also a
    key enabler for the future realignment of III MEF units out of Okinawa
    to other locations in the Pacific.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. The next meeting of the subcommittee will
    be on April 11, Wednesday, at 10:30 a.m. At that time, we will
    receive testimony on the National Guard and Reserves.
        Thank you very much; the subcommittee will stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Wednesday, March 28, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Wednesday, April 11.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:33 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Dorgan, Durbin, Mikulski,
    Murray, Stevens, Domenici, and Bond.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                 National Guard

    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL H STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. This morning the subcommittee meets to
    receive testimony on the fiscal year 2008 budget request for
    the National Guard and Reserve components. I welcome today's
    witnesses from the National Guard, Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau, General Steven Blum; Director of the Army National
    Guard, General Clyde Vaughn; Director of the Air National
    Guard, General Craig McKinley; and from the Reserve, Chief of
    the Army Reserve, General Jack Stultz; and Chief of the Naval
    Reserve, Admiral John Cotton; Commander of the Marine Forces
    Reserve, General John Bergman; and Chief of the Air Force
    Reserve, General John Bradley.
        Gentlemen, as you know, the role of the National Guard and
    Reserve has changed dramatically over the past few years.
    Currently, we have thousands of guardsmen and reservists
    deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom already in their
    second tours.
        I just met an airman who I believe was on his third tour,
    completed his third tour and an Army man on his fourth tour.
    The forces have been fully integrated into operations there and
    have proven to be essential to the mission. We are going to
    make certain that you have the resources you need to train and
    equip these valuable service men and women.
        We are pleased to see that recruitment has improved
    although I am concerned that the Army and Navy Reserves are
    still not fulfilling their recruiting missions. We hope to hear
    today about what you are all doing to continue to attract
    quality recruits.
        Retention levels remain strong but as guardsmen and
    reservists face multiple deployments, the strain on troops and
    their families could begin to show. We want to make certain
    that you have the resources required to return experienced
    servicemembers and provide them with support that the Guard and
    Reserve families need as they transition in and out of civilian
    life.
        Guard and Reserve equipment levels continue to be a
    concern. Significant shortages have been identified. We will
    continue to work with the services to improve equipment quality
    and quantity so that Guard and Reserve troops have the
    equipment they need for training and operations here and
    abroad.
        Gentlemen, we face significant challenges in providing for
    the personnel and equipment needs of the National Guard and
    Reserve during these demanding times. I look forward to hearing
    your recommendations for strengthening our forces and I thank
    you for your testimony this morning. Your full statements will
    be included in the record and our first witness is General Blum
    and I now call upon the vice chairman of the subcommittee.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I do subscribe to
    what the chairman has said but I want to add that this
    subcommittee hearing was part of the whole development of the
    tunnel force contact and I do believe it's worked. It's worked
    and brought us a very strong military but the difficulty is
    that it appears that it's slowly but surely becoming not just a
    total force but a permanent total force for the Guard and
    Reserve.
        I think some of the policies we're looking at now have to
    be reviewed from the point of view of funding because we need
    to be assured that these people who are citizens soldiers in
    terms of the Guard and Reserve, still have an ability to
    maintain their civilian jobs, maintain their civilian
    participation that they are not a regular military and yet
    increasingly, they seem to be treated as such.
        Well, I hope that you'll be very frank with us in terms of
    your answers concerning this process. I don't fault anybody. I
    think it really is a development of the system that the
    challenges we're now facing that aren't going to go away no
    matter what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan that they are
    worldwide, in my opinion.
        So if you're really going to help us, I think, to tell us,
    where we are going from here? Should we expand the Guard?
    Should we expand the Reserve? We are going to expand the
    regular force, very clearly. But it does seem to me that as the
    chairman's mission, the period of time between deployments is a
    disadvantage for maintaining the civilian aspect of the citizen
    soldier that is involved in your units in the Guard and
    Reserves.
        So I look forward to your testimony. I think we've got a
    lot of work to do. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. I'll now call upon the Chief of the
    National Guard and Reserves.
        General Blum. Good morning, Chairman Inouye, Senator
    Stevens, distinguished members of this subcommittee. I'd first
    like to say thanks for the solid support that this subcommittee
    gives our citizen soldiers that serve on the land, on the sea,
    in the air, and your in-depth understanding of the unique dual
    role of the National Guard. From your statements this morning
    you have a clear understanding of some of the challenges that
    we face with the All Volunteer Force as we move from being
    strictly a strategic Reserve only to being both an operational
    force as well as the strategic Reserve for this Nation.
        I'll introduce my Director of the Army National Guard,
    Clyde Vaughn to my right and Lieutenant General Craig McKinley,
    the Director of the Air National Guard who are here today for
    response to in-depth questions on issues relating to the Army
    and the Air National Guard.
        Also with me today, very important, particularly following
    on the comments of Senator Stevens, we have our Command
    Sergeant Major for the National Guard Bureau. Sir, you may
    recognize him here as an Alaska State trooper for 20 years. He
    retired from the State troopers. He has served in the United
    States Air Force and he serves in the Army National Guard.
    Today he represents 460,000 citizen soldiers and airmen from
    the Army and Air National Guard all around the country.
        The senior enlisted command sergeant major from the Army
    National Guard, John Gipe, is here this morning and most
    important, I have two individuals that Senator Inouye has
    already alluded to. The first--I'll start with the youngest
    first.
        Daniel, if you'd please stand up. This is a staff sergeant.
    He is 23 years. At 23 years of age, he has just completed his
    third combat tour in Iraq, one in Kirkuk and two in Baghdad. He
    comes from Klamath Falls, Oregon. He is a combat air controller
    and he has been the Airman of the Year and the NCO of the year
    back in Oregon. He represents the most committed, mature,
    experienced, professional force we've had in 371 years in our
    organization.
        The sad part of it is that while we have the very best
    people, with this kind of experience and this kind of
    commitment, the equipment that Daniel, and others like him, has
    to operate back in Oregon was built in 1953. Now imagine being
    a combat controller for a critical mission like that and
    operating with unreliable, old equipment built in 1953. I think
    that says it all. So while we have the best people, we have
    some significant equipment challenges.
        Also next to him is a 40-year-old Wichita, Kansas police
    officer who is a member of the 2nd Battalion, 137th Infantry
    and he is from Charlie Company. He has just completed a tour in
    Iraq. He came back in November. Prior to that he served two
    previous combat tours with the United States Marine Corps in
    Desert Storm and also the United States Marine Corps in
    Somalia.
        This experienced infantryman, a highly decorated NCO, is a
    platoon sergeant, which is, as you well know, sir, from your
    combat experience, is where the rubber meets the road. That's
    where it happens. That's where the real leadership challenges
    are. The policy really reaches to the fox holes and the person
    that makes that happen is the platoon sergeant.
        He is married. His wife is a signal officer in the Kansas
    National Guard so it is truly a Guard family. He has two
    children--Nick, 16 and a daughter, Zoey, who is 14. He doesn't
    have a problem with old equipment, he has a problem with no
    equipment. His unit, when they came back in November, came back
    to two Humvees that were left because they were not good enough
    to go to war. That's the only equipment that he has in his unit
    today.
        If Governor Sebelius from Kansas would need the 2nd
    Battalion 137th to respond to a tornado or a winter storm or
    any other emergency, the capability of that unit is minimized;
    not because of the great people but because of a lack of
    equipment that is in that unit right now.
        Thanks, guys. Thanks for your service.
        I think I'll reduce my statement down to a bare minimum
    because of the clear understanding that this subcommittee has
    for the issues that are at hand. The two citizen soldiers and
    airmen that you just met, say more than I could read off of
    this paper.
        We have had the Army National Guard now for almost 371
    years and today, after all that time, the National Guard is
    still the Nation's best defense bargain. The Army National
    Guard makes up almost 40 percent of the United States Army
    combat, combat support and combat service support structure. It
    does this for about 11 percent of the Army's budget; a bargain
    for the American taxpayer. We represent a 365-day on call
    capability for about 11 percent of what it costs to maintain
    that capability on active duty.
        The Air National Guard similarly gets only 6 percent of the
    Air Force's budget, but produces over one-third of everything
    in the United States Air Force. It flies over one-third of the
    United States Air Force aircraft every day, whether we are at
    war or whether we are at peace. Your Army and Air National
    Guard are the only Department of Defense forces that can be
    called upon by the Governors with no notice to do what is
    necessary in the zip codes where your constituents reside.
        The National Guard today, I'm sad to say, is not a fully
    ready force. Unresourced--shortfalls still exist that approach
    $40 billion to provide the equipment and the training that I
    personally feel your Army and Air National Guard are expected
    to have to be able to respond to the citizens of the United
    States.
        Overseas, we are superbly equipped, and superbly trained.
    We want for nothing overseas because the Congress of the United
    States has ensured that we're adequately resourced in the
    Department of the Army. The Department of the Air Force,
    Department of Defense are dedicated to not sending any sons and
    daughters of this Nation into harm's way without the very best
    equipment possible. You'll find no difference between the
    National Guard and the active forces currently serving
    overseas.
        Back here at home, it's a different story. It's a much
    different story and it's not a good story. Most of the units in
    the Army and Air National Guard are underequipped for the jobs
    and the missions that they have to perform with no notice here
    at home.
        Can we do the job? Yes, we can. The lack of equipment makes
    it take longer to do that job. Lost time can translate into
    lost lives. Those lost lives are American lives. There will be
    those that say that we can't afford this kind of money to
    properly equip and train our National Guard.
        I take exception with anyone that would hold that opinion.
    I think that this Nation cannot afford the consequences of a
    non-ready Army and Air National Guard.
        In closing, I would reiterate to this subcommittee that in
    this 21st century, we face threats both here at home and
    overseas and that a strong, properly resourced National Guard,
    I think, is the best critical deterrent for any of our
    adversaries overseas that might miscalculate and think that we
    are unable to respond.
        So if we were more strongly resourced, equipped and trained
    here at home, it would have an additional benefit, in my view,
    of providing a credible deterrent to those who would wish ill
    against our Nation here at home or abroad.
        Thanks again for your historically generous support of your
    citizen-soldiers and airmen. Your past funding efforts with the
    National Guard and Reserve equipment account were able to
    deliver the capability that the American citizens expect out of
    their National Guard in minutes and hours, which truly are and
    want to remain the 21st century minute men and women for this
    Nation. With your help, we'll be able to do that.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        At this time, I'll turn it over to General Vaughn who will
    make some brief statement and then we'll stand ready to take
    any questions, sir--Mr. Chairman--that you might have.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, General.
        [The statement follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General H Steven Blum
        Chairman Inouye and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the state of
    readiness in the Army and Air National Guard. The Army and Air National
    Guard are engaged with our active component Army and Air Force
    counterparts in combat operations. You can be proud that the citizen-
    soldiers and airmen of your Army and Air National Guard are ready to
    answer the Nation's call to arms.
        The National Guardsmen who are mobilized and deployed overseas are
    superbly trained and equipped. Like their active duty counterparts,
    they are unquestionably the best trained and best equipped American
    fighting force in history. In the past four years, the increased
    operational tempo and, in the case of the Army National Guard, the need
    to cross-level personnel and equipment from non-deploying units to
    increase readiness of deploying units, has resulted in a decline of
    readiness for units here at home.
        The President's budget request is now before the Congress. That
    request includes an unprecedented commitment and investment by the Army
    to improve the equipment readiness of the Army National Guard. The
    President's budget also seeks the funding needed for the Air National
    Guard to continue to be fully-integrated modern total force partner for
    the Air Force. It is imperative that the National Guard receives the
    full support of Congress for every penny in that request.
        Last year, Congress provided $150 million for Army and Air National
    Guard in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account. Millions
    more were provided in Service procurement accounts. Congress also
    provided another $500 million as part of the broader Army reset funds.
    This was extremely helpful in addressing the equipment needs of our
    citizen-soldiers. The National Guard is tremendously grateful for this
    support. I must implore this committee, in the strongest possible way,
    to remain steadfast in your dedication to addressing the persistent
    equipment shortfalls we face.
        The Secretary of Defense's decision to limit Guard and Reserve
    mobilizations to 12 months is truly historic. His new mobilization
    policy will have significant positive long-term effects on personnel
    readiness, unit cohesion, and employer, family and public support. In
    order to give our soldiers a shorter total mobilization period and
    maximize time in theater for the combatant commander, it is imperative
    that we reduce post-mobilization training time prior to deployment and
    accomplish more of it at home station prior to the mobilization to
    active duty. We need the equipment to do that training.
        In fiscal year 2008, the Air National Guard is accepting risk in
    its modernization and recapitalization programs such as Precision
    Engagement, Datalink/Combat Identification, 24-hour operations, and
    Enhanced Survivability. In addition to the Air National Guard equipment
    needs, we have identified Air Guard funding challenges in the areas of
    transformation, Total Force Integration (TFI), Base Realignment and
    Closure Implementation, new mission bed down, recruiting, retraining,
    and other program shortfalls.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, your National Guard is fully up to the task of
    answering the call to duty. At the National Guard Bureau, we are
    absolutely committed to working closely with the Services to
    effectively implement fresh ideas and new approaches to meet the
    challenges we face today in such a way that our citizen-soldiers can be
    trained and ready to serve and that their service will be of a nature
    that they will continue to serve for years to come.
        I have included a copy of the 2008 National Guard Posture Statement
    for the record. We welcome your questions.
                   The National Guard Posture Statement 2008
                               executive summary
        September 11, 2001 was an abrupt and heinous wake up call for the
    United States, the National Guard and the American military. That day
    marked the beginning of a no-notice transformation of the National
    Guard, as our nation entered a new era--an era marked by suicide
    bombers, radical terrorists and a global threat very different than
    anything seen before. For the Minutemen and women of the National
    Guard, it was a call to arms, and they have been answering that call to
    support and defend America and its freedoms and our very way of life
    every day since.
        For the National Guard, it was a ``back to the future'' moment. A
    moment where we needed to take stock of the fact that we were no longer
    a federal strategic reserve, but rather warriors on the front line of a
    global war on terrorism. We had to recognize that our demonstrated
    ability to immediately respond, deploy and employ our forces on the
    home front for 370 years needed to grow to include the same capability
    in our federal missions. September 11, 2001 marked the birth of the
    full-spectrum, global Minuteman. Full spectrum readiness means homeland
    defense in depth. The historic and traditional Guard homeland defense
    mission had taken on a global importance while remaining the very
    foundation of American freedom. The Guard had to expand its readiness,
    agility and accessibility portfolios to include operations across the
    full spectrum of engagements.
        That new reality dictated that we be trained, equipped, manned and
    resourced to operate in all mission areas, and perform them
    simultaneously. The full spectrum of operations required us to take a
    hard look at where we were and determine what resources and initiatives
    were critical to evolving as the 21st century minutemen America needed.
        In just the last five years, the Guard has conducted a staggeringly
    diverse set of missions--from traditional state missions like military
    support to civil law enforcement and supporting civil agencies in local
    crisis and consequence management, to national-level missions like
    providing regional consequence management capabilities, conducting
    counter-narcotics missions, and supporting airport, border, and
    critical infrastructure security, to air sovereignty and ballistic
    missile defense of the homeland. Beyond our borders, the Guard's
    mission-set included not just the warfight overseas, but critical
    contributions to the theater security cooperation agreements of all our
    regional combatant commanders, such as our immensely successful State
    Partnership Program.
        The Guard has performed all of these diverse missions so well that
    the Department of Defense and the Congress are examining relationships
    and missions with a view to ensuring even greater capability for the
    modern, 21st century Minuteman. The National Guard provides an
    incredible array of capabilities to both our nation's President and its
    Governors.
        Central to achieving this greater capability was our effort to
    identify the critically essential organizations, equipment and training
    that would be necessary to accomplish the full range of potential
    missions here in America. These capabilities are the ``essential 10,''
    and they include: the right kind of joint, interagency,
    intergovernmental headquarters to manage operations and, receive,
    stage, and integrate follow-on forces; Weapons of Mass Destruction
    (WMD) detection and advisory capabilities; maintenance; engineer;
    aviation; medical; communications; transportation; security; and
    logistics capabilities. Four years after 9/11 the nation and the Guard
    were again tested with a second ``wake up'' call. The Guard's
    performance following Hurricane Katrina may go down in history as its
    finest hour, and in the process, America gained the context for better
    understanding its National Guard. Our nation's Governors--every one of
    them--reached out and willingly sent their own Guard troops to help
    their fellow Governors on the Gulf Coast through a set of existing
    compacts among the states, avoiding the delays inherent in the federal
    mission validation and mobilization process.
        The National Guard has transformed:
      --To ensure we are equal to the contemporary challenges we are asked
            to confront across the full spectrum of operations;
      --To ensure we have the right types of trained and ready
            capabilities, at the right levels in each of the states, to
            respond to the calls of the Governors; and
      --To fully leverage all of our war fight capabilities in times of
            domestic need.
        Our transformation combined with the commitment of our elected
    leaders at all levels allowed us to answer all calls to duty, meeting
    both global and domestic needs.
        The National Guard is essential to building coalition partnerships.
    The National Guard's State Partnership Program continues to grow and
    flourish as one of the most valuable theater security cooperation tools
    available to the regional combatant commanders. These partnerships are
    critically important to global peace, freedom and national security
    objectives. Just last Fall, the state of Ohio and the Republic of
    Serbia--a country we bombed less than a decade ago--sealed a historic
    State Partnership, a key component in the security cooperation plans of
    the U.S. State Department and the combatant commander in U.S. European
    Command. We now total 56 partnerships and anticipate more in the coming
    months. The Guard Partnership Program significantly empowers the
    regional combatant commanders' theater security cooperation efforts.
        The National Guard is integrated into the Homeland Security plans
    of every state and federal Homeland Defense plans. We exercise in our
    communities with the civilian emergency planners and emergency
    responders. The National Guard is a national treasure and a national
    bargain as well. It is providing real, critically needed skills and
    real capabilities--not just some PowerPoint slide promises that never
    materialize. For the National Guard, homeland security is deeds, not
    words.
        The Guard's progress and proven performance has been simply
    incredible. In five short years, the Guard has developed and delivered
    an incredible and unmatched array of critically needed homeland
    defense, homeland security and emergency response capabilities.
        Since the September 11 attacks, the National Guard has added forty-
    five weapons of mass destruction--civil support teams; seventeen
    chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive
    enhanced response force packages; fifty-four computer emergency
    response teams; six critical infrastructure protection-mission
    assurance assessment detachments; fifty-four rapid reaction forces;
    fifty-four 24-hour a day joint operations centers; and numerous other
    capabilities.
        This has all occurred at the same time the Guard is fighting the
    global war on terror, conducting homeland defense operations,
    supporting Governors' Homeland Security requirements, responding to
    catastrophes and disasters, and conducting domestic missions. In every
    theater, the Guard is there. In every operation, the Guard is there.
    That's the way it should be, because when you call out the Guard, you
    call out America. Few, if any, organizations anywhere in the world
    progressed this much on so many important issues in five short years.
        The Guard is the first military responder to the Governor's calls
    for assistance in securing the homeland. Through continuous
    collaboration, the Guard is strengthening its relationship with
    NORTHCOM to ensure synchronization of our military capabilities.
        The Guard has on numerous occasions since September 11, 2001,
    secured our nation's airports at the requests of the President and the
    Governors. The Guard is providing support to U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection--including the Presidentially-directed Operation Jump
    Start--and is providing deterrent and counter-terrorism forces. In New
    York armed Guardsmen have been on duty every day throughout the state
    since 9/11. It is all about protecting and saving American lives--
    anytime, anyplace--on land, at sea or in the air. It is the National
    Guard that delivers peace of mind and confidence in government.
        The National Guard continues to meet community needs through
    programs like: Counter drug support; drug Demand Reduction programs;
    family programs; innovative readiness training programs designed to
    meet community needs; rendering last honors to fallen veterans; and
    youth programs like the 30 ChalleNGe programs in 26 states.
        The National Guard has maintained its commitment to the Youth
    ChalleNGe program despite the many other demands on its time and
    resources. Helping at-risk high school dropouts regain their footing is
    an investment in America. The program has graduated some 60,000 youths,
    in the process saving many of them from either a cemetery or a jail
    cell. The National Guard is proud of its nationally recognized efforts
    to build a stronger, safer, more productive America.
        The Guard has proven its cost-effective capability across the full
    spectrum of operations. While providing more than a third of both the
    Army and Air Force's force structure, the Guard costs a fraction of
    that to maintain. And the National Guard investment goes even further
    for the American people because the Guard capabilities are immediately
    available nationwide to the Governors and the American people in time
    of need.
        Our nation's future defense challenges are daunting. The Guard's
    performance offers America options as we wrestle with the needs for
    increased military capabilities in an era of limited funding. The
    demonstrated performance of the Guard enables the Army and Air Force.
        The days of questioning whether the Guard can perform a given
    mission are long past. The only questions today are whether they want
    the Guard to perform the mission and whether they will resource the
    Guard to do so. Our Citizen-Soldiers and -Airmen want for nothing as
    far as equipment in the combat zone, and that's the way it should be.
    However, we have concern for missions here at home. Congress began
    addressing this situation in the past year, and the President's fiscal
    year 2008 Budget provides unprecedented levels of funding for the
    National Guard, particularly in ensuring that the Soldiers and Airmen
    deployed to combat are the best-equipped in the world. But it accepts
    risk in the areas of Homeland Defense, Homeland Security, and Military
    Support to Civil Authorities.
        Our priorities must remain focused on maintaining a fully manned,
    fully trained, fully equipped and fully resourced force. We must
    complete our transformation for 21st century missions, fully integrated
    with the Army and Air Force. Operationally, we must focus on full-
    spectrum readiness and leveraging joint capabilities. In summary, we
    must be trained, equipped and ready for both the seen and unforeseen
    challenges that lie ahead. The Guard must continue to embrace the
    Minuteman posture--ready at a moments notice to answer the call to the
    colors. Readiness starts with our people and we must continue to
    recruit and retain the best in America. We have done that, and the
    story of that success is one of the highlights of this past year. The
    key has been to reward our own people for spreading the good word about
    the Guard to their family and friends, building our strength one
    personal relationship at a time, getting back to our roots in the early
    days of the volunteer militia.
        Defying predictions that the Guard's numbers would shrink to
    324,000 Citizen-Soldiers in 2006, the Army Guard instead had its best
    year of recruiting in 35 years. Recruiting and retention must remain an
    absolute priority. To do this, we must continue to encourage an
    environment where our troops are supported by families, employers and
    communities.
        The National Guard has the capability to conduct operations across
    the full spectrum of engagements from domestic missions and emergency
    response, through homeland security and homeland defense, to the
    federal war fight and overseas missions. The governors--the commanders
    in chief of the Guard while not in federal service--need the Guard in
    order to respond to domestic crises and natural disasters. They also
    have equities in homeland defense and homeland security contingencies
    that overlap the federal responsibilities for these missions.

        In the chart above, state equities are illustrated by the gray bar,
    while federal equities are illustrated by the orange bar below it. The
    1-4-2-1 in the orange bar reflects the spectrum of federal military
    missions as defined by the National Military Strategy.
        The missions in the central gray area (written in blue) are tasks
    that combine state and federal equities, and that the Guard has
    performed in a Title 32 status--federally funded, but under state
    control. The missions in red toward the right of the spectrum are
    conducted in an entirely federal, Title 10 status. The missions written
    in orange to the far left--hundreds of them each year--are
    traditionally conducted in State Active Duty status and are entirely
    state-funded and state controlled.
        This new reality dictates that the Guard must be trained, equipped,
    manned and resourced to operate in all mission areas.
        We are working hard to ensure that every Army and Air Guard member
    knows what their organizational mission and its future looks like. The
    Guard has always been and always will remain a community-based force.
    We are focused on operational readiness to answer the calls of our
    Governors and the President, seamlessly integrate with the active
    components, and meet the needs of the combatant commanders. We remain
    engaged in the interagency and intergovernmental arenas, and local
    communities. And, finally, with the assistance of Congress, we will
    continue to transform to remain ready, reliable, essential and
    accessible. The National Guard--Always Ready, Always There
     lieutenant general clyde a. vaughn, vice chief, national guard bureau
                       and director, army national guard
                ``serving a nation at war: at home and abroad''
                           message from the director
        What a year! The Army National Guard (ARNG) dealt with many
    challenges and changes during 2006. Units came home from overseas
    deployments as new units were called up, trained and sent to Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Operations continued in the Balkans and up to 6,000 Army
    National Guard Soldiers reported to the Southwest border to help U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection stop illegal immigrants and drug
    trafficking during Operation Jump Start. Guard Soldiers also assisted
    with emergencies created by snow, floods and landslides throughout the
    United States at the same time that the Army Guard shifted its force
    structure to a modular design. As we begin our 370th year, the ARNG
    continues to be an important element in the nation's emergency
    preparedness network with missions both at home and abroad.
        It's difficult to prioritize the numerous successes the ARNG
    achieved in 2006, but if there is one, it is in the recruiting and
    retention area. This revolutionary change and effort by the states
    really highlights the care that our Soldiers have received from the
    local communities and leadership. We're at an all-time high in terms of
    pride in the organization. Our recruiting efforts are about having
    great recruiters. The G-RAP program (the Guard Recruiting Assistance
    Program provides bonuses to Guard Soldiers for recruiting new members)
    is second to none. It has put us in great shape for the future.
        The ARNG is also adaptive to change and has gone through an
    evolutionary restructuring since the early 1990's. Since then, the ARNG
    has transformed to meet the demands of a new global environment. Along
    with the Army, we are undergoing a modular force conversion which
    converts our formations from a division-centric force (18,000 Soldiers)
    to a more flexible brigade-centric force (4,000 Soldiers). This
    transformation creates forces that are stand-alone and alike (modular)
    while enhancing their full-spectrum capabilities. The ARNG Brigade
    Combat Teams are structured and manned identically to those in the
    Active Army.
        This Posture Statement provides you with details about how the ARNG
    continues to defend our nation at home and abroad. As you read this,
    please know that the National Guard remains Always Ready, Always There.
                                homeland defense
    Readiness of the Army National Guard
        The Army has continued to use Army National Guard units as an
    operational reserve. Readiness of our units that have mobilized and
    deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has been
    maintained at the high levels required to successfully carry out those
    missions. With the reset of units returning from deployments or from
    transforming units, as shown in the modular force conversion section,
    manning, equipping and training levels reflect decreased readiness as
    measured against modular organizations. ARNG readiness is managed by
    prioritizing limited resources using the Army Force Generation
    (ARFORGEN) cycles in support of the National Military Strategy.
        The ARFORGEN model provides predictability to potential time-frames
    at which ARNG units might be called to active federal service. The ARNG
    has arrayed all its units into the model to account for when they can
    be reasonably expected to be in one of three force pools--Reset/Train,
    Ready, or Available. One of the important benefits of using the model
    is that it assists ARNG decision makers at all levels as they determine
    the best time to convert units to modular designs. This is a key tool
    in not only managing conversion efforts, but also to meet the NGB goal
    of having at least 50 percent of the Army and Air forces at any given
    time available to the Governors and Adjutants General.
        Fiscal year 2006 saw a continuation of heavy demands on personnel
    and declines in equipment on hand due to increased mobilizations,
    deployments, and funding. The ARNG successfully met all mission
    requirements and continued to support the Global War on Terrorism.
    Since September 11, 2001, the Army National Guard has deployed over
    258,607 personnel. As of September 30, 2006, over 35,217 Guardsmen were
    serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom (153,578 to date), over 7,121 in
    Operation Enduring Freedom (39,289 to date), and over 482 in Operation
    Noble Eagle (35,158 to date). Additionally, 5,252 personnel are
    currently serving in support of the Southwest Border Mission. Since
    July 2002, overall unit readiness has decreased by 49.25 percent while
    providing personnel and equipment to units to ensure fully manned and
    equipped National Guard forces for deployment. The following areas
    decreased during the same period: Personnel 46.95 percent, Training
    21.65 percent, Equipment-on-Hand 45.93 percent, and Equipment Readiness
    4.67 percent.
        Entering the sixth year of GWOT operations (and looking back on the
    fifth year), the Army National Guard continued to support the
    requirements of Combatant Commanders as discussed in more detail below.
    Despite significant help from Congress and the President, we continue
    to face challenges in resourcing those requirements. These are
    discussed throughout the report. Initiatives in recruiting have
    increased the end strength of the Army National Guard to authorized
    levels. Programmed funding for procurement, if executed as planned,
    will bring ARNG equipping levels to over 90 percent by not later than
    fiscal year 2013. However, in the short term, units nearing deployment
    will continue to receive the priority for equipment, which may affect
    the availability of equipment needed for modular conversions.
    Modular Force Conversion
        The Army National Guard continues to support the Army's goal to
    restructure its forces to modular designs that produce stand-alone
    units capable of full-spectrum operations. This transformation effort
    impacts over 87 percent of ARNG units across the 54 states and
    territories and crosses every functional capability in the force. Using
    the Army Campaign Plan and Total Army Analysis as the roadmap, the ARNG
    finds itself in a position to complete Army Modular Force Conversion by
    the end of fiscal year 2008.

        Since the release of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review which
    called for 28 ARNG Brigade Combat Teams, by charter of the Chief of
    Staff of the Army, the Army and ARNG created a consortium comprised of
    select Adjutants General to work through challenges presented by having
    6 fewer Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) than the thirty-four originally
    programmed and to advise him on the BCT mix. This group advises the
    Chief, National Guard Bureau and the Director, Army National Guard as
    they begin rebalancing ARNG force structure to address both Federal and
    domestic missions in light of Modular Redesign.
    Equipping for the Future
        ARNG units are scheduled to complete conversion to new equipment
    designs within the Army's modular force by 2008. They are expected to
    be fully equipped for these designs in 2013.
        From an equipping perspective, the GWOT and Transformation each
    cause the ARNG different challenges. While the GWOT has reduced the
    equipment available to non-deployed ARNG units, Transformation has
    increased overall equipment requirements. The combination of these
    factors has adversely affected ARNG equipping levels to the point where
    the average non-deployed unit has only 39 percent of authorized
    equipment needed to conduct training, future deployments, and respond
    to Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) missions. Prior to
    September 11, 2001, the ARNG's priority equipment on hand was 75
    percent. Further, by subtracting unacceptable/non-deployable substitute
    items, the equipment on hand balance falls to an even lower level.
        One of the critical ARNG shortages is modern wheeled vehicles. The
    Army pledged to maintain projected ARNG distribution of the critical
    Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) procurement levels despite a
    recent reprogramming action that decremented the total Army FMTV
    procurement account by $200 million. The Army support for ARNG FMTV
    procurement is a true indication of the Army's commitment to re-
    equipping the ARNG.
    Dual Mission Operations
        The Army National Guard fulfills a vital role in the nation's
    defense at home and abroad by providing crucial combat, combat support,
    and combat service support units to the combatant commanders, the Army,
    joint/combined forces, and the states and territories. The Army
    National Guard provides ready forces capable of performing full-
    spectrum operations in support of our civil and military leadership. As
    we enter the sixth year of war, the Army National Guard is well
    established as a battle hardened and respected fighting force.
        The Guard consistently proves itself capable of operating across
    the wide spectrum of missions. This includes urban combat and
    stability/support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of
    Africa, peacekeeping in the Sinai and Balkans, security operations in
    Guantanamo Bay, as well as homeland defense and defense support to
    civil authorities within the United States.
        For Operation Jump Start, the Presidential initiative to support
    the Southwest border states, the Army National Guard deploys to
    California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas in one of three categories:
      --Forward Deployed.--Troops are deployed within the Border Patrol
            sector, fulfilling U.S. Customs and Border Protection-assigned
            duties in direct support of the Border Patrol. To support
            efforts to deter and apprehend illegal aliens and drugs from
            crossing the border, these troops fill critical border security
            missions, including identifying and locating people attempting
            to enter illegally, building fences, maintaining vehicles, and
            performing administrative and support duties to help Border
            Patrol agents return to the front lines.
      --At Joint Task Force Headquarters.--Troops perform command and
            control functions and provide oversight for training.
      --In Training/Transition.--Troops deploy within the border states and
            engage in preparatory training in rules for use of force,
            cultural awareness and desert survival, and in specific
            training to perform border security duties that are assigned by
            U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As with any mission,
            training is a critical component to ensure that National Guard
            troops are fully prepared to perform their duties.

    Aviation
        Fiscal year 2006 was an exceptional year for ARNG Aviation. We have
    contributed more than 60,000 flying hours to the Global War on
    Terrorism, have flown an average of 8.7 hours per month per aircrew in
    home station aviation unit training, and accomplished these missions
    with a focus on safety and high standards. This past year was also a
    transitional year which sets in place the foundation for our new
    identity in Army Aviation. The activations of the Security and Support
    Battalions and the selection of the Light Utility Helicopter, the gains
    made in the transition to new units, and the formulation of the
    ARFORGEN training resource model will all serve to define the ARNG
    Aviation program for the next generation. As aircraft were distributed
    to modernize units, aircrew qualification and proficiency training was
    accelerated to prepare for upcoming deployments.
    Support the Warfight
                End-Strength, Accessions, and Attrition
        Fiscal year 2006 was a watershed year in terms of revitalizing the
    ARNG strength maintenance program and our growth in end-strength. The
    strategy is working. Focus, leadership and accountability, increased
    recruiter manning levels, and innovative programs have positioned the
    ARNG for success in fiscal year 2007 and beyond. End strength is
    rising, accessions continue to outpace previous annual records and even
    with extended deployments, our retention rates are exceeding
    expectations. The ARNG is committed to achieving the congressionally
    directed end-strength of 350,000 Soldiers for the Army National Guard.
    The ARNG end-strength at the end of fiscal year 2006 was 346,288
    Soldiers. In fiscal year 2006, the ARNG added more end strength than
    all other Army components combined. This represents a net growth in end
    strength of 13,111 Soldiers in one year. With heavy deployments, both
    at home and abroad, this was an outstanding accomplishment. Command
    emphasis was also instrumental in achieving a strong retention rate of
    118 percent.
        Much of our 2006 recruiting success was due to a revolutionary
    recruiting program called the Guard Recruiting Assistant Program (G-
    RAP). This program utilizes a performance based contract vehicle for
    Soldiers to recruit for the ARNG while under a civilian contract. These
    contract employees are called Recruiting Assistants (RAs). The RA is
    paid $1,000 once a potential Soldier enlists and another $1,000 when
    the new Soldier departs for Basic Combat Training. As of September 30,
    there were 88,900 RAs and 15,106 actual enlistments. Another recruiting
    program, entitled Every Soldier a Recruiter, was introduced to all Army
    components. This program enables Soldiers, including Active Guard
    Reserve Soldiers, to recommend non-prior service individuals to join
    any Army component. Once that Soldier enlists and completes Initial
    Entry Training, the referring Soldier is paid $1,000. As of the end of
    fiscal year 2006, the ARNG had enlisted 758 new soldiers under this
    program. The ARNG is optimistic and confident that with programs like
    G-RAP and ESAR we will continue to grow the force and have manned units
    to meet all missions.
                Full-Time Support
        Events during the past year have continued to highlight the Army
    National Guard's critical role in supporting our nation's defense and
    security. While our Soldiers were deployed on critical missions around
    the world or redeploying to the United States from Iraq and
    Afghanistan, they were also supporting their communities, providing
    fire fighting support, disaster relief, community support, airport
    security, and border security. As this report goes to press, ARNG
    Soldiers are assisting other federal agencies with surveillance,
    reconnaissance, security and other support to help stem the flow of
    illegal drugs, immigrants, and possible terrorists, from entry into
    this country. No other DOD component indeed, no component of the
    federal government, can provide the broad range of operational
    capabilities that the Guard provides to the nation.

        One of the critical keystones to these capabilities is our Full-
    time support force, which enables and provides the training, planning,
    and preparations for Soldiers and unit operations and readiness. This
    support force is responsible for organizing, administering, training,
    and recruiting new personnel, as well as maintaining equipment. Full-
    time support personnel are key to successful transitions from peacetime
    to wartime and are critical links to the integration of the Army's
    components: Active, Guard, and Reserve.
        Even as the Army's and the nation's expectations and use of the
    Guard have increased in numbers, frequency and types of operations,
    support for our full-time force has continued at pre-9/11 levels, and
    the relatively small annual growth agreed to in 1998 is at risk. The
    National Guard is at the lowest of all Reserve Components for full time
    support. In order to ensure a C1 fully operational force, it is
    critical that we increase full time support to a minimum of 90 percent
    of total validated requirements. The shift from a strategic reserve to
    an operational reserve has further strained the current full time
    support force and has hindered critically essential improvements to
    unit readiness and support to the dual missions of Global War on
    Terrorism and Homeland Security, in addition to the Guard's state
    responsibilities for disaster relief.
                Facility Operations and Maintenance
        The ARNG operates more than 27,000 facilities, including more than
    2,900 readiness centers, in nearly 2,700 communities in 50 states, 2
    territories, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of
    Columbia. The sustainment, restoration, and modernization program is
    key to the training, readiness, and mobilization of the ARNG. This
    program keeps ARNG facilities in good working order by funding
    preventive maintenance, emergency work orders, and repairs and
    replacements to facility components. It also funds projects required to
    extend the useful life of the facilities and for minor construction
    required to make them more efficient and adaptable to mission changes.
    Continued acceptance of risk in this program threatens to further
    decelerate this critical component of ready forces.

                Military Construction Program
        The Army National Guard received over $1.1 billion in military
    construction funds for 91 projects in fiscal year 2006. This is about
    $717 million and 42 projects more than last year. Funding for Hurricane
    Katrina and BRAC projects were the basis for this increase. The
    breakout is as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Military Construction...................................             523
    Katrina Supplemental....................................             584
    BRAC....................................................              56
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The implementation of BRAC enabled the Army National Guard to
    greatly enhance its military value to the Army. It will also improve
    the Army National Guard's homeland defense capability and improve
    training and deployment. Overall, BRAC has enabled the Army National
    Guard to obtain significant efficiencies and cost savings through the
    removal of 211 inadequate undersized Army National Guard facilities in
    32 states. Closing these facilities will be offset by the construction
    of modern facilities that are designed to support the unit and other
    local Guard and Reserve units that will be stationed there.
                Environmental Program
        The ARNG Environmental Program made great progress in fiscal year
    2006 even as compliance driven requirements increased. The program is
    responsible for maintaining compliance with all applicable federal,
    state and local environmental requirements in the 54 states and
    territories with a constrained budget of $129.5 million. Two additional
    major accomplishments this year were the successful preparation of 105
    National Environmental Policy Act documents to support $1.2 billion in
    MILCON projects in 40 states, and a second full year of compliance-
    clean up program efforts as evidenced by the identification of 120 new
    sites that require clean-up actions.
                Logistics-Depot Maintenance
        Funding for the Army National Guard's depot maintenance requirement
    was increased by 6.4 percent between fiscal years 2006 and 2007. In
    2006, the ARNG Depot Maintenance Program accepted some risk when it was
    funded at $228.3 million. During fiscal year 2007, the amount of
    equipment qualifying for depot repair increased by 32.9 percent. This
    increase was due primarily to the rebuild of the Army National Guard's
    aged tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. In addition, the program continues
    to address near term equipment readiness issues with M88A1 Recovery
    Vehicles and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS).
        During 2006 the Army National Guard depot program funded the
    overhaul of 2,443 tactical vehicles (5 ton trucks, tractors, dump
    trucks and High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), 30 M978
    Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTT), 27 M88A1 Recovery
    Vehicles, 42 MW24C Scoop Loaders, 10 Graders, 15 Scrapers, 5 MLRS
    launchers, 23 Fork Lifts, and three M109A6 Paladins.

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

        The Training and Education submission is dedicated to Mr. Thomas
    ``Tommy'' Hill. Tommy served the ARNG with distinction for more than
    sixty years and is known as the father of the State Officer Candidate
    School.

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

                Training and Education
        Despite heavy demands on personnel, the Army National Guard
    continues to meet or exceed training and education requirements.
    Deploying well trained and qualified soldiers and units requires
    thorough planning and effective execution from our training teams.
        In fiscal year 2006, the ARNG distributed over $321 million in
    school funding to the states and territories for Initial Skills
    Acquisition, Professional Development, and Duty Military Occupational
    Skill Qualifications (DMOSQ). We fell short of our critical
    requirements in this area. The Total Army School System schoolhouses
    also received about $51 million.
        The ARNG worked with the Active Component to further refine
    ARFORGEN in the Army Campaign Plan. The ARNG developed training models
    that predict increasing resources and training events to coincide with
    increased readiness leading up to unit availability for deployment. The
    ARNG conducted an eXportable Training Capability (XCTC) event at Camp
    Atterbury, Indiana for a battalion of the 76th Brigade Combat Team.
    XCTC is designed as a culminating event in the ARNG ARFORGEN training
    model, an event designed to demonstrate company proficiency. XCTC will
    mitigate the shortfall of Combat Training Center events currently
    available to the ARNG.
        The ARNG assigned strength ending fiscal year 2006 was 346,301
    Soldiers, of which 76.6 percent were DMOSQ. Accurate reporting of DMOSQ
    is critical in assessing and forecasting future training requirements.
    The ARNG improved its ability to report DMOSQ percentages with support
    from the ARNG Readiness Improvement Program (ARIP). ARIP assisted in
    identifying and analyzing the individual training needs to meet or
    exceed the required readiness levels necessary to mobilize units.
    Phased mobilization is the individual and collective training that a
    Soldier receives two to four months prior to being mobilized with his/
    her unit. It is a planned, phased schedule that brings the Soldiers
    together fully trained and mission ready. Priority of phase
    mobilization training is DMOSQ (RECLASS), initial military training,
    professional military training, additional skill identifier, leader
    development and new equipment training. Nationwide, the 81 ARNG
    regional training institutes maintained a 91.8 percent graduation rate
    (84,250 Soldiers). It is the goal of ARNG leadership to fill the
    institutes to their full capacity of 190,136 students.
        The Sustainable Range Program, through the Range and Training Land
    Program and the Integrated Training Area Management Program, provide
    support for the operations and maintenance of ranges and maneuver land.
    These programs funded support of operations and training on
    approximately two million acres of land, 2,500 ranges, and at more than
    115 ARNG Training Centers. As the focal point for pre-deployment
    training, the ARNG maintains 16 major training centers. In 2006, the
    ARNG also invested in fifteen major range construction projects in
    Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Vermont, Missouri, and Mississippi,
    in support of the ARNG ARFORGEN range strategy. To date, the Army
    National Guard has approximately 200 ranges that still require upgrades
    to meet Army standards.
        Utilization of the Army Distributed Learning Program increased and
    sustained readiness levels by delivering quality training to Soldiers
    when and where the training was required. Users of Distributed Learning
    training products increased to 211,000 in fiscal year 2006 from the
    98,000 in the previous year. Courseware was developed in 2006 to
    support ARNG ARFORGEN and transformation training strategies that
    included Military Occupational Specialties and Functional Area
    producing courses, as well as Professional Military Education and
    courseware for unit training.
                Army Communities of Excellence
        The mission of the Army Communities of Excellence Program (ACOE) is
    to provide a quality environment, excellent facilities, and services.
    States and installations that accept the challenge to participate in
    the ARNG Communities of Excellence Program have a proven record of
    Readiness for Soldiers and units whether at home or abroad. The ACOE
    performance is measured by using the Army Performance Improvement
    Criteria--commonly known as APIC. As a self-assessment tool, the APIC
    has proven invaluable as an approach to implementation of organization-
    wide improvement. Although the ACOE Program makes annual awards, the
    goal of the ACOE program is sustained improvements in the mission
    readiness of our Soldiers and their units through continuous
    improvement in the following areas: Well-being of Soldiers and their
    families; prioritization and management of limited resources; relations
    with communities within and beyond the Installation; and sustainability
    of Installations.
        In fiscal year 2006, 22 ARNG communities participated in the ACOE
    Program competition, which focuses on the improvement in excellence
    made in states and at installations, and in the quality of life of our
    Soldiers, civilians, and their families. The Joint Force Headquarters-
    Ohio was selected as the overall ARNG 2006 winner and represented the
    Army National Guard at the Department of Army ACOE Award Ceremony in
    May 2006.
                Information Technology
        The Information Technology (IT) infrastructure supports the entire
    Army National Guard. Programs include Long Haul Communications, Base
    Communications, Automation, Administrative Services, Visual Information
    and Audio Support, and IT Information Assurance.
        During fiscal year 2006, our IT organization was resourced at $222
    million and 64 percent of this funding was distributed directly to the
    54 states and territories. The remaining 36 percent was centrally
    executed in support of the Enterprise IT infrastructure. Over $88
    million of the budget (40 percent of the IT funding) was executed in
    base communications. These resources supported the processing and
    storage of over 100 software applications at each United States
    Property and Fiscal Office, state headquarters, and the Army National
    Guard Readiness Center.
        In support of the CNGBs mandate to improve interagency
    communications during domestic emergencies, the ARNG IT team
    coordinated the acquisition of Land Mobile Radios (LMRs), as well as a
    contingency stockage level, for the hurricane-prone states. The ARNG IT
    team also provided support and coordination for the Southwest border
    mission.
    Transformation for the Future
                Personnel Transformation
        The Army National Guard Personnel Division is committed to
    transforming the human resources strategic and operational policies,
    programs, and procedures for all members of the Army National Guard.
    When implemented in 2008, the Defense Integrated Military Human
    Resources System will be the largest personnel and pay system in the
    world. Army National Guard Soldiers deployed all over the globe will
    have global access at any time, anywhere. This system will
    revolutionize the quality and speed of personal human resources
    support. With access to the internet, the individual ARNG Soldier can
    update changes in pay profiles (withholding amounts) to promotion board
    entries, reassignment requests and even changes for dependent family
    members. These are only a few examples of how the ARNG is transforming
    its way of taking care of Soldiers.
        The organizational structure of human resources support for the
    commander is changing as well. An ARNG personnel services initiative
    re-engineers the operational and institutional human resources
    processes for mobilized forces. The new designs will eliminate layers
    and redundancy and increase the effectiveness of personnel processes. A
    sign of the times was the conversion of paper personnel records for the
    approximately 300,000 enlisted Soldiers (more than 25.6 million images)
    in the Army National Guard into the Personnel Electronic Records
    Management System (PERMS) was completed in March 2006.
                Medical Readiness
        The large numbers of ARNG Soldiers mobilized in support of the
    Global War on Terrorism have made individual medical readiness (IMR) an
    issue that can no longer be ignored. The IMR requirements (physicals,
    immunizations, and dental screenings) have lacked standard definitions
    and have experienced other challenges in the Reserve Component. The
    Department of Defense has worked to better define medical readiness,
    however, medical readiness does not always equate to deployability. As
    of August 1, 2006 the ARNG was only 20 percent fully medically ready
    using DOD standards. Yet the ARNG has successfully deployed over
    263,000 Soldiers since 9/11 and has dramatically reduced the numbers of
    non-deployable Soldiers who report to the mobilization stations. While
    Congress has acted to increase the frequency of medical screening,
    there is no evidence that increased screening improves deployability.
    Without the authority and resources to correct deficiencies found
    during screening, the readiness status of the force will not
    substantively change.
                Post Deployment Health Reassessment
        In March 2005, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
    Affairs directed the establishment of the Post Deployment Health
    Reassessment. The program is designed to identify health concerns that
    may not become evident until several months following return from
    operational deployment. This program provides a global health
    assessment, with an emphasis on mental health, three-to-six months
    after a deployment.
        As a Commander's program, the Post Deployment Health Reassessment
    is designed to assist our Soldiers to gain access to medical care and
    navigate the available health care services and benefits to which they
    are entitled as Combat Veterans. The Army National Guard's Post
    Deployment Health Reassessment Program helps to ensure that Soldiers
    have the opportunity to identify their specific health care concerns
    and speak with a health care provider.
        An integral part of the assessment is Battlemind II Training,
    developed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, to alert
    Soldiers to the potential challenges of reintegration and to de-
    stigmatize behavioral health issues. The Department of Veteran's
    Affairs has been an invaluable partner in providing support by
    educating Soldiers about their benefits and entitlements and providing
    both physical and mental health care treatment through Veteran's Health
    Administration Healthcare Facilities and Vet Centers in their local
    communities.
        The Army National Guard Post Deployment Health Reassessment Program
    has focused on educating Soldiers, Family Members, and Commanders on
    the health care benefits and resources available to them. A significant
    component of our strategic communication plan is the creation of an
    information portal hosted on the Army National Guard's Virtual Armory
    Website. It provides a comprehensive Commander's Toolkit which includes
    policies, procedures, and information from supporting agencies relevant
    to the Post Deployment Health Reassessment.
        The Army National Guard continues to lead the Army's effort to
    provide this valuable program to our Soldiers. In fiscal year 2006, the
    Army National Guard screened 25,793 Combat Veterans. In fiscal year
    2007 we will provide the program to over 50,000 Soldiers who will
    return from a combat deployment. This valuable program will continue to
    identify deployment related health concerns of our Soldiers and ensure
    that they have access to the care to which they are entitled, while
    remaining a part of a ready force.
                Family Assistance Centers
        In 2006, the Army National Guard continued to provide family
    assistance to deployed Guard and Reserve service members and their
    families. Services were also provided to geographically-dispersed
    Active Component family members. As the Army lead agency for the
    establishment and execution of family assistance, the Army National
    Guard operated an average of 400 Family Assistance Centers each month
    in fiscal year 2006.
        Support is available throughout all phases of deployment;
    preparation (pre-deployment), sustainment (actual deployment), and
    reunion (reintegration): and is critical to the long-term health and
    welfare of the family unit. The primary services provided by the
    centers are information, referral, outreach, and follow-up to ensure a
    satisfactory result. In fiscal year 2006, the Guard Family Management
    System was developed to track referrals and the outreach process to
    better serve our service members and their families.
        The continued operation of the Family Assistance Centers in 2007 is
    necessary to support the Global War on Terrorism as we provide support
    services to our dispersed family members for the long-term welfare of
    the family unit.
    lieutenant general craig r. mckinley, vice chief, national guard bureau
                        and director, air national guard
                           message from the director
        Today's Citizen Airmen epitomize the enthusiasm, adaptability and
    innovative spirit of America. Everyday they are called upon to defend
    the freedoms of this great nation and help our citizens in times of
    crisis. They are the embodiment of our militia heritage and the future
    of our Air Force.
        The Air National Guard is an invaluable resource for the Air Force
    and the Governors, transitioning seamlessly between federal and state
    roles. Overseas, our military experience (Air National Guard officers'
    average 18 years total service; our enlisted members average 14 years)
    and civilian skills have proven invaluable to prosecuting the Global
    War on Terrorism (GWOT). Since the events of September 11, 2001 our
    Expeditionary Combat and Combat Support units have filled over 140,000
    individual deployment requirements. In addition to meeting training and
    readiness requirements, Air National Guard aircraft have flown over
    176,000 sorties as part of air defense and Air Expeditionary Forces in
    support of the GWOT. That's an average of 90 sorties each day, every
    day, for more than five years! At home, the Hurricane Katrina relief
    effort brought into sharp focus our role as America's Hometown Air
    Force. We flew over 3,000 sorties, moved over 30,000 passengers, and
    hauled over 11,000 tons of desperately needed supplies into Gulf Coast
    airfields, some of which Guard personnel opened and operated. Our Air
    National Guard Special Operations troops, or Battlefield Airmen,
    rescued 1,443 people--heroically pulling stranded Americans off
    rooftops to safety. Air National Guard medical units treated over
    15,000 patients at eight sites along the Gulf Coast, combining expert
    medical care with compassion for our fellow Americans. All these
    numbers tell our story: a story of America's Hometown Air and Space
    Force--always ready when you need us.
        The role of the Air National Guard in the 21st century will be
    defined not only by where we have been but where we are going. We can
    look back on our 370 years of militia heritage with justifiable pride.
    And while the future is always uncertain, there are steps we can take
    now to ensure the Air National Guard will remain an important part of
    our nation's defense.
        Our role within the Air Force has matured and changed over the past
    decade and a half. Since 1989, the active duty Air Force has reduced
    its forces by 210,000 personnel and 2,800 aircraft and relied on the
    Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve to fill the gap. The ability
    of the Air National Guard to add a critical surge capability through
    the use of its traditional force increases the efficiency of the active
    duty Air Force.
        In addition to our combatant commanders' requirements for Air
    National Guard capabilities, our 54 states and territories have their
    local requirements, and these needs must be addressed in the Air Force
    planning and programming processes. Defense of the Homeland is the top
    priority of the National Military Strategy, and the Governors rely on
    their Air and Army National Guard to deal with everything from
    blizzards and hurricanes to pandemic flu and the possibility of a
    terrorist incident. Due to the unique nature of our state mission, the
    Air National Guard has to do a better job of explaining its
    multifaceted roles, obligations and responsibilities to its
    stakeholders and the active duty Air Force.
        One of my initial three goals after my appointment as director was
    to rebuild the trust of the Adjutants General. To further that goal, I
    asked that the strategic planning process charter be rewritten. Now a
    new team of representatives drawn from the field at the general
    officer, colonel and senior enlisted levels ensures their voices are
    heard as we work with our partners in the USAF to develop a strategic
    vision for the Air National Guard of tomorrow.
        The second of my goals was to reconnect with the U.S. Air Force. In
    an effort to reacquaint ourselves fully with our active duty partners,
    we've begun to slowly integrate parts of the Air National Guard
    Directorate and the Headquarters Air Force staffs to facilitate better
    decisions for the Air National Guard and the Air Force. As 24 percent
    of the Air Force, we look forward to both participating as a full
    partner in shaping policy, by influencing programming and planning
    decisions up front, instead of coordinating and responding at the last
    minute. America benefits the most when ANG attributes like stability,
    experience, civilian skills, and community roots are effectively
    leveraged within one Air Force.
        We are committed to serving our state's and the nation's needs by
    assisting them with training, technical assistance and effective, up-
    to-date resources and tools. Emerging Air National Guard leaders must
    be able to move seamlessly between federal and state leadership
    positions, bridging the gap between state and federal missions to
    ensure the resources and tools we have are the ones we need.
        To meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, it is vital to have
    an organization that is leaner and more responsive to changing
    requirements. The third of my initial goals was ``getting the
    organization right,'' and we've gone about it in a number of ways.
        First, we examined many of our business practices using Air Force
    Smart Operations for the 21st Century, or the AFSO21 process, a
    combination of Lean, Six Sigma and other proven business process
    engineering programs. The goal is to save money by eliminating
    outdated, inefficient, duplicate or overly complex ways of doing
    business.
        We've modernized and updated our advisory councils to make them
    more open and accountable to the Adjutants General and National Guard
    Bureau leadership. We've asked former directors of the Air National
    Guard and retired senior noncommissioned and commissioned officers to
    participate in a Minuteman Heritage to Horizon group, our counterpart
    to the Air Force Chief of Staff's initiative. These ``grey beards''
    bring a wealth of experience and wisdom to our discussions about the
    future.
        Finally we've taken a long look at our Air Directorate, how we're
    organized, who our customers are, and how to best meet customer's
    needs. The building much of the directorate staff occupies right now in
    Arlington, Virginia, is on the BRAC list and is scheduled to close in
    2010. This has given us a perfect opportunity to decide where to
    station our people for best utilization within the Air Force as well as
    meeting the day-to-day requirements of Air National Guard wings,
    multiple detachments, and personnel attached to units throughout the
    world. The newly dedicated Conaway Hall, home of the Air National Guard
    Readiness Center, will provide a ``one-stop shop'' to manage our daily
    operations, while a small staff who work with me, and the integrated
    headquarters staff at the Pentagon will focus on the strategic planning
    and programming needs of the Air National Guard and the Air Force.
        To complement the success we've had with my initial goals I have
    developed priorities for the rest of my tenure that will set us on a
    successful course through the next generation of the Air National
    Guard. To meet the challenges of tomorrow we must shape our environment
    to Develop Adaptable Airmen, who have the knowledge and training to
    react and succeed in any new mission, even one we may not even have
    thought of yet. The Air National Guard will continue to secure the
    Homefront while defending the nation. Finally, we must transform
    ourselves into a capabilities-based force, unbound by old missions and
    ideas from the last century, ready to meet the challenges of an
    information age.
        Our posture statement details how we will use these three
    priorities--Developing Adaptable Airmen, Securing the Homefront while
    defending the nation, and Transforming our Force--to remain a force
    that Guards America and Defends Freedom.
    Homeland Defense
                Air Sovereignty Alert
        Since September 11, 2001, thousands of Air National Guardsmen have
    been mobilized to operate alert sites and alert support sites for
    Operation Noble Eagle in support of Homeland Defense. Our ANG has
    partnered with active duty and reserve forces to provide combat air
    patrol, random patrols, and aircraft intercept protection for large
    cities and high-valued assets in response to the increased terrorist
    threat. The ANG has assumed the responsibility of all ground alert
    sites and some irregular combat air patrol periods. This partnering
    agreement maximizes our nation's current basing locations and
    capitalizes on the high experience levels within the ANG and its
    professional history in Air Defense operations.
                Space Operations: Using the Stars to Serve the Community
        For the Air Guard, space operations provide a critical
    communications link to communities throughout the nation in the form of
    satellite support for everyday uses, television, computers, and
    wireless phones, but also serve as an important military deterrence
    from external threats. Colorado's 137th Space Warning Squadron provides
    mobile survivable and endurable missile warning capability to U.S.
    Strategic Command. Recently, Air National Guard units in Wyoming and
    California have come out of conversion to provide operational command
    and control support to Northern Command and to provide round-the-clock
    support to the Milstar satellite constellation. Alaska's 213th Space
    Warning Squadron ensures America's defense against nuclear threat by
    operating one of our nation's Solid State Phased Array Radar that
    provides missile warning and space surveillance.
        The Air Force has approved space missions for the 119th Command and
    Control Squadron in Tennessee to support the U.S. Strategic Command,
    and the 114th Range Flight in Florida is partnered with an active Air
    Force unit performing the Launch Range safety mission. There are future
    plans by the Air Force to transition additional space program missions
    and assets in Alaska and other states to Air National Guard control.
    Support the Warfight
                Medical Service Transformation--Expeditionary Combat
                        Support, Homeland Defense, and Wing Support
        The Air National Guard's Surgeon General led the Air National Guard
    Medical Service through its most revolutionary transformation in
    history by reconfiguring its medical capabilities into Expeditionary
    Medical Support systems. These systems provide highly mobile,
    integrated and multifunctional medical response capabilities. They are
    the lightest, leanest and most rapidly deployable medical platforms
    available to the ANG today. This system is capable of simultaneously
    providing Expeditionary Combat Support to the warfighter for Air and
    Space Expeditionary Force missions, Homeland Defense emergency response
    capabilities to the states and support to the Air National Guard Wings.
    The Expeditionary Medical Support capability allowed ten percent of Air
    National Guard medical unit personnel to deploy for Operation Iraqi
    Freedom, compared to only three percent in the early 1990s for
    deployments for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The U.S.
    Central Command has validated that the Expeditionary Medical Support
    system is a perfect fit for the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force Global
    Strike Task Force and Concept of Operations.
        The Expeditionary Medical Support system also plays a critical role
    in Homeland Defense. The ANG Medical Service plays a vital role in the
    development and implementation of the National Guard's Chemical,
    Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosive Enhanced
    Response Force Package. This package will provide support to state and
    local emergency responders and improve Weapons of Mass Destruction
    response capabilities in support of the Civil Support Teams. The ANG
    has contributed to the 12 trained CERFP teams and will build towards 76
    Expeditionary Medical Support teams by 2011.
        At Readiness Frontiers, over 100 medical planners received Federal
    Emergency Management Agency training to enhance ANG Medical Service
    responsiveness to homeland disasters. This is the first time the
    medical service has taken on an endeavor of this magnitude and it
    allows for future training opportunities in building routine
    relationships with military, federal and civilian response personnel.
        Our medical service's new force structure provided by the
    Expeditionary Medical Support system delivers standardized and much-
    improved force health protection, public health, agent detection, and
    health surveillance capabilities to better support all Air Guard Wings.
    This will enhance the protection of the wings' resources and improve
    the medical readiness of its personnel.
                Eyes and Ears in the Sky--Air National Guard Intelligence,
                        Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems and
                        Support
        The Air National Guard's Intelligence, Surveillance, and
    Reconnaissance (ISR) personnel and systems play an increasingly
    important role in the defense of our nation. Air Guard men and women
    are essential to support Global Hawk, Predator, and U-2 collection
    missions.
        Due to a significant increase in Air Force mission requirements,
    the Air Guard continues to expand its intelligence collection and
    production capability. The Air Guard has also expanded its imagery
    intelligence capability through the use of Eagle Vision, which is a
    deployable commercial imagery downlink and exploitation system. This
    system provides valuable support to aircrew mission planning and
    targeting, as well as imagery support to natural disasters and
    terrorism.
        Other developing Air Force capabilities entrusted to the ANG
    include the F-16 Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System and the C-130
    Scathe View tactical imagery collection system. The Theater Airborne
    Reconnaissance System will be improved to provide near-real-time
    support to warfighter ``kill-chain'' operations in day-night, all
    weather conditions. Scathe View provides a near-real-time imaging
    capability to support humanitarian relief and non-combatant evacuation
    operations. To support signal intelligence collection requirements, the
    Air Guard continues to aggressively upgrade the Senior Scout platform.
    Senior Scout remains the primary collection asset to support the
    nation's war on drugs and the Global War on Terrorism in the southern
    hemisphere.
                Comprehensive and Realistic Combat Training--An Asymmetric
                        Advantage
        The National Guard Bureau has a fundamental responsibility to
    ensure that the men and women of the Air Guard are properly trained to
    meet the challenges they will face to protect and defend this country.
    This can be done through the effective development and management of
    special use airspace and ranges. To support this training requirement,
    the Air Guard is responsible for 14 air-to-ground bombing ranges, four
    Combat Readiness Training Centers, and the Air Guard Special Use
    Airspace infrastructure.
        The four Combat Readiness Training Centers provide an integrated,
    year-round, realistic training environment (airspace, ranges, systems,
    facilities, and equipment), which enables military units to enhance
    their combat capability at a deployed, combat-oriented operating base
    and provide training opportunities that cannot be effectively
    accomplished at the home station. As such, these centers are ideal
    assets for the Joint National Training Capability. The centers offer an
    effective mix of live, virtual and constructive simulation training.
    The ANG continues to pursue Joint National Training Capability
    certification for these centers and ranges.
        It is imperative to the warfighter that the Air Guard maintains its
    training superiority. As the warfighting transformation and joint
    operational requirements evolve, it is essential that the airspace and
    range infrastructure be available to support that training. There are
    challenges. To keep our Citizen-Airmen trained to the razor's edge, we
    must have the Joint Threat Emitter to simulate the various surface to
    air missile and anti-aircraft artillery threats that any future
    conflict might present.
    Transformation for the Future
                Modernizing for the Future
        The Air National Guard is committed to modernization and
    recapitalization required to keep our forces ``Guarding America'' and
    ``Defending Freedom'' by performing any missions tasked by the state or
    federal authorities now and in the future. With the resources entrusted
    to us, our capabilities based effort focuses on modernizing and
    recapitalizing our aircraft and equipment to protect our homeland,
    fight the GWOT, and transform for the future.
        As an equal partner with the Air Force in air and space
    expeditionary forces, we aggressively develop smaller multi-role combat
    forces that are networked, integrated, and more capable. In addition,
    Total Force integration capitalizes on our inherently high experience
    levels by giving the Air National Guard new missions such as ISR,
    Unmanned Aerial Systems operations and space operations.
        The following summarizes the Air National Guard's force posture by
    weapons system: The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
    (JSTARS) continues to be the command and control system of choice by
    all combatant commanders. JSTARS supports the war fighter by locating,
    classifying and tracking ground targets and movement, day or night, in
    all weather conditions, at ranges in excess of 150 miles. All 17 E-8C's
    are operated by the 116th Air Control Wing, at Robins AFB, GA, the
    first-ever blended wing consisting of both Air National Guard and Air
    Force personnel. Keeping the system modernized while maintaining the
    current high operations tempo in combat will be a continuing challenge.
    The most urgent modernization needs for the JSTARS include re-engining,
    installation of the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System,
    integration of a self-protection suite, and avionics upgrades to ensure
    compliance with the Global Air Traffic Management agreement.
        The A-10 continues to support the Global War on Terrorism in
    Operation Enduring Freedom as the premier close air support platform.
    The Precision Engagement (PE) modification is underway. The ANG is
    leading the way with the two operational squadrons equipped with PE.
    This system will digitize the cockpit, provide the A-10 with its first
    data link, improve targeting pod integration, and add JDAM and WCMD to
    its weapons menu. As an interim solution while waiting for the PE
    modification, the remaining ANG A-10's will be modified with the ``A+''
    package providing them with a Smart Multi-Function Color Display
    (SMFCD). Installation of the SMFCD will provide improved integration
    with targeting pods and data links. Future improvements include the
    ARC-210 radio, which provides secure line-of-sight and beyond line-of-
    sight communication, thereby enabling the A-10 to link directly to the
    forces on the ground. The engine upgrade program remains a high
    priority to increase the A-10's thrust. Upgrading the engines increases
    performance and permits carriage of a larger load of munitions and
    remains an Air National Guard focus.
        Air National Guard F-16s continued to provide crucial combat
    capabilities during 2006 in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring
    Freedom, and Operation Noble Eagle. The Block 25/30/32 F-16 continued
    its modernization program by fielding the Commercial Central Interface
    Unit, Color Multi-Function Displays, and AIM-9X missile capability. The
    ANG is also pursuing integration of the Advanced Identification Friend
    or Foe system, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), small
    diameter bomb, and improved data link capabilities. Block 52 F-16s
    completed the Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP),
    fielding Link 16, JHMCS, and AIM-9X capability. Air National Guard
    Block 42 F-16s began the CCIP modification this year and will continue
    through 2010.
        Air Guard F-15s will lead the Combat Air Forces into the next
    generation radar capability by procuring the APG-63 (V3) Active
    Electronically Scanned Array radar. Initial deliveries begin in fiscal
    year 2009. Another next generation effort is research and test of an
    advanced digital radar warning receiver for enhanced situational
    awareness, survivability, and mission effectiveness in the future SAM
    threat environment. Continued funding is required to purchase
    additional Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems, which provide a quantum
    leap in air-to-air weapons employment and more complete sensor-to-pilot
    fusion.
        The HC-130 is completing installation of a Forward Looking Infrared
    system, an essential capability during combat rescue operations. The
    MC/HC-130 will continue with installation of a Large Aircraft Infrared
    Countermeasures system to provide protection from infrared missile
    attack, particularly man-portable missile systems. The ANG MC-130P are
    funded for and will begin installation of the AN/APN-241 low power
    color radar.
        The HH-60G has begun a program to install AN/ARS-6 Personnel
    Locator System ensuring accurate tracking and communication with
    personnel requiring recovery. Additionally, installation of new, more
    survivable and functional aircrew seats for flight engineers and aerial
    gunners will begin this year. Finally, a critical modification program
    will begin this year to install Smart Multi Function Color Displays on
    all ANG HH-60Gs making it capable of supporting a variety of new
    capabilities including integration of the Situational Awareness Data
    Link.
        The ANG pararescuemen and special tactics personnel continue to
    modernize with state of the art equipment necessary to give these
    operators at the tip-of-the-spear capability necessary to execute their
    critical missions.
        ANG units started full-time MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle
    operations by assuming an orbit from Air Combat Command in August 2006,
    and will reach initial operational capability (IOC) at three units by
    the middle of fiscal year 2007. ANG continues to pursue development and
    acquisition of an integrated Predator Operations Center (POC) that
    would incorporate current and future operations equipment in an open
    architecture design. The POC will allow smooth operation and control of
    current and future transformational warfighting and homeland defense
    missions. This new POC design would integrate the multiple systems that
    currently run independently. It would allow integration of new tools
    into the cross-cued integrated system to support emerging missions.
    This system will provide significantly improved mission effectiveness
    and enhanced situational awareness. The new POC design would be
    incorporated initially into three locations, and used at two future MQ-
    1 and MQ-9 units scheduled to reach IOC by early 2010.
        The Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) remains a highly
    effective asset coveted by all combatant commanders. It provides
    theater-wide processing, exploitation, and dissemination of imagery and
    data from Predator, U-2, and Global Hawk. Keeping the system modernized
    while maintaining the current high operations tempo will be a
    continuing challenge. The most urgent modernization needs for the DCGS
    include a signals intelligence equipment suite and an alternate
    satellite downlink to provide the weapon system with a redundant
    connectivity with the intelligence community.
        Air National Guard C-130s provided more than 65 percent of the Air
    Force's tactical airlift capability and 35 percent of strategic
    airlift. Since September 11, 2001, ANG C-130s have flown over 59,805
    hours in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and over 48,307 hours in
    Operation Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, ANG C-130s played an essential
    part in operations supporting hurricane relief efforts for both
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They flew 2,272 sorties carrying 20,080
    passengers and 5,855 tons of cargo. C-130 enhancements included
    participation in the multi-command Avionics Modernization Program to
    upgrade nearly 500 aircraft to a more modern, standardized, sustainable
    cockpit configuration. Furthermore, the Air National Guard continued
    acquisition of the AN/APN-241 low power color radar; purchased more
    Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures systems to better protect our
    crews; purchased three additional Visual Threat Recognition and
    Avoidance trainers (VTRA); led the way in finalizing the Virtual
    Electronic Combat Training System for the C-130 fleet; and continued
    development of Scathe View capabilities to include various
    technological spin-offs that have applications in a myriad of civilian
    and military projects and programs. Other Air Guard programs include
    assessment of upgraded propellers using an electronic propeller control
    system, the NP2000 eight-bladed propeller, and a second generation,
    upgraded Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System. Finally, the ANG
    initiated a program for yoke-mounted chaff and flare dispense switches,
    and partnered with the Air Force for the multi-year buy of the new C-
    130J aircraft to replace the aging C-130E fleet.
        ANG KC-135s provide 80 percent of Operation Noble Eagle alert air
    refueling support to homeland defense interceptors. The KC-135
    operations tempo has increased dramatically because of the Global War
    on Terrorism, homeland defense, and the loss of forward operating
    bases. To meet the continuous demands of global power projection many
    upgrades are required to keep KC-135s viable and effective. Primarily,
    the ANG continues to upgrade Block 30 aircraft to Block 40
    configuration providing full CNS/ATM compliance. The ANG KC-135 fleet
    is in a state of flux as the KC-135E models are scheduled to retire,
    and the Air Force works to select a follow-on tanker. The current plan
    is to retire all of the KC-135E models and flow active duty KC-135R
    models to the ANG.
        The ANG modernization program process is founded on validated Air
    Force and Combatant Command requirements, vetted in an open and honest
    forum by warfighters at an annual weapon and tactics conference, and
    validated by ANG Weapon System Councils. This process culminates in a
    completely documented and updated annual Weapon System Modernization
    Requirements Book that is given the widest distribution. This process
    continues to be the cornerstone of the ANG's ability to modernize and
    recapitalize while ``Guarding America'' and ``Defending Freedom.''
                Total Force Integration
        The ANG is working with its active duty Air Force and Air Force
    Reserve partners to implement Total Force Integration (TFI). TFI
    incorporates innovative organizational constructs with a smaller, more
    capable force structure to leverage increased capability from new
    technology and capitalize on the wealth of talent inherent in all three
    components of the Total Force. Through the TFI process, the Total Force
    has identified, investigated and selected new missions in emerging
    fields and new ways of organizing its forces to meet the nation's
    military challenges. TFI provides opportunities for the ANG to
    participate in critical new missions, such as Unmanned Aerial Systems;
    Warfighting Headquarters; Command, Control, Communications, Computer,
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR); Space
    Operations; Air and Space Operations Center; Contingency Response
    Groups; Long Range Strike; Foreign Military Training; Battlefield
    Airmen and Information Operations. Additionally, flying associations
    with the active component and the Air Force Reserves will allow the ANG
    to maintain its presence in flying missions even as the total Air Force
    inventory of aircraft decreases.
        Total Force Integration mainly supports the legislative priority of
    ``Transformation for the Future.'' BRAC, the Quadrennial Defense Review
    and recapitalization of the Air Force inventory have significantly
    impacted the way the Air Force will look in the future. While flying
    will remain a vital part of the Air Force mission, roles in
    intelligence, space operations, and Unmanned Aerial Systems are gaining
    importance. ANG integration into these new mission sets establishes its
    vital role in warfighting for years to come. Additionally, initiatives
    to ``integrate'' ANG flying units with active or Reserve units will
    enable the ANG to stay engaged in relevant flying missions and provide
    opportunities to fly newer, more capable aircraft as they are
    introduced.
        When the BRAC commission divested the Air Force of its older
    aircraft, it left several ANG wings without a warfighting mission for
    the future. But it also provided an opportunity for the ANG to
    accelerate its transformation efforts. Implementing Total Force
    initiatives will provide relevant, long-term missions for those Air
    National Guard forces exposed by BRAC. These missions are vital to the
    ongoing war on terror and provide assets useful in maintaining homeland
    defense and security.
        The results of the BRAC Commission hearings have accelerated the
    TFI process. Taking inputs from the field, functional experts and the
    major commands, the TFI process has identified over 100 potential new
    missions for the Air National Guard. So far, 63 missions have been
    identified for implementation over the next several years. Some of
    these missions are already being implemented to employ forces made
    available by BRAC and the ANG continues to examine the feasibility and
    implementation of others on the list.
        The next step is to correctly implement these approved initiatives
    in order to afford a smooth transition for the affected units. As these
    initiatives are taken from concept to reality, responsibility will
    shift from the planners and programmers to those who will guide the
    units through their conversions. They will ensure that facilities are
    constructed, equipment procured and personnel trained so that the new
    mission provides combat capability and support to the state for
    homeland missions. At the same time, the ANG will continue to examine
    potential new missions to identify opportunities for further
    integration into the Total Force.
        Through the TFI process, the ANG is aggressively pursuing new
    missions to provide meaningful missions for our units, homeland defense
    and disaster support for the states and unparalleled combat capability
    for our nation.
                Force Development
        As part of the Total Force, the Personnel Directorate of the Air
    National Guard realizes it is essential that we transform into an
    effects-based, efficient provider of human combat capability for our
    warfighters and our nation. Our Vision and our Strategic Plan set the
    transformational flight-path for the personnel community in support of
    the Air Expeditionary Force, security for the homeland, our states'
    missions, and roles in the community. Furthermore, we will advance our
    continued commitment to a diverse Air National Guard, not just in
    gender and ethnicity, but in thought, creativity, education, culture,
    and problem-solving capabilities.
        A Future Total Force (FTF) plan has been developed for the decades
    beyond the Future Years Defense Program. FTF leverages the strengths of
    all three components (Active, Guard, and Reserve), as well as
    anticipated advances in technology, to create the effects needed in
    tomorrows battle space. Most importantly, it capitalizes on our most
    potent, flexible resource: the warfighting Airman. The personnel
    community is ready and willing to do what it takes to make this happen.
        As we continue to achieve the Secretary of Defense's charge to
    shift resources ``from bureaucracy to the battlefield,'' we have placed
    assets at the Air Force Personnel Center to make the Personnel Service
    Delivery Transformation a reality. This will dramatically modernize our
    processes, organizations, and technology by which we support Airmen and
    their Commanders. We are providing Airmen with web-based capabilities
    to conduct most of their routine personnel transactions on-line. All of
    this enhances our ability to acquire, train, educate, and deliver
    Airmen with the needed skills, knowledge, and experience to accomplish
    Air Force missions.
        At the present time we are establishing web based information to
    assist personnel affected by BRAC in considering new opportunities that
    could be available once emerging missions begin unfolding.
        Our new personnel Strategic Vision and Plan outline the
    transformational path we have set for the Personnel Community. At the
    core of the Personnel Strategic Plan is a new, dynamic view of the
    Personnel Life-Cycle Continuum. This dynamic view focuses on outcomes
    rather than on mere transactions, and the performance measures we are
    implementing will guide and direct our efforts to achieve the ultimate
    goal of the creation of a customer focused, mission-driven Total Force
    service-based delivery system.
                Personnel Plans and Integration
        Base Realignment and Closure, Total Force Initiatives and the
    transformational effort which drives the evolution of the ANG into an
    operational reserve from a strategic reserve, are just a few of the
    significant influences challenging this organization. While BRAC
    protective language preserved the Air National Guard overall end
    strength, the cumulative initiatives required the redistribution of
    resources from state to state. Because of the statutory association
    that a Guardmember has with their state, they may not be compelled to
    move to another state or unit. The adjutant general that gains
    reallocated resources is not obligated to receive members from the
    other state. Furthermore, in states where growth in resources is
    experienced, many Guardsmen may not qualify for a position related to
    the emerging mission for any number of reasons.
        The end result is that many non-retirement eligible Guardmembers
    may eventually be forced out of the organization with no benefits,
    entitlements or recognition for their years of gallant service in
    defense of this country. This situation is unacceptable.
                Recruiting and Retention
        As the Air National Guard continues to implement the myriad of Base
    Realignment and Closure and Total Force Initiatives, recruiting and
    retaining quality people will be paramount in achieving and maintaining
    our congressionally-mandated end strength goals. We must have the right
    number and quality of personnel needed to support our Homeland Defense
    missions, our transformation to the future, and our support of the war
    fighter. BRAC and TFI have created a level of uncertainty with respect
    to what missions and how many people are going to be assigned to many
    of our units. Now that there is greater fidelity on these missions and
    the associated manpower requirements are being identified, recruiters
    and retainers will be in a much better position to both attract and
    keep quality members in the Air National Guard.
        Parents, teachers, and counselors are now playing a larger role in
    their child's decision to join the military. In addition, security
    concerns have had an impact on the accessibility of some of our
    recruiting offices. One way we have addressed this issue is to open
    ``storefront'' recruiting offices. These offices are located in the
    community and are very conducive to attracting parents and prospective
    enlistees. We have found that these offices offer a much less imposing
    sales environment than the traditional flying wing.
        While Air National Guard retention continues to remain strong, we
    must continue to focus on providing our people with the necessary tools
    and support to do their jobs both at home and abroad. As we continue to
    transform and implement our BRAC and TFI actions, we will ask some of
    our members to remain with us, but perhaps in different career fields.
    With this in mind, we will ensure we have competitive retraining and
    reenlistment bonuses that will encourage these people to stay. How well
    we take care of our people and what level of job satisfaction we can
    provide will be pivotal in determining how long they will remain a
    member of the Air National Guard.
                Information Networking for the Total Force
        The Air National Guard Enterprise Network is critical to the
    successful transmission of information within a unit, between units,
    and among the various states. We are making progress towards
    modernizing our nationwide information technology network that serves a
    vital role in homeland security and national defense. A healthy and
    robust network for reliable, available and secure information
    technology is essential to federal and state authorities in their
    ability to exercise command and control of information resources that
    potentially could impact their various constituencies. Also essential
    is the continued ability to provide rapidly, deployable, tactical
    connectivity to the enterprise network anywhere in the world. This is
    accomplished through deployable Combat Communications equipment and
    personnel which respond to major contingencies, combat, and disaster
    relief missions. ANG Combat Communications provides Defense Information
    Systems Network service extension--both secure and non-secure voice,
    message, and data communications as required. These IT systems link
    support commanders to their component headquarters and the President
    and the Secretary of Defense.
        Greater emphasis must be placed on maturing the Air National Guard
    Enterprise Network. The rapidly changing hardware and software
    requirements of our warfighting and combat support functions come with
    a significant cost to upgrade and maintain a fully capable Information
    Technology network. The Air Guard network has typically been supported
    at the same level it was during the 1990s. Modernization of the Air
    National Guard Enterprise Network will enhance interoperability with
    other federal and state agencies and is necessary if the Air National
    Guard is able to accomplish its mission.
    Summary
        The Air National Guard will continue to defend the nation in the
    Global War on Terrorism across the full spectrum of operations in both
    the Expeditionary and Homeland Defense missions. We will draw upon our
    militia heritage and linkage to the community as we execute our
    multiple missions and roles. The men and women of the Air National
    Guard are serving proudly in the far corners of the globe--and here at
    home--and will continue to do so with distinction. We must ensure our
    future Air National Guard is the right size, with the right skill sets
    and is equally dedicated, professional and well trained as our Citizen
    Airmen are today--standing side by side with their active counterparts,
    standing ready and in defense of our great nation. They are your
    civilians in peace; Airmen in war--America's Hometown Air and Space
    Force--always ready when you need us.
    major general terry l. scherling, director of the joint staff, national
                                  guard bureau
                              joint staff overview
        The National Guard Bureau Joint Staff in 2006 has been the
    embodiment of our entire institution's motto--ready, reliable,
    essential and accessible. In our 370th year, the National Guard found
    itself simultaneously training indigenous forces and battling
    insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, conducting peacekeeping missions in
    the Balkans, and furthering international security cooperation. We were
    guarding enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, guarding the skies over
    America's cities, providing domestic infrastructure protection, and
    responding to natural disasters. We were supporting counterdrug
    operations, conducting programs for youth at risk, and we were
    exercising and planning with our civilian emergency management and
    emergency response officials. In addition to all of that in June, 2006
    we began assisting the U.S. Border Patrol in securing our 1,950-mile
    border with Mexico. The Joint Staff was ready for these challenges.
    They have demonstrated they are reliable. They are proven essential.
    They remain ever accessible.
        Our support to the Border Patrol, Operation Jump Start (OJS), while
    a new mission this year, has been one that the Guard has performed many
    times in its past, on both the Southern and Northern borders. For this
    President-directed operation we deployed up to 6,000 Citizen-Soldiers
    and -Airmen at a time to the Southern border in support of the
    Governors of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. During the
    first five months of Operation Jump Start, U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection has reported that Guard support has enabled the apprehension
    of more than 21,000 illegal immigrants and the seizure of more than
    81,000 pounds of illegal drugs, greatly reducing both illegal entries
    and the flow of illegal drugs across the border. When we were called,
    we were ready.
        While OJS has been significant and highly lauded, it did not
    detract from the myriad accomplishments and continued transformation of
    the Joint Staff. In fact, during this year our joint staff approved
    concept and implementation plans for the Joint Force Headquarters--
    State (JFHQ-State). JFHQ-State is the foundation for our essential
    homeland defense capabilities. We have developed, staffed and
    coordinated the first ever Joint Forces Orientation course program for
    joint intelligence personnel in all 54 states and territories. We
    completed the second iteration of our Joint Task Force Commander
    course, for Active Duty and Guard officers, taking the lead in the
    joint environment. We were active participants, across our joint staff,
    in a variety of capability exercises from the state level, through the
    National Guard Bureau to the combatant command and even interagency
    level. In each of these programs, trainings, and exercises, the joint
    staff was recognized for their reliable expertise and contributions.
        In 2006 we established and implemented a web-based application,
    Joint Information Exchange Environment that has enabled us to maintain
    a Common Operating Picture and situational awareness at both the
    National Guard Bureau and JFHQ-State Joint Operation Centers. We have
    planned and trained for Continuity of Operations. We have developed and
    deployed Joint Enabling Teams, Joint Command, Control, and
    Communication teams, and Public Affairs Rapid Response Teams that
    liaison with the states, provide critical subject matter expertise,
    afford life-saving communication capabilities, and communicate urgent
    messages to the command and the communities. Each of these teams
    remains vigilant and ever ready to deploy any time, anywhere in the
    Unite States when needed. We have established and executed planning
    processes in coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
    U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Joint Forces Command for incidents of
    national significance including hurricanes, earthquakes, WMD and
    wildfires to ensure that the National Guard is ready to execute when
    called. We have upgraded existing communications equipment, not only in
    hurricane states, but in all 54 states and territories to improve
    interoperability among all participants. These substantive enhancements
    will save lives and mitigate human suffering, and the joint staff,
    which spearheaded them, is essential to mission success.
        Above and beyond, the joint staff programs that are unique to the
    National Guard have also continued to excel this year. Our Counterdrug
    ``drug demand reduction'' program touched nearly 2.6 million people in
    2006. On the interdiction side, our Counterdrug program support led to
    over 80,000 arrests and the seizure of more than 1.9 million pounds of
    illegal drugs. Our State Partnership Program, supporting international
    security cooperation goals of the United States, now has partnerships
    with 56 countries around the world, adding four more this year alone.
    The NGB Joint Staff continues to focus on mission first, people always.
    We continue to increase functions and services that enhance the quality
    of life for the men and women of the National Guard and our
    communities. Our Family Program support infrastructure now includes
    more than 350 National Guard Family Assistance Centers located
    throughout the 54 states and territories. We are providing for
    transition assistance. We are advocating enhanced survivor, medical,
    and educational benefits. This year we completed our goal of
    establishing a Sexual Assault Response program in all 54 states and
    territories. We continue to champion our citizen-soldiers and -airmen,
    their employers, and their families. In addition, our Youth ChalleNGnge
    Program since 1993 has now graduated over 68,000 young men and women.
    This program saves $175 million in juvenile correction costs, while
    lowering the percentage of youth who are on federal assistance from 24
    percent to 10 percent. Each of these programs and the joint staff who
    support them are accessible and vital to our nation.
        The National Guard and the NGB Joint Staff. Ready. Reliable.
    Essential. Accessible. Whether it is responding to the needs of today,
    or preparing for threats tomorrow, like pandemic influenza, the next
    hurricane, or the continued global war on terrorism, the National Guard
    is a trained, tested, and cohesive team, of Citizen-Soldiers and -
    Airmen, stronger than they have ever been in their 370-year history.
    And the NGB Joint Staff contains a vast reservoir of experience gained
    with the sweat and blood of combat deployments, disaster relief
    operations, homeland security, and peacekeeping to support this
    incredible force. We will continue to do what is right for America. For
    now--and for the next 370 years--we must remain Always Ready, Always
    There!
    Homeland Defense
                National Guard Reaction Force
        The National Guard has over 370 years of experience in responding
    to both the federal government's warfighting requirements, and the
    needs of the states to protect critical infrastructure and ensure the
    safety of our local communities. In order to improve the capability of
    states to respond to threats against the critical infrastructure within
    our borders, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau has asked the
    Adjutant General of each state, territory and the Commanding General,
    District of Columbia, to identify and develop a Quick Reaction Force
    capability. The goal is a trained and ready National Guard force
    available to the Governor that is capable of responding in support of
    the local community, state and, when required, the Department of
    Defense. NGB has been working with the states and territories to
    identify current response capabilities, and with Northern and Pacific
    Commands to ensure that National Guard capabilities are understood and
    incorporated into their emergency response plans. We continue to
    identify the additional requirements for force protection and
    interoperability with civil 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 being shared by all
    states, territories, and the District of Columbia.
                Critical Infrastructure Program--Mission Assurance
                        Assessment (CIP-MAA)
        Critical Infrastructure Program-Mission Assurance Assessment (CIP-
    MAA) teams provide pre-incident facility and/or installation
    vulnerability and capability assessments for all levels of government.
    They also fill an identified gap within the Department of Defense for
    assessments of the Defense Industrial Base. When providing these
    assessments, teams operate in direct support of the Assistant Secretary
    of Defense for Homeland Defense's directive for the Defense Critical
    Infrastructure Program.
                Support to Civil Authorities
        During 2006, the National Guard, again, provided unprecedented
    support to federal, state, and local authorities through Homeland
    Defense and Homeland Security operations. Most notably, the National
    Guard deployed up to 6,000 Soldiers to the Southwest border of the
    United States in support of Operation Jump Start. This operation, due
    to terminate in 2008, was and continues to be an immediate, short-term
    national security effort designed to strengthen border security.
    National Guardsmen and women are assisting the U.S. Border Patrol with
    non-core border activities, thereby allowing the Border Patrol the time
    and manpower needed to hire and train an additional 6,000 agents and to
    implement the Secure Border Initiative. This in turn enables the Border
    Patrol to accomplish its law enforcement and border security mission--
    protecting the United States against possible terrorist threats, drug
    trafficking, the import of weapons, and the influx of undocumented
    aliens. The success of Operation Jump Start is quite evident, as more
    than 30,000 alien apprehensions have been made to date.
                Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
        Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) provide
    the National Guard with the capability to deploy rapidly to assist a
    local incident commander in determining the nature of a chemical,
    biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosive incident.
    The teams also provide a strategic reconnaissance capability and
    situational awareness by assessing suspected Weapons of Mass
    Destruction (WMD) attack, advising civilian responders on appropriate
    actions through on-site testing and expert consultation, and assisting
    and facilitating in the arrival of follow-on state and federal military
    forces. Currently, there are 55 authorized teams (one per state/
    territory/District of Columbia and two in California). The CST program
    is composed of 1,210 full-time AGR Army and Air National Guard members.
    Each team is fully engaged in planning, training and operations to
    support local and state emergency first responders as well as other
    federal agencies.
        Operationally, CST is under the command and control of the state
    Governor through the Adjutant General. The National Guard Bureau
    provides logistical support, standardized operational procedures, and
    operational coordination to facilitate the employment of the teams and
    ensure back-up capability to states currently without a certified Civil
    Support Team.
                Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield
                        Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package
        Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield
    Explosive Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFP) enhance the National
    Guard's ability to quickly respond to chemical, biological,
    radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosive events. The teams are
    Task Force organized and comprised of existing Army and Air National
    Guard units. These dual-missioned units are provided additional
    equipment and specialized training that prepares them to respond
    rapidly (deployment-ready within six hours) to CBRNE incidents inside
    the United States or, at the request of a Combatant Commander,
    overseas. The National Guard CERFP, in conjunction with the Weapons of
    Mass Destruction (WMD) Civil Support Teams, provides a phased response
    capability. The WMD-CST will detect and identify CBRNE agents/
    substances, assess the potential effects of the WMD incident, advise
    the local authorities on managing the effects of the attack and assist
    with appropriate requests for additional support in order to minimize
    the impact on the civilian populace. The teams will provide a follow-on
    capability to locate and extract victims from a contaminated
    environment, perform medical triage and treatment, and perform Mass
    Patient/Casualty Decontamination to support civil first responders or
    military authorities. Currently there are 12 CERFPs that have completed
    external evaluations by 1st and 5th Army. The five additional CERFPs
    that were authorized by Congress in 2006 will be equipped and trained
    by October 2007.
        National Guard Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and
    High-Yield Explosive Enhanced Response Forces will operate within the
    National Incident Management System and, while not the lead agency,
    they will function in a support role when requested through the State's
    Emergency Management System. If federalized, the National Guard CERFP
    operates under the control of the supported Combatant Command.
    Additionally, each CERFP has a regional responsibility to respond to
    major CBRNE incidents anywhere within the 54 states and territories or
    as directed by national command authorities. The CERFPs are located in
    New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, Florida,
    Colorado, California, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio,
    Georgia, Virginia, Minnesota, and Nebraska.
                Vigilant Guard Exercises
        Vigilant Guard is a North Atlantic Aerospace Defense Command/U.S.
    Northern Command sponsored exercise series that is focused on Military
    Assistance to Civil Authorities and asymmetric threats. It is designed
    to enhance the preparedness of the National Guard JFHQ-State, JTF-
    State, WMD-CSTs, National Guard Reaction Forces, and CBRNE Response
    Force packages to perform roles and responsibilities related to
    Homeland Defense and Defense Support to Civil Authorities.
        The National Guard, in conjunction with interagency,
    intergovernmental, Department of Defense, and state Emergency
    Management Agencies, is afforded the opportunity to test tactics,
    techniques, and procedures. The exercise goal is to increase readiness
    by identifying gaps and seams in planning and operations, making
    corrections, and developing partnerships that cultivate a unified
    effort. To date, the National Guard Bureau has conducted four regional
    Vigilant Guard exercises with 23 participating states. Over 800
    personnel from the National Guard, state Emergency Management Agencies,
    Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
    Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Northern Command, Army North, and
    the Department of Energy have participated. This program bridges a gap
    in the training continuum that neither Department of Homeland Security,
    U.S. Northern Command, nor Federal Emergency Management Agency can
    fill.
                Public Affairs Rapid Reaction Team
        The National Guard has established a joint Public Affairs Rapid
    Reaction Team that has a capability to quickly deploy and augment state
    public affairs capabilities during incidents of national significance
    or other emergencies that exceed local resources. Team members--
    equipped with state-of-the-art communications equipment--represent a
    robust strategic communication capability for our National Guard
    forces. These teams allow the National Guard to keep the American
    public fully informed by providing potentially life-saving information
    to citizens in need. Communicating the National Guard message in
    today's high-intensity, 24/7 news environment is more critical than
    ever. This will provide accurate, comprehensive and immediate
    information.
                Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System
        The increasing importance of Homeland Defense has blurred the
    distinction between the Guard's traditional warfighting and Homeland
    Security/Disaster Response roles. During crisis and emergency
    situations, access to national-level intelligence and imagery is
    critical. The Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System
    (JWICS) provides continuity across the spectrum of required missions.
    It allows time-sensitive intelligence information to be pushed to the
    Governors, Adjutants General and joint force commanders. Senior Guard
    and state officials gain access to important critical, time-sensitive
    information needed for the proper command and control of forces.
    Additionally, decision makers gain a vital, secure communications path
    to senior leadership at national level agencies. End-of-year funding
    paid for JWICS equipment, equipment installation, limited amounts of
    associated, secure carrier lines, and one year of maintenance support
    for each of the 30 JFHQ-State, and the central hub location at National
    Guard Bureau. It is planned that sufficient funding will be available
    to provide JWICS connectivity to the remaining 24 states and program
    maintenance costs for fiscal year 2007 and beyond.
    Support the Warfight
                State Partnership Program
        The State Partnership Program directly supports the broad national
    interests and international security cooperation goals of the United
    States by engaging partner nations through military, socio-political,
    and economic conduits at the local, state, and national levels. The
    program's public diplomacy effectiveness lies in its ability to
    leverage the full breadth and depth of U.S. defense and interagency
    capabilities from within the state-country relationship. The goals of
    the program reflect an evolving international affairs mission for the
    National Guard that emphasizes its unique state-federal and civil-
    military characteristics to interact with both the active and reserve
    forces of foreign nations, interagency partners, and non-governmental
    organizations.
        States and their partners participate in a broad range of strategic
    security cooperation activities to include homeland defense/security,
    disaster response/mitigation, consequence/crisis management,
    interagency cooperation, border/port/aviation security, combat medical
    exchanges, fellowship-style internships, and bilateral familiarization
    events that lead to training and exercise opportunities. All activities
    are coordinated through the Combatant Commanders, U.S. Ambassadors'
    country teams, and other agencies, as appropriate, to ensure National
    Guard cooperation is tailored to meet the U.S. and international
    partners' objectives. Within the past year, six new partnerships have
    been established--Nigeria/California, Suriname/South Dakota, Indonesia/
    Hawaii, Montenegro/Maine, Costa Rica/New Mexico and Caribbean Regional
    Security System countries/Florida. In all, 56 comprehensive
    partnerships have been established.
        In fiscal year 2008 and beyond, rapidly evolving international
    conditions and events will offer both challenge and opportunity. The
    program's expansion into the developing regions of Africa, Central
    Asia, and the Pacific Rim will require new strategies to promote
    political, military and social stability while making the best use of
    National Guard resources. The National Guard will continue to work with
    the military services, Combatant Commanders, Ambassadors and
    international partners to establish and formalize in-country Bilateral
    Affairs Officer positions and training to support mission expansion and
    to ensure long-term effectiveness. Moving forward, the National Guard
    will increase its emphasis on building partnership capacity by
    encouraging greater interagency participation and by developing new
    holistic paradigms to improve international cooperation, peace and
    stability.
                National Guard Family Program
        The National Guard Bureau Family Program is a Joint Force
    initiative that serves as the foundation for support to families of
    Army and Air National Guard members. As the Guard faces an
    unprecedented increase in military activity and extended deployments,
    the highest priority of our program is to provide families with the
    assistance needed to cope with mobilization, deployment, reunion, and
    reintegration, as well as with large-scale evacuations, natural/manmade
    disasters, and national emergencies.
        Not since World War II have so many Guard members been deployed to
    so many places for such extended periods. Beyond the traditional
    deployments and mobilizations, there has also been a steady increase in
    use of the National Guard for domestic missions dealing with natural
    disasters and large-scale evacuations. The role and support of the
    family is critical to success with the full range of military missions.
        The National Guard Family Program has developed an extensive
    infrastructure that supports and assists families during all phases of
    the deployment process and through the many stages of coping with
    disasters. Part of this support infrastructure includes more than 350
    National Guard Family Assistance Centers that are located throughout
    the fifty-four states and territories. These centers provide
    information, referral, and assistance with anything that families
    experience during their military service. Most importantly, the centers
    are available to any military family member from any branch or
    component of the Armed Forces.
        The greatest challenge lies in awareness and communication. The
    feedback we receive indicates that many family members are unaware of
    the many resources available to them during a period of active duty or
    deployment. The goal of our program is to reduce or eliminate service
    member distractions by ensuring the availability of appropriate
    services for eligible family members or affected National Guard members
    at or near their homes. The policies, plans, initiatives and
    partnerships of the program enhance unit cohesion, increase unit and
    family readiness, and support service member effectiveness.
                Veteran's Affairs
        The sustained mobilization of the National Guard since 9/11 has
    resulted in a larger number of Guard members eligible for entitlements
    available through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Chief, NGB,
    Under Secretary for the Veterans Health Administration and Under
    Secretary for the Veterans Benefit Administration signed a memorandum
    of agreement in May 2005 that outlines support for Guard members.
        Since its inception, significant progress has been made to
    improving the services available to Guard members and their families. A
    permanent liaison has been appointed at both the National Guard Bureau
    and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to resolve issues at the
    federal level. Additionally, 54 Transition Assistance Advisors have
    been trained and assigned to the JFHQ-State to act as a liaison between
    members entitled to VA benefits within a state and the local Veterans
    Affairs offices, veterans' service organizations, and community
    representatives. This new program builds upon the strength and success
    of the Guard Family Programs and capitalizes on the services already
    provided by the Department of Defense
                Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
        Our nation's dependence on her Citizen Soldiers--Americans who
    generally have other civilian careers--will not change. The Employer
    Support of the Guard and Reserve basic mission continues to be gaining
    and maintaining the support of public and private employers for the men
    and women of the National Guard and Reserve.
        A nationwide network of local Employer Support volunteers is
    organized 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 4,200 volunteers serve on local
    ESGR Committees. With resources and support provided by the National
    ESGR Office and the National Guard Bureau, these 54 ESGR Committees
    conduct Employer Support and Outreach programs, including information
    opportunities for employers, ombudsman services and recognition of
    employers whose human resource policies support and encourage
    participation in the National Guard and Reserve. In view of the
    importance of Employer Support to the retention of quality men and
    women in the National Guard and Reserve, and recognition of the
    critical contributions of the local ESGR Committees, the National Guard
    Bureau provides full time assistance and liaison support to the Joint
    Forces Headquarters and the ESGR Committees.
                Youth ChalleNGe Program
        The award-winning National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program is a
    community-based program that leads, trains, and mentors at-risk youth
    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.
    Cadets must be volunteers, between 16 and 18 years of age, not in
    trouble with the law, drug free, unemployed, and high school dropouts.
        The program has been a national model since 1993 and is offered at
    29 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. The program has
    graduated over 68,000 young men and women who leave equipped with the
    values, skills, education and self-discipline necessary to succeed as
    adults in American society. Significantly, although many ChalleNGe
    candidates are from at-risk populations, over seventy percent of the
    graduates have attained either a General Equivalency Diploma or high
    school diploma. Furthermore, approximately twenty percent of all
    graduates choose to enter military service upon graduation. The
    ChalleNGe program saves $175 million in juvenile corrections costs,
    while lowering the percentage of youth who are on federal assistance
    from 24 percent to 10 percent. The results are a ChalleNGe program that
    actually makes money for the tax dollars spent. Although the program
    graduation rate is above ninety-four percent and the general
    equivalency diploma attainment is over seventy percent, the National
    Guard seeks greater success in both of these areas.
                The National Guard Counterdrug Program
        For over 17 years, the National Guard Counterdrug program has
    worked with more than 5,000 Law Enforcement Agencies, to protect the
    American homeland from significant national security threats. The Guard
    assists these agencies in their effort to stop illegal drugs from being
    imported, manufactured, and distributed; and supports community based
    drug demand reduction programs that touched nearly 2.6 million people
    in 2006. The Counterdrug Program also provides support to the combatant
    commanders of both U.S. Northern and Southern Commands. Given the
    growing link between drugs and terrorism, the National Guard
    Counterdrug Program continues to complement America's homeland security
    efforts.
        The National Guard Bureau Counterdrug Program, as executed by the
    54 states and territories through their respective Governors'
    Counterdrug Plan, supports the Office of National Drug Control Policy
    strategies. We have embedded this within the six general mission
    categories including: program management; technical support; general
    support; counterdrug related training; reconnaissance/observation; and
    drug demand reduction. In 2006, approximately 2,539 National Guard
    personnel provided counterdrug support to law enforcement agencies
    while remaining ready, reliable, and relevant for their wartime mission
    by actively participating with their unit of assignment at weekend
    training, annual training, and individual Soldier and Airmen
    professional development.
        In fiscal year 2006 (Oct. 1, 2005-Sept. 30, 2006) the National
    Guard support efforts led to 80,843 arrests and assisted law
    enforcement in seizing the following:

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

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cocaine................................  714,670 pounds
    Crack Cocaine..........................  8,764 pounds
    Marijuana eradicated...................  4,000,734 plants
    Marijuana (processed)..................  1,141,946 pounds
    Methamphetamines.......................  38,485 pounds
    Heroin.................................  3,134 pounds
    Ecstasy................................  714,668 pills
    Other/Designer Drugs...................  1,866,099 pills
    Weapons................................  20,084
    Vehicles...............................  11,936
    Currency...............................  $209,232,166
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition to counterdrug support operations, Army and Air
    National Guard aviation assets supported HLD and HLS operations along
    the northern and southwest borders. During 2006, counterdrug aviation
    assets flew over 41,000 hours in support of federal, state and local
    law enforcement agencies.
                Counter Narcotic/Counter Narco-Terrorism Expeditionary
                        Forces
        The National Guard currently fields Counter Narcotic/Counter Narco-
    Terrorism Expeditionary Forces (CNNTEF) in twelve states. These teams
    are manned by Soldiers and Airmen on full time duty that have the
    specialized equipment and training to conduct ground reconnaissance,
    criminal analysis, and counter drug civil support operations.
        With a focus on theater security, these teams apply their skills in
    the current environment to develop theater security cooperation, to
    protect against trans-national threats, and to counter the threats of
    trafficking in narcotics and associated narco-terrorism. In an effort
    to ensure and enhance the capabilities of these teams, the National
    Guard Bureau works closely with agencies within the Department of
    Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of Justice, while
    also coordinating with U.S. combatant commands from around the globe.
        The capabilities represented by the CNNTEF can be employed
    domestically (in support of civil authority) or internationally.
    International mobile training teams provide instruction for foreign law
    enforcement or military agencies. In 2006, activities outside the
    United States included a mobile training team to Kyrgyzstan, and both
    counter drug and counter narco-terrorism activities in support of the
    government of the Republic of Columbia.
    Transformation for the Future
                Joint Force Headquarters-State
        The Joint Force Headquarters-State were established (provisionally)
    in October, 2003. This was a reorganization of the separate Army and
    Air National Guard Headquarters in each state, territory, the District
    of Columbia and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to a recognized Joint
    Activity of the Department of Defense that was able to support the
    Governor or President with command and control of all assigned,
    attached or operationally aligned forces.
        During 2006, the Director of the Joint Staff concurred with the
    Chief, NGB Concept and Implementation Plan to transform the existing
    headquarters to make the 54 JFHQ-State a reality. The Director of the
    Joint Staff requested a proposed draft charter for signature by the
    Secretary of Defense to formally recognize the JFHQ-State as Joint
    Activities. Charter development is well underway. JFHQ-State is ground
    breaking in the joint world where everything had been built around the
    Active Component. There remains a tremendous amount of work to modify
    and adapt existing regulations and instructions to accommodate a
    reserve component Joint Activity. This initiative will ensure the
    seamless integration of National Guard forces with the Active Component
    for response to domestic emergencies and availability of National Guard
    capabilities and forces for all contingencies.
        The National Guard Bureau is working with the Joint Staff to
    develop expertise and operational experience in the Joint arena. This
    includes advocating for necessary changes that allow the JFHQ-State to
    contribute essential capabilities to the defense of the homeland,
    especially in the domestic theater of operations and support to civil
    authorities.
        The Joint Force Headquarters must possess the ability to establish
    one or more Joint Task Forces (JTFs) to support homeland defense and
    Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA). Additionally, the
    authority exists to establish a JTF within each state composed of both
    National Guard members in non-federal status and active component
    military personnel. In order to better prepare the National Guard
    Bureau for the challenges of a ``dual status'' JTF Command, the
    National Guard Bureau has developed and implemented a formal training
    program for senior leaders and support staff from all 54 states and
    territories. The dual-status JTF commander is a transformational
    concept that leverages the unique capabilities resident in the total
    force and strengthens unity of effort in support of the homeland
    defense mission and DSCA.
        The overall effort involves two programs, the Joint Task Force
    Commander Course and the Joint Task Force State Staff Course (JSSC).
    The commander's course is a four day in-resident program offered twice
    annually that focuses on presenting senior officers with instruction on
    the most current guidance, policy, directives, and lessons learned
    regarding Joint Task Force command. The JSSC is a one-year blended
    Distance Learning course in conjunction with two in-resident face to
    face sessions concentrating on training the Joint Force Headquarters
    staff in support of the JTF Commander, and providing DSCA.
        The National Guard is responsible for sharing information that is
    timely, relevant and accurate to various federal, state, and
    interagency partners. The advent of the JFHQ-State is the primary means
    to ensure that information is quickly passed from the state level to
    the federal level and consolidated into a comprehensive NGB Common
    Operations Picture. This is then disseminated through the NGB Joint
    Operations Center to external state, federal, and interagency partners.
    In order to ensure that information from the 54 states and territories
    is standardized the NGB is conducting a series of Joint Operation
    Center training classes that will enable NGB to quickly and accurately
    correlate and disseminate information. The National Guard is also
    working to ensure that all 54 states and territories are able to man
    these headquarters on a 24/7 basis. The NGB is also hosting a
    collaborative operating environment known as Joint Information Exchange
    Environment to facilitate accurate and timely information flow.
                Joint Combined State Strategic Plan
        The Joint Combined State Strategic Plan (JCSSP) directly supports
    both Homeland Defense and Transformation for the Future. A strategic
    planning initiative directed by Lieutenant General Blum, the JCSSP is
    designed to categorize, assess and analyze state National Guard
    capabilities in support of Joint Domestic National Guard operations.
    This strategic plan serves both as a strategic and operational planning
    tool for the Governors, the state National Guard, National Guard
    Bureau, and United States Combatant Commands when responding to
    domestic emergencies. The plan also serves as an analytical tool that
    allows National Guard Bureau to determine what units should be added to
    the National Guard force structure during the Transformation process in
    order to maintain or increase domestic response capabilities.
        Currently, there are ten core joint capabilities--Command and
    Control, CBRNE, Maintenance, Aviation/Airlift, Engineer, Medical,
    Communications, Transportation, Security, and Logistics. Each
    capability is assessed for overall response potential and units are
    tracked for their status and availability down to company or flight
    level. Recent Hurricane Katrina Relief efforts highlighted the
    importance of having this information readily available. The National
    Guard was able to identify and mobilize units based on current
    availability and specific functional capability. In addition,
    individual states have used the state based joint combined strategic
    plan to render civil authorities support during life threatening snow
    storms and severe flooding this past winter.
        JCSSP is a dynamic program to which enhancements have been added.
    that allow the states to better assess their response capabilities. One
    such enhancement is the Joint Capabilities Database which was developed
    in the past year to give the states the ability to provide near-real
    time input on unit status and availability in each capability area.
    This database is a web-based application that has been made available
    to each state National Guard, state emergency management office
    personnel and combatant commands. An ability to assess situational
    response capability to specific events has been built into the
    database. Eighteen events are currently monitored, such as hurricanes,
    tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and civil disturbances. This database
    allows the National Guard to meet the requirements of National Defense
    Authorization Act 2007 requiring the Secretary of Defense to maintain a
    database of emergency response capabilities for each state National
    Guard.
        The current ability of the Joint Combined State Strategic Plan and
    its associated Joint Capabilities Database to track individual joint
    core capabilities needed to support Homeland Defense and Homeland
    Security tasks make this program a critical element in the continuing
    transformation of the National Guard and the National Guard's continued
    relevance to the nation.
                Joint Continental United States (CONUS) Communications
                        Support Environment
        The Joint CONUS Communications Support Environment (JCCSE) is an
    umbrella term for the National Guard's initiative to provide an
    interoperable command, control, and communications (C4) capability for
    National Guard forces in homeland defense or disaster response.
        During the Hurricane Katrina response, we learned that when
    catastrophic events occur, the National Guard from several states will
    likely respond. The National Guard requires a command, control, and
    communications capability that is interoperable with U.S. Northern
    Command, as well as local and state entities in the affected area.
    Therefore, the JCSSE provides this capability for National Guard units
    and their respective Joint Force Headquarters, the Department of
    Homeland Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with
    the active component forces that may be employed for the event.
        Since Katrina, NGB has identified gaps in the C4 capability of
    JCSSE and has worked to eliminate them. The National Guard Bureau is
    currently upgrading existing communications equipment and fielding an
    upgraded version of a deployable C4 package in all 54 states and
    territories. These activities will provide improved interoperability
    among participants and will provide ``reach back'' for reporting
    situational awareness to command authorities. Additionally, we work
    closely with U.S. Northern Command to establish Joint Operations
    Centers at the National Guard Bureau and the JFHQ-State. These
    operations centers have the necessary information technology equipment
    and software to share information with federal, local, and state
    partners. We have also recently developed and fielded the Joint
    Information Exchange Environment, a web-based portal application that
    allows the National Guard and the JFHQ-State to better exchange
    information and work from a common operational picture.
                            state adjutants general
        Alabama--Major General (Ret) Crayton M. Bowen
        Alaska--Major General Craig E. Campbell
        Arizona--Major General David P. Rataczak
        Arkansas--Major General Ronald S. Chastain
        California--Major General William H. Wade, II
        Colorado--Major General Mason C. Whitney
        Connecticut--Major General (CT) Thaddeus J. Martin
        Delaware--Major General Francis D. Vavala
        District of Columbia--Major General David F. Wherley, Jr.,
    Commanding General
        Florida--Major General Douglas Burnett
        Georgia--Major General David B. Poythress
        Guam--Major General Donald J. Goldhorn
        Hawaii--Major General Robert G. F. Lee
        Idaho--Major General Lawrence F. Lafrenz
        Illinois--Major General (IL) Randal E. Thomas
        Indiana--Major General R. Martin Umbarger
        Iowa--Major General Ron Dardis
        Kansas--Major General Tod M. Bunting
        Kentucky--Major General Donald C. Storm
        Louisiana--Major General Bennett C. Landreneau
        Maine--Major General John W. Libby
        Maryland--Major General Bruce F. Tuxill
        Massachusetts--Brigadier General (MA) Oliver J. Mason, Jr.
        Michigan--Major General Thomas G. Cutler
        Minnesota--Major General Larry W. Shellito
        Mississippi--Major General Harold A. Cross
        Missouri--Major General (MO) King E. Sidwell
        Montana--Major General Randall D. Mosley
        Nebraska--Major General Roger P. Lempke
        Nevada--Brigadier General Cynthia N. Kirkland
        New Hampshire--Major General Kenneth R. Clark
        New Jersey--Major General Glenn K. Rieth
        New Mexico--Brigadier General (NM) Kenny C. Montoya
        New York--Major General Joseph J. Taluto
        North Carolina--Major General William E. Ingram, Jr.
        North Dakota--Major General David A. Sprynczynatyk
        Ohio--Major General Gregory L. Wayt
        Oklahoma--Major General Harry M. Wyatt, III
        Oregon--Major General Raymond F. Rees
        Pennsylvania--Major General Jessica L. Wright
        Puerto Rico--Colonel (Ret) Act Benjamin Guzman
        Rhode Island--Major General Robert T. Bray
        South Carolina--Major General (Ret) Stanhope S. Spears
        South Dakota--Major General Michael A. Gorman
        Tennessee--Major General Gus L. Hargett, Jr.
        Texas--Major General Charles G. Rodriguez
        Utah--Major General Brian L. Tarbet
        Vermont--Major General (VT) Michael D. Dubie
        Virginia--Major General (VA) Robert B. Newman, Jr.
        Virgin Islands--Brigadier General (VI) Eddy G. L. Charles, Sr.
        Washington--Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg
        West Virginia--Major General Allen E. Tackett
        Wisconsin--Major General Albert H. Wilkening
        Wyoming--Major General Edward L. Wright

        Senator Inouye. General Vaughn.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLYDE A. VAUGHN,
                DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
        General Vaughn. Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens,
    distinguished members, it's a great privilege to be here again
    with you. I ask that my statement be read in the record and
    I'll try to synopsize this quickly.
        A year ago, we came before you and talked to you about
    strength as the number one piece that we're concerned about.
    Now, I'll draw your attention to the chart on the right. This
    chart on the right hand side shows where we started in 2003. We
    started our skid to the right hand side and started down in
    strength. We bottomed out somewhere around 330,000. As you
    know, our appropriated end strength was supposed to be 350,000.
    A year ago, we were around 335,000 to 336,000. Since that time,
    we have averaged a net gain of over 1,000 a month to our end
    strength. The States have done a magnificent job. These are
    bright, young, and enthusiastic men and women coming forward to
    serve. The States and the Governors have really rolled it out.
    They've done everything that we could have asked, to make a
    commitment to recruiting this force.
        Now, in the last several weeks, of course, our great Chief
    of Staff of the Army has come over several times and testified.
    One of his mantras is don't confuse capability with enthusiasm.
    I will tell you that we have enthusiasm. The capabilities you
    buy. You buy it in terms of training dollars, and you buy it in
    terms of equipment. We need more help with these issues.
        Now, as we talk about those particular pieces, one being
    equipment, the Army has worked very, very hard with us on this.
    As you all know, $36 billion is what's programmed for us inside
    Army accounts between 2008 and 2013.
        If that holds and if we can see that in terms of
    transparency and trust. That is a key word--transparency. We
    have to see the equipment all the way from the appropriations
    to the units. As General Blum talked to you about, in the past
    you have provided dollars and equipment through the National
    Guard and Reserve equipment accounts. We have control and
    visibility over that. We bought anything on the 125 list of the
    342 dual-use items, the things that we said we were going to
    buy, we bought with that money.
        We need $36 billion to hold us all the way through, but it
    does not get us to 100 percent at the end of 2013--we will be
    at 77 percent with that $36 billion to hold us all the way
    through.
        A couple of things have happened lately. One of them has
    been the new pre-mobilization training dialogue that we've
    entered into. As you know, we recently mobilized four more
    BCTs. These units have been ready nearly 1 year early and have
    to have the resources and equipment now, prior to deployment,
    to reach as high level of readiness as we possibly can.
        I ask you to watch closely the personnel accounts. Watch
    closely what happened to us in recruiting--I think it is fairly
    obvious that is referred to as the hook chart. We're on a path
    toward something that we need so that we can take some of this
    heat off the soldiers doing all the deployments. Just like the
    Army, we need to grow.
        Thank you so much for your help. It's been an honor being
    here in front of this subcommittee. We look forward to your
    questions.
        Senator Inouye. I now recognize General McKinley.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CRAIG R. MCKINLEY,
                DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
        General McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
    members of the subcommittee. It's indeed an honor to be the
    junior member of General Blum's team here today. I will
    complete 1 year in the job in June. It's been an incredible
    year. I've visited many of your States, many of the units in
    your States. I'm deeply impressed with the spirit and
    professionalism of all the men and women who make up the Air
    National Guard.
        I think my three priorities today are to tell you that your
    Air National Guard is ready to fight today. They are totally
    integrated in the United States Air Force on the global war on
    terror (GWOT). They're fighting the away game very
    professionally in all theatres of the globe and we're also
    providing great support here at home.
        General Blum gave us the opportunity to assist in Operation
    Jump Start. We're now providing over 1,000 airmen along with
    the Army National Guard along our Southwest border, which has
    been a very impressive mission for us.
        I would like to just take one State, maybe one unit and
    give you an example of some of the issues we're facing. Senator
    Dorgan, if you'll indulge me, I'll use the 119th Fighter Wing
    in Fargo.
        As a result of a base realignment and closure (BRAC)
    decision in North Dakota, four major movements have occurred.
    This has happened across all of your States. The 119th Fighter
    Wing is a very distinguished fighter wing in your State, sir,
    with an unparalleled safety record in single seat fighters. As
    a result of BRAC, it lost its F-16 fighters and the decision
    was made to convert them to MQ-1 drones. They've taken on that
    mission exceptionally well, very professionally and they've got
    men and women today fighting in the GWOT with crews ready to
    fight.
        In addition to the unmanned air vehicles in Fargo, there is
    additional unmanned air vehicles scheduled to go to Grand
    Forks, North Dakota. We will integrate the Air National Guard
    men and women in that organization.
        Finally, General Blum made the decision to put the joint
    cargo aircraft, when it is built, in Fargo. We will await the
    decision on that aircraft. When it arrives and in lieu of that
    aircraft arriving now, General Blum and I made the decision to
    bridge that mission, a flying mission, to put Lear jets or C-
    21s in there so we don't lose the skills of those airmen and
    those maintenance people waiting for the joint cargo aircraft.
        I'll say there's an incredible amount of churn going on,
    but your airmen are doing an exceptional job. I could go down
    each member of the Air National Guard here today and give you
    similar stories about how capable and how effective they are,
    but these are challenging times. We're integrating well in the
    GWOT. We're taking care of our airmen, and we're participating
    with our United States Air Force in its recapitalization. It's
    extremely important to the Air National Guard that our Air
    Force continues to recapitalize, so that we can transition the
    20th century Air National Guard into a highly effective,
    combat-capable 21st century Air National Guard.
        That, Mr. Chairman, is my brief statement. I look forward
    to your questions and I thank you all very much for your
    support of the Air National Guard.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General McKinley.
    We'll begin our questioning now. Senator Durbin has advised me
    that he has to be on the floor at 11:15 so please proceed.
        Senator Durbin. I'll wait.
        Senator Inouye. You'll wait? Then I will call on Senator
    Stevens.

                 CAPABILITY OF RESPONDING TO NATURAL DISASTERS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. General Blum, there
    is no question that you've responded to the calls that have
    been placed upon the Guard and Reserve. But how has it affected
    the response to disasters at home now? Are the Governors
    complaining about the loss of personnel you mentioned? General
    McKinley mentioned some disruption in North Dakota. Are any
    Governors complaining about the loss of the capability of the
    Guard to meet the contingency at home, such as hurricanes,
    floods, disasters?
        General Blum. Every Governor in our great Nation has that
    concern that they have a National Guard that they can call on
    that's ready and capable. If you look at chart 11, the cube
    please, this is the challenge that we face.
        You can see across the top a little model of a child's
    puzzle that is simple to do. Not really--only about 30 percent
    of the American people can ever solve one of these puzzles, but
    this is the puzzle we have to deal with every day. Across the
    top you can see the recruiting, retention and equipment,
    training, and exercising the unit so it has the capabilities to
    do the missions it's asked to do.
        The missions we're asked to do every day such as
    consequence management, homeland defense, homeland security and
    domestic operations, plus the overseas war fight, and you have
    to balance that all. The Governors have been terrific,
    patriotic, and very, very serious partners in the defense of
    this Nation. After all, they are the commanders in chief of the
    Army and Air National Guard of their States and territories.
    They understand they're going to have to share those
    capabilities and equipment to protect our Nation abroad and
    they have done that.
        What they have asked us to do at the National Guard Bureau
    is to balance the capabilities that are left in the State when
    the unit has to respond to the Federal mission overseas, so
    it's not so disproportionate that any State is left at risk.
        In February 2003, we made a commitment to the Governors of
    this Nation too, in fact, ensure that they always have 50
    percent of their capabilities available to them back at home,
    even while the troops were deployed overseas. We have honored
    that commitment. There is not a single State or territory in
    our great Nation that right now has more than 25 percent of its
    Army and Air National Guard deployed overseas.
        Senator Stevens. Let me ask General Vaughn about that then.
    Is the training of combat taking consideration--this agreement
    of keeping 50 percent at home, that those at home don't need to
    be trained to fight at combat level, they need to be trained
    for disaster and riot and help the security concepts. Are we
    still training that 50 percent to go overseas anyway?
        General Vaughn. Well, what we're up to now, Senator, if you
    think about the pressure that is on the force and you talk
    about going, say once every 5 years, like it is now and the
    fifth year, you'd be deployed. This means that in the fourth
    year and third year, you've got to train for that Federal
    mission. There's no question about it. You've got to be ready
    to get that out of the way so you could deploy on that fifth
    year. Years one and two when you get back and what they call--
    years one and two, that should be the focus of what they do.
        I'd go back to exactly what General Blum said. We're saying
    that there has to be so many available in any one year. Years
    one and two--that is truly their focus, because three and four
    it turns into the Federal mission.
                  ARNG Equipping Requirements Versus Resources

                                                           ARNG UFR TO REACH 90 PERCENT: $13.1 BILLION
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Shortfall
                                                                                Quantities   Quantities   Shortfall   Procurement  Post Fiscal
                                                       Required     On Hand     Delivered      Before       Before      Program     Year 2008-   UFR to S-1
                   Equipment Category                 Quantities   Quantities  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year       13        Floor (90
                                                        (000)        (000)       2007-08      2008-13      2008-13      2008-13     Shortfall   percent) \1\
                                                                                  (000)        (000)         ($M)         ($M)         ($M)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armor-Hvy T/W..................................        15.04         8.58          .59         5.87    $1,949.18    $2,312.76  ...........  ............
    AVN............................................        60.58        29.84          .36        30.38   $12,928.15    $3,596.72    $9,331.43     $5,528.87
    C2.............................................       189.68        17.02        23.95       148.71    $1,917.63    $2,021.18  ...........  ............
    Communicate....................................       589.81       336.90        15.52       237.39    $3,009.98    $1,512.38    $1,497.60       $891.07
    Engineer.......................................        30.97        14.42          .79        15.76    $1,655.52      $851.72      $803.80       $478.26
    Force Protection...............................       476.50       356.94        20.29        99.27      $996.37      $122.89      $873.48       $519.72
    ISR............................................         5.65         2.22          .93         2.50      $381.96      $787.05  ...........  ............
    Logistics......................................       588.11       137.45         3.07       447.59    $1,637.92      $648.38      $989.54       $588.78
    Maintenance....................................        19.25         3.25         2.29        13.71      $281.19       $36.50      $244.69       $145.59
    Medical........................................        25.14        10.24         6.19         8.71       $15.98      $101.67  ...........  ............
    Precision Strike...............................        27.51        10.49          .91        16.10    $1,975.81    $2,474.67  ...........  ............
    Security.......................................     1,730.86       819.94       135.94       774.97    $3,561.81    $1,543.94    $2,017.87     $1,200.63
    Transportation.................................       179.61        51.20        17.61       110.80   $10,163.36    $5,178.90    $4,984.46     $2,965.76
    Other..........................................       262.05        72.35  ...........       189.70    $1,451.32  ...........    $1,451.32       $863.54
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals...................................     4,200.75     1,870.85       228.23     2,101.46   $41,926.18   $21,188.76   $22,194.19    $13,182.22
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In addition to the fall current funds programmed through fiscal year 2013, an additional UFR of $13.18 billion is required to get the ARNG to 90
      percent EOH (S-1). It will take approximately $24 billion to reach 100 percent. All figures are based on fiscal year 2008 Costs and don't include
      ``Grow the Army'' Costs.

                                               FISCAL YEAR 2008 ARNG TOP 25 EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION SHORTFALL LIST
                                                                      [Dollars in millions]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Quantity        Quantity
                                                     Required        Shortage        Shortage       POM 2008-13              APPN               UFR 2008-13
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HMMWV.......................................          48,715          18,611          $4,039        $1,647.0  OPA.......................        $2,392.0
    Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles..........          37,995          30,140          $7,267        $1,689.9  OPA.......................        $5,577.1
    HTV--HEMTT/LHS/PLS..........................          21,180          14,796          $1,652        $1,059.3  OPA.......................          $592.7
    M916A3 Light Equipment Transporter..........           1,591             794            $180          $152.4  OPA.......................           $27.6
    Tactical Trailers...........................           5,699           2,984            $177           $10.6  OPA.......................          $166.4
    M917A2 Dump Truck...........................             544             334             $67  ..............  OPA.......................           $67.0
    CH-47F Chinook..............................             159             159          $6,678          $670.6  ACFT......................        $6,007.4
    Comm Systems (JNN, SINCGARS, HF)............         143,615          62,613          $3,997          $968.7  OPA.......................        $3,028.3
    UAV Systems (Shadow, Raven).................             586             575            $462          $307.1  OPA.......................          $154.9
    Small Arms..................................         209,098          99,129            $360          $240.0  OPA.......................          $120.4
    ABCS (Suite of Systems).....................           1,399             800            $166           $20.7  OPA.......................          $145.3
    Digital Enablers (Log Automation)...........          12,167           7,873            $196  ..............  OPA.......................          $196.0
    Movement Tracking System....................          16,711          12,588            $302          $203.4  OPA.......................           $98.6
    Night Vision (AN/PAS-13, AN/VAS-5)..........          41,912          33,170            $640          $241.5  OPA.......................          $398.5
    Tactical Water Purification System..........             131             128             $61           $38.9  OPA.......................           $22.1
    Tactical Quiet Generators...................          19,611          12,748            $324          $118.1  OPA.......................          $205.9
    All Terrain Crane (ATEC)....................             174              29              $7  ..............  OPA.......................            $7.0
    M9 ACE SLEP.................................             114              90             $80  ..............  OPA.......................           $80.0
    Route and Area Clearance Systems............             138             138            $203          $167.8  OPA.......................           $35.2
    Horizontal Construction Systems.............             587             332            $141          $111.0  OPA.......................           $30.0
    Howitzers (M777A1, M1 19A2).................             498             342          $4,259          $477.4  WTCV......................        $3,781.6
    Profiler....................................              65              63             $57           $57.2  OPA.......................  ..............
    LLDR........................................           1,099           1,034            $362          $187.5  OPA.......................          $174.5
    Gun Laying Positioning System...............             455             208             $20  ..............  OPA.......................           $20.0
    Chemical (Detectors, Decon & Shelters)......          65,719          52,433            $669          $107.5  OPA.......................          $561.5
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTALS................................         629,962         352,111         $32,367        $8,476.5  ..........................       $23,890.1
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quantity Required=Endstate Fiscal Year 2008 ARNG Requirements (MTOE or like AC) to fully modernize the ARNG.
    Quantity Shortage=Quantity Required minus On-Hand minus Programmed (2-year Equipment Distribution Plans).
    Shortage ($M=Quantity Shortage times Per Unit Cost.
    POM 2008-13 ($M)=Total procurement funding stream from FDIIS (dtd 10 JAN 07), by Army Program Element (APE) for respective equipment systems.
    APPN=Type of Appropriation (OPA minus Other Procurement Army, ACFT minus Aircraft, WTCV minus Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles).
    UFR 2008-13 ($M)=Shortage dollar amount minus POM 2008-13 dollar amount.

                                                                          ESSENTIAL 10 KEY ENABLERS: DSCA PRIORITIZED BUY LIST
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Item                         Priority 1      Priority 2      Priority 3      Priority 4                                Rationale/justification
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Joint Force Headquarters: Miscellaneous              $5,000,066      $5,000,027      $5,000,126      $5,000,111
     Equipment.
    Command and Control (C2):
        Joint Network Nodes (JNN)..................     $33,300,000     $16,650,000     $16,650,000     $16,650,000  Provides the tactical user with an interface to strategic data networks; and
                                                                                                                      interoperability with commercial, joint, combined and coalition communications
                                                                                                                      systems across multiple security levels
        Army Battle Command Systems (ABCS).........      $7,808,500      $7,233,500      $5,638,100      $6,458,800  Provides enhanced situational awareness via a suite of systems that receive and
                                                                                                                      transmit C4ISR information
        Standard Army Management Information System     $25,727,920     $20,550,610     $21,595,610     $15,953,980  Provides logistics management/automation systems and electronic information
         (STAMIS).                                                                                                    exchange capability via both tactical and commercial networks
        Unmanned Aerial Vehicle--SHADOW............     $15,000,000     $15,000,000     $15,000,000     $15,000,000  Without funding the ARNG will be unable to provide commanders superior
                                                                                                                      situational awareness, information flow, and adequate Force Protection in
                                                                                                                      urban and conventional tactical environments
    Communications: HF Radios/Equipment............     $16,288,475     $17,445,135     $15,435,815     $18,785,815  Provides secure, long-range voice and data capability
    Aviation:
        Helicopters--Hoists/Mounts.................        $953,016      $1,191,270      $1,191,270      $1,191,270  Required to support HLD/HLS, state, domestic and other contingency operations
        Helicopters--NAVSTAR GPS Aviation Sets.....      $1,235,130      $1,235,130      $1,370,130      $1,370,130  Provides modern equipment and interoperability to ARNG aircraft
    Civil Support Teams and Force Protection:
        NBC Shelters...............................      $5,502,000      $6,288,000      $7,860,000      $7,860,000  Provides a contamination free and environmentally controlled work area for
                                                                                                                      medical personnel
        NBC--Joint Services Transportable                  $990,000        $990,000      $1,155,000      $1,320,000  Without funding the ARNG will be cascaded outdated and no longer in production
         Decontamination System Small Scale (JSTDS-                                                                   models of the M17 LDS from the Active Component
         SS).
        NBC Radiation/Chemical Detectors...........        $682,160        $682,160        $816,990        $910,740  Provides the capability to monitor and record the exposure of individual
                                                                                                                      personnel to gamma and neutron radiation
    Engineer:
        Heavy Construction Equipment--Horizontal        $16,151,889     $11,927,933     $12,579,096     $11,957,388  Replaces overaged systems that are in critical need of modernization and
         (Dumps, Graders, Excavators).                                                                                incapable of full mission support
        Heavy Construction Equipment--Vertical          $19,004,075     $16,755,970     $19,505,970     $22,255,970  Primary container/material handling equipment required to support and sustain
         RTCH, ATLAS).                                                                                                ARNG units
    Logistics:
        Generators--Small/Medium...................      $5,348,830      $5,839,690      $5,839,690      $5,783,445  Critical requirement during natural disaster or state emergency. Provides
                                                                                                                      electrical power as needed to support mission requirements
        Liquid Logistics--Water Purification.......      $6,451,500      $8,070,000      $8,047,500     $10,707,500  Replaces existing 600 GPH reverse osmosis water purification systems with a
                                                                                                                      1,500 GPH capability
        Liquid Logistics--Tank Water...............      $4,840,000      $4,840,000      $4,840,000      $5,550,000  Provides a bulk water delivery/distribution/storage systems
    Maintenance: STAMIS--Standard Army Maintenance         $967,458        $942,780        $983,910      $1,557,590  Mission critical system required to support unit-level maintenance support
     System (SAMS).                                                                                                   requirements
    Medical: HMMWV Ambulance.......................     $13,455,000     $14,490,000     $14,490,000     $13,455,000  Provides patient transport/evacuation capability
    Security:
        Small Arms--Shotgun........................        $264,610        $299,860        $332,525        $377,645  Critical for security operations in urban environments
        Night Vision--Driver's Vision Enhancers          $4,926,825      $4,926,825      $5,036,310      $5,474,250  Provides a thermal night vision capability to drivers enabling continuous
         (DVE).                                                                                                       mission operations
    Transportation:
        HMMWV--Un Armored..........................    $101,590,000    $107,800,000    $107,800,000    $106,765,000  Critical enabler for the ARNG to perform all mission and support requirements,
                                                                                                                      domestic or combat
        HMMWV--Up Armored..........................     $31,598,000     $38,003,000     $38,003,000     $35,868,000  ...............................................................................
        FMTV--Trucks...............................     $60,451,326     $61,580,790     $60,966,638     $60,451,326  Replaces obsolete, non-deployable trucks. Critical enabler for the ARNG to
                                                                                                                      perform all mission and support requirements
        HTV--HEMTT Tanker/Wrecker/LHS..............     $42,833,720     $52,628,720     $51,203,720     $50,637,440  Provides line and local haul, resupply, and recovery capability to sustain
                                                                                                                      operations
        HTV--PLS Truck/Trailer/Bed/CHU.............     $56,768,600     $56,768,600     $56,768,600     $56,768,600  Primary component of the maneuver-oriented ammunition distribution system. Also
                                                                                                                      performs local-haul, line-haul, unit re-supply and other transportation
                                                                                                                      missions
        MTV--M916A3 Light Equipment Transporter....     $11,350,000     $11,350,000     $11,350,000     $11,350,000  Prime mover for pulling the M870 series trailer and heavy engineer equipment
        MTV--Tactical Trailers.....................     $11,510,000     $11,510,000     $10,540,000     $10,540,000  Required for transport of heavy engineer equipment, ISO containers, and other
                                                                                                                      cargo
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total....................................    $500,000,000    $500,000,000    $500,000,000    $500,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, if you look at this chart, Senator Stevens, this is
    the model that the Governors of this Nation have worked with
    the National Guard Bureau to develop. They are absolutely
    comfortable--we will deliver on that promise.
        The only place we have fallen short is in the equipment
    piece. There are States in our Nation today that have less than
    50 percent of the equipment that is necessary to do the
    essential 10 functions that you were alluding to. Governors
    must be ready to do these functions tonight, on no notice.
    Logistics, engineers, medical, communications, transportation,
    security and so forth that's listed on the left-hand side.
        This is what is shown by the little purple core. We
    leveraged the joint capabilities of the Army and Air National
    Guard to make that happen. Our goal is that 74 percent of the
    troops are available back in the States but on average, we have
    only about 40 percent of the equipment available. This is the
    challenge and if we go to that Rubik's cube, if you try to
    solve that puzzle without all of the pieces, it's difficult.
    Try doing that puzzle with less than one-half of the pieces to
    the puzzle that you need. That's the reason we're here today.

                            EQUIPPING NATIONAL GUARD

        Senator Stevens. Well, I'm still wondering. You know, you
    have to live through an earthquake like I did and see what
    happened with the Guard and Reserve and the regular forces to
    take on the duties of a massive earthquake, massive hurricane
    or a massive tornado that hits our domestic side. This again,
    they don't need to be trained combat troops, they don't need to
    have Strykers and Humvees. They need disaster equipment. They
    need equipment and the doctors to deal with the problems of
    domestic restoration but they don't need to be trained to be
    urban fighters.
        I'm confused a little bit about the fact that all of these
    people are trying to be combat ready--most of many of them will
    never be dispatched for combat.
        General Blum. I completely understand your line of thought
    and let me try to dispel some of the confusion. All of the
    soldiers and airmen are trained against a wartime task.
        A medic that is trained to save lives, whether that life is
    at risk because of an earthquake, or that life is at risk
    because of a terrorist attack, or that life is at risk because
    of a combat wound, he and she still needs to know how to do
    life saving skills, no matter what produced that.
        Transportation--people need to know how to move troops and
    commodities. It could be medics, or hay for animals that are
    stranded by winter storms, or water to people that are in a
    place that doesn't have any potable water because of a
    hurricane or tsunami. It's a very transferable skill.
        Timing is everything, especially for the Guard and Reserve
    because time is our most precious commodity. We train for the
    high end. We train for our most dangerous and demanding
    mission, and then we leverage that training and apply it in
    what General Vaughn was talking about in the windows of
    availability.
        If you're getting ready to go overseas, your focuses are
    overseas, as it should be. If you're back at home and you're
    not focusing on going overseas for several years, you are
    exactly the unit the Governor is going to go to and count on to
    be able to respond to weapons of mass destruction, to respond
    to consequence management for a natural disaster, to be ready
    for the seasonably predictable hurricanes, to be ready for the
    seasonal predictable flooding and wildfires in the West. We
    leverage all of those capabilities.
        We are in a world of great uncertainty and nobody has a
    perfect crystal ball, at least no one has used it yet. We have
    to be ready for unpredictable, unforeseen contingencies that
    come up because we are no longer a strategic reserve where we
    have years to build up and equip and man our National Guard.
    Those days, unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you
    look at it, are long gone. We have to deal with a very
    dangerous world. We could be called tomorrow to places that we
    haven't even considered and respond. It may not even be ground
    combat. It may be for some tsunami relief out in Indonesia.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        Senator Stevens. I don't want to take too much time but let
    me ask one question of General McKinley. The BRAC has been
    mentioned in connection with what happened in North Dakota. How
    has the BRAC affected your operations in terms of recruitment
    and in terms of the--really the soldiers you need to maintain a
    viable and vibrant National Guard, Air National Guard?
        General McKinley. Yes, sir. If I could get chart 4 up while
    I answer the question. BRAC obviously was kind of a gut punch
    to us all. We're recovering from BRAC and we are implementing
    BRAC and we've talked to the Adjutants General about how to
    implement BRAC. I think it is very important for us to move
    through the BRAC implementation; do it properly so that those
    airmen out there who are uncertain about their futures can have
    a certainty that they had over the past three or four decades.
        As you can see on this chart, 41 of our units were
    impacted, 32 had no change and actually 15 of our units lost
    aircraft; lost mission. That's a pretty healthy gulp to take
    all in one bite, but what we've done is we've crafted a reset
    strategy. A reset means a lot of different things to different
    people. We are resetting our Air National Guard. We briefed the
    TAGs in December, and we will start our implementation phase
    now.
        As you know up in your State, we'll be moving the C-17 up
    there. We're trying to have this done quickly because one of
    the unintended consequences of BRAC is many of our members are
    trying to make a decision whether they want to stay or leave.
    Retention has been very high. Recruiting has been about trading
    one for another. I think once we get through with our reset,
    once we get our missions set, once we go into some of our total
    force initiatives that the Air Force and the Air National Guard
    are working together, like C-17 in Alaska, we will start
    stabilizing those manning documents and you'll start seeing
    recruiting pick back up, and we'll get back on that even plane.
    There is no doubt that BRAC was a significant impact to the Air
    National Guard.
        General Blum. I'd like to add to that to prep Senator
    Stevens. On our Army National Guard side, BRAC was well
    thought, collaboratively participated in and produced the exact
    outcome that the Congress intended, in our view. On the Air
    Force side, it's not the case. That's the kindest way I can put
    it. The intent of the Congress turning toward tremendously
    different impact in the Air National Guard and it was--there
    was some good in it, but there was also some loss of
    capability, and BRAC was not intended to lose capability. BRAC
    was intended to divest of facilities and infrastructure that we
    didn't want to waste taxpayer's hard-earned money sustaining
    what we didn't need. The business got a little bit high-jacked
    along the way and it produced a bad outcome.
        Now, it's the role in our compliance, the role we will
    execute it as best we can but there are some pieces to this
    that if we execute it, it might cause some to wonder why we
    came up with this outcome.
        The reason is that I thought the BRAC process was frankly
    used for purposes other than what its original intent was.
    Maybe BRAC was quite good. The other Reserve Chiefs will tell
    you how they feel about BRAC in their services but most say
    it's positive. On the Air National Guard side, it was used as a
    blunt instrument and you see the result right there.

                             NATIONAL GUARD FUNDING

        Senator Stevens. Once your units have deployed, are they
    funded out of the emergency funds or do they continue to be
    funded out of funds that we provide directly to your agencies?
        General Blum. They are funded out of the emergency funds
    once they are deployed, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        General McKinley. And that includes Noble Eagle here at
    home, too, Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I--sort of on the
    line of what Senator Stevens was saying and the questions he's
    asking. I understand that General Blum--that even if the Army
    transfers whatever equipment funding that is committed. So
    we're talking about a $1 billion shortfall, is that basically
    right? Trucks, communication gear and so on--I have a list, Mr.
    Chairman that I ask to be included in the record at this point.
    It speaks about the Guard's shortfall. Mr. Chairman, I ask
    consent that it must be part of the record.
        Senator Inouye. I have no objection.
        [The information follows:]

                                               FISCAL YEAR 2008 ARNG TOP 25 EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION SHORTFALL LIST
                                                                      [Dollars in millions]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Quantity        Quantity
                                                     Required        Shortage        Shortage       POM 2008-13              APPN               UFR 2008-13
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HMMWV.......................................          48,715          18,611          $4,039        $1,647.0  OPA.......................        $2,392.0
    Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles..........          37,995          30,140          $7,267        $1,689.9  OPA.......................        $5,577.1
    HTV--HEMTT/LHS/PLS..........................          21,180          14,796          $1,652        $1,059.3  OPA.......................          $592.7
    M916A3 Light Equipment Transporter..........           1,591             794            $180          $152.4  OPA.......................           $27.6
    Tactical Trailers...........................           5,699           2,984            $177           $10.6  OPA.......................          $166.4
    M917A2 Dump Truck...........................             544             334             $67  ..............  OPA.......................           $67.0
    CH-47F Chinook..............................             159             159          $6,678          $670.6  ACFT......................        $6,007.4
    Comm Systems (JNN, SINCGARS, HF)............         143,615          62,613          $3,997          $968.7  OPA.......................        $3,028.3
    UAV Systems (Shadow, Raven).................             586             575            $462          $307.1  OPA.......................          $154.9
    Small Arms..................................         209,098          99,129            $360          $240.0  OPA.......................          $120.4
    ABCS (Suite of Systems).....................           1,399             800            $166           $20.7  OPA.......................          $145.3
    Digital Enablers (Log Automation)...........          12,167           7,873            $196  ..............  OPA.......................          $196.0
    Movement Tracking System....................          16,711          12,588            $302          $203.4  OPA.......................           $98.6
    Night Vision (AN/PAS-13, AN/VAS-5)..........          41,912          33,170            $640          $241.5  OPA.......................          $398.5
    Tactical Water Purification System..........             131             128             $61           $38.9  OPA.......................           $22.1
    Tactical Quiet Generators...................          19,611          12,748            $324          $118.1  OPA.......................          $205.9
    All Terrain Crane (ATEC)....................             174              29              $7  ..............  OPA.......................            $7.0
    M9 ACE SLEP.................................             114              90             $80  ..............  OPA.......................           $80.0
    Route and Area Clearance Systems............             138             138            $203          $167.8  OPA.......................           $35.2
    Horizontal Construction Systems.............             587             332            $141          $111.0  OPA.......................           $30.0
    Howitzers (M777A1, M1 19A2).................             498             342          $4,259          $477.4  WTCV......................        $3,781.6
    Profiler....................................              65              63             $57           $57.2  OPA.......................  ..............
    LLDR........................................           1,099           1,034            $362          $187.5  OPA.......................          $174.5
    Gun Laying Positioning System...............             455             208             $20  ..............  OPA.......................           $20.0
    Chemical (Detectors, Decon & Shelters)......          65,719          52,433            $669          $107.5  OPA.......................          $561.5
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTALS................................         629,962         352,111         $32,367        $8,476.5  ..........................       $23,890.1
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quantity Required=Endstate Fiscal Year 2008 ARNG Requirements (MTOE or like AC) to fully modernize the ARNG.
    Quantity Shortage=Quantity Required minus On-Hand minus Programmed (2-year Equipment Distribution Plans).
    Shortage ($M=Quantity Shortage times Per Unit Cost.
    POM 2008-13 ($M)=Total procurement funding stream from FDIIS (dtd 10 JAN 07), by Army Program Element (APE) for respective equipment systems.
    APPN=Type of Appropriation (OPA minus Other Procurement Army, ACFT minus Aircraft, WTCV minus Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles).
    UFR 2008-13 ($M)=Shortage dollar amount minus POM 2008-13 dollar amount.

                                          United States Senate,
                                     Washington, DC, February 13, 2007.
    The Honorable Michael W. Wynne,
    Secretary of the Air Force, 1670 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC
            20330.
    General T. Michael Moseley,
    USAF, Air Force Chief of Staff, 1670 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC
            20330.
        Dear Secretary Wynne and General Moseley: As you are well aware,
    the U.S. Air Force relies on the personnel, capabilities, and
    continuity provided by the Air National Guard. Unfortunately, the
    service is not taking the necessary steps to ensure that the Total
    Force remains strong in the long term by leveraging the Air Guard's
    best attributes. The Air Force has placed on hold crucial initiatives
    to integrate with the Air Guard, which will ensure that the Air Force
    maintains a substantial presence in communities across the United
    States.
        The Air Force announced several transformation proposals during the
    most recent BRAC deliberations. One of the most promising was the
    community basing concept, which melds active duty and Guard personnel
    at stand-alone National Guard bases. Numerous briefings and leadership
    testimony underscored the cost effectiveness of this initiative,
    including the ability to make the best use of scarce resources and
    allow active duty forces to take advantage of the continuity provided
    by reserve units.
        The Air Force has not followed through to expand the community
    basing program beyond an extremely limited test case, and it has
    subsequently dropped mention of community basing--which yielded across-
    the-board benefits--as a transformation model. Only two initiatives
    have received any significant attention. One proposal would base Air
    Guard units at active duty stations, and the other locates active
    personnel at Guard bases in close proximity to larger active duty
    bases. We also understand that no substantive force structure planning
    on the Air Guard beyond the five-year Future Years Defense Plan is
    underway or being contemplated.
        We support the notion that the capabilities of the Air Guard must
    reflect those of the larger Air Force, and that the service must
    maintain a substantial presence throughout the country. The old
    approaches to force structure are antiquated and costly, and isolate
    the Air Force from large segments of the population. With insufficient
    aircraft to replace aging airframes one for one, the movement of Guard
    units to active duty bases will leave major segments of the country
    without a substantial Air Force footprint, and further undermine
    homeland defense response capabilities.
        Unfortunately, the current Air Force model has an all too familiar
    active duty centric approach associated with it. We are not surprised,
    but we are disappointed. The Air Force must deal openly with long-term
    force structure issues in tandem with its strategic partner, the Air
    Guard. Postponing discussion and development of community basing only
    threatens the continued vitality of the service and our defense.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Patrick Leahy,
                           Co-Chair, U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus.
                                           Christopher S. Bond,
                           Co-Chair, U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus.

        Senator Leahy. For the record, the Senate version of the
    supplemental includes $1 billion to go on the shortfall but
    that's a long way from the $24 billion, I think. And we'll
    continue working on it.
        General Blum. That $24 billion that Senator Leahy referred
    to will be acquired over the next 6 years to bring the National
    Guard up to an operational readiness capability, both overseas
    and here at home. So I just want to be clear about what that
    money does represent.
        The $36 billion is a huge amount of money and it's
    unprecedented in the history of the United States Army to make
    that kind of a commitment to its Reserve component, to equip us
    to that extent.
        But looking at that in isolation, it would make you think
    that it would solve the problem. It does not solve the problem.
    It still leaves us insufficiently resourced to do what we're
    asked to do here at home and to be able to prepare troops for
    the next rotation to go overseas.
        Senator Leahy. Well, that was my feeling and really,
    General Blum and I appreciate you seeing that.

                                COMMUNITY BASING

        General McKinley, we've talked about the Air Guard working
    for the active Air Force on an innovative basing scheme called
    Community Basing. For those of you who are not aware of that,
    it takes a limited number of active personnel based at stand-
    alone Guard bases. They train right along side their Guard
    counterparts. Also the active Air Force increases their
    relations with the State, the local communities. The Air Guard
    gets access to some of the latest aircraft. It's kind of a win-
    win situation.
        Now the Air Force actually did a successful demonstration
    in Burlington, Vermont where we have a very active Air Guard.
    But they seem to move slowly on continuing that.
        Where do we stand with that? I've had some similar
    questions of the Air Force--but General McKinley, can you tell
    me where we stand on that?
        General McKinley. Thank you, Senator. Community basing is a
    great concept whose time has come. I say that for a variety of
    reasons. Number one, as the Air Force recapitalizes, we're
    getting fewer and fewer platforms. It's just the law of
    economics. We had 750 F-15s, we'll have probably, hopefully 280
    F-22s to replace those.
        We've had almost 2,000 F-16s but we're looking at around
    1,700 F-35s that will replace F-16s that many of you have had
    at your States. So we're getting smaller and smaller numbers.
    So how do we leverage that? How do we become more efficient and
    effective with the facilities that we're retained?
        I was most impressed when I visited Burlington last summer
    to see that 12 airmen who were three and seven level airmen
    were learning how to become nine level maintenance people.
    They're being taught the same as far as maintenance people in
    our United States Air Force.
        The city, the community, the base embrace them. They
    provided housing for them. They welcomed them into the
    community. That's exactly the strategy that I think the
    developers of community basing decided would be most effective.
    It has been deemed a total success.
        Your question directly is what's the future of it? Your
    recent discussions with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
    have produced some results that I'm happy to report to you
    today that we're going to develop the community basing strategy
    at Burlington further. We're looking for strategies to increase
    the numbers of people because all of this will lead to the fact
    that as the legacy platforms leave our inventory--and that's
    most of the Air National Guard's fighter forces and legacy
    platforms--we'll be able to transition some of those units into
    more and more modern platforms and the time to do that is now.
        I appreciate your question. It spurred a great deal of
    interest in our Air Force. The planners are discussing with me
    how best to do that in your State. The 158th fighter wings are
    the right men to make sure we get this right.
        General Blum. Senator Leahy, I had a follow-on discussion
    with General Moseley on that particular issue and I think it's
    pretty clear in my mind that the strategy to maintain an all-
    volunteer force is going to have to be more of this community
    basing methodology.
        Otherwise, our active forces are withdrawing into smaller
    numbers of enclaves further away from American people. Frankly,
    if we are going to be able to maintain the all-volunteer force,
    we are going to have to leverage the National Guard and the
    Reserve component of all the services to keep the connectivity
    with the American people to maintain a volunteer force. So, in
    addition to being a good business model, it is a smart
    strategy. If we're going to stay with an all-volunteer force,
    we must stay tied to the community.
        Senator Leahy. I told members of the subcommittee here
    before about how, after 9/11, it was the F-16s out of
    Burlington that were flying cover around the clock over New
    York City and these were some of the oldest F-16s in the fleet.
    We had one of our key maintenance people that was leaving on
    vacation, heard the news on the radio, did a U-turn on the
    interstate, headed back and no one in his family or anybody
    else saw him for at least 5 days. They finally came in and
    brought him some clothes. He was working around the clock to
    keep them going. And I'll put some material on the record on
    that especially that corresponds with General Moseley, the
    Secretary of the Air Force.
        Yes, General McKinley?
        General McKinley. If I could, Chief, briefly just cover--
    those are the active Air Force fighter wings in the United
    States today. As you can see, they've built on substantially
    since Vietnam. Could you put up the Air National Guard ranks?
        As you can see, we are in practically every State, every
    community. How we leverage this into the future, goes back to
    Senator Stevens, his future total force. What's it going to
    look like? How do we do it? We think they have a lot to offer.
    We think community basing is the right answer and we should
    continue to develop it.

                         NATIONAL GUARD FORCE STRUCTURE

        Senator Leahy. Well, thank you. One last question, General
    Blum, as you well know, Senator Bond and I are co-chairs of the
    Guard Caucus. We've been joined by a gentleman who was actually
    on this panel and several members--in pushing the National
    Guard Empowerment Act to improve the quality of National Guard
    issues at the highest level of the Pentagon with the Joint
    Chiefs.
        We--the Army tried to cut Army Guard personnel
    substantially and the Air Force tried to restore Air Guard's
    force structure. I don't see a great deal of change and I see
    the shortfalls we've talked about. I see the mission. The Army
    announced that four more Guard brigade combat teams as
    comprised of about 15,000 soldiers, I believe, are being
    deployed to Iraq. The same morning that was announced, the
    President was visiting Guard troops that were helping to
    improve base security. The President was justified in praising
    them in what they've done but it's just more areas where we are
    seeing our Guard stretched all over the place.
        I think we need a Guard short-term policy and budget
    discussion. Do you agree with that? I hate to put you in the
    hot seat.
        General Blum. If history is the record, the answer is yes,
    sir.
        Senator Leahy. You have to give me some more
    organizational--but some of the raining down proposals we've
    heard but something like the National Guard Empowerment Act.
    You can answer yes if you'd like.
        General Blum. Yes, sir. The issue needs to be addressed.
    The National Guard is a very serious player, both at home and
    abroad. It's an integral part of our ability to defend this
    Nation day to day. It is absolutely required if we're going to
    conduct sustained combat operations abroad. It's time to, as
    the chairman said and Senator Stevens said, to bring some of
    the cold war policy, authorities, and resourcing strategies
    into compliance with today's reality. I mean, that's really
    what we're talking about. It's nothing evil or sinister. It's a
    matter of really setting up the authorities, the resources, and
    the access for the leadership of this organization to be
    effective in today's environment, which is quite a different
    environment than existed even 6 years ago, and certainly
    different than existed 15, 16 years ago.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll put another
    number of items in the record in connection with this.

                            NATIONAL GUARD EQUIPPING

        Senator Inouye. Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's
    good to be with all of you. Let me just state three facts and
    then talk about them with you for a minute.
        A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
    ranked New Mexico last regarding National Guard equipment
    readiness. With the decision to locate F-22s at Holloman Air
    Force Base, the Air Force and the National Guard Bureau plan to
    base National Guardsmen at Holloman to work with the F-22s.
        Third point--6,000 National Guardsmen were deployed along
    the Southwest border to help Border Patrol agents with
    surveillance, construction, and logistics. Guardsmen are
    building fences as well as manning detection equipment on the
    border and in command centers.
        Now you can see just with the facts I've given you, what a
    tremendous variety of things the Guard and Reserve are asked to
    do and are planning to do. What action is the Department taking
    to ensure that the National Guardsmen have the equipment they
    need to do their missions at home? Could you help me with that
    or are we supposed to assume that they can do their job with
    less equipment compared to everybody else?
        General Blum. No, sir. General Vaughn is balancing the New
    Mexico essential equipment needed to do the job, particularly
    the 10 essential tasks that were shown on the chart that would
    have to respond to the Governor. Certainly the equipment in
    Operation Jump Start is all there. It presents additional
    challenges but we have met those challenges. We have a long way
    to go in the State of New Mexico. You're absolutely correct.
    Today, it is the lowest. It varies. It changes because we're
    always moving equipment and moving resources around, but Fort
    Holloman, New Mexico is the lowest in the Nation and it should
    not be.
        General Vaughn and his logistics people are working on
    that. They didn't get into that situation overnight. They won't
    get out overnight. We won't get out of that situation in any of
    your Senators' home States unless the needed resources come to
    the National Guard, and they are provided in such a way that
    they get to the National Guard.
        This Congress has been very, very good about providing what
    has been asked for to do our mission. If we could improve in
    any one area, I think what we need to do is to build on the
    successful model that was used post-Katrina, where significant
    money was given to the National Guard to buy specific items,
    which would translate into better capabilities to respond the
    next time. Then the Congress looked at what we bought----
        Senator Domenici. General, let's just be realistic with
    reference to New Mexico. Whatever we have done, we couldn't do
    worse in New Mexico. Is that a pretty fair statement?
        General Blum. That's an accurate statement.
        Senator Domenici. Well, how long do you think that's going
    to remain? We haven't been asked for any extra money----
        General Blum. If you look at the chart, Senator Domenici,
    you can see New Mexico is not alone. The States in red are not
    good. The red is not good. The red means they have less than 65
    percent of the equipment they need to do their job at home, and
    this does not even count the equipment that they don't have to
    do their job abroad.
        It says equipment available to Governors to do homeland
    defense and homeland security missions is underequipped in the
    Army National Guard across the Nation. The best in the country
    today is Ohio at 65 percent.
        Senator Domenici. General, when you deploy the National
    Guard and Reserve, do you deploy your soldiers with equipment
    or do you just send over the men?
        General Blum. We send our people with equipment. The
    equipment comes from every State on that map and it comes from
    the home State that the troops are deployed.
        Our problem is exacerbated when that equipment is left
    overseas. Our problem is also exacerbated when that equipment
    is worn out or destroyed in the theatre and not replaced at
    home. We are too slow in replacing equipment that we've cross
    leveled to ensure that no son or daughter from New Mexico or
    any other State goes into harm's way without exactly everything
    they need. The best of everything we can provide.
        The cost of that has depleted our stocks here at home
    dramatically, and that is the reason we put together this card
    and showed you in great detail what our validated requirements
    are. If there is anything on this card that you feel is not
    necessary, strike it out and take it off of the list. That's
    fine. Everything that's on here are Army requirements and Air
    Force requirements of equipment that we must have to be able to
    not only do our job at home for Governor Richardson in New
    Mexico, but also to go overseas as New Mexico troops have done,
    in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        General Vaughn. Senator, let me, if I could, talk to just a
    couple specifics in that last group. When we started putting
    the numbers together--give me the other slide that's got the
    percentage of new and used equipment on there. If New Mexico
    got back all of its equipment, everything that's out there, it
    would have 62 percent of the required equipment on hand that,
    if they got everything back from theatre and that was owed to
    them.
        The plan that we can see right now would deliver, at best,
    2,200 pieces back at the end of 2008. We can see that in the
    pipeline. Only 1,600 pieces of that is the new use equipment
    for homeland missions. We are watching it very closely and New
    Mexico got hit.
        The percentage was too great on a small force that took
    their equipment forward in the first war and it ended up that a
    lot of it didn't come back. They are programmed to receive over
    40 percent of their equipment like the other States by the end
    of 2008. We're looking at in about 16 or 17 months, they'll be
    back.
        General Blum. In the interim, sir, if there is any
    equipment needed for Governor Richardson for a state of
    emergency, that will be flowed to him from neighboring States,
    through the emergency management assistance compact (EMAC)
    arrangements and that is ongoing daily.
        It's not that we're sitting there waiting for 2008 to come
    along.
        Senator Domenici. I understand. General, I don't like what
    I'm seeing but I appreciate what you're saying about
    understanding the issue that you're in.
        I think the chairman and vice chairman know me well enough
    and they know themselves well enough. We can't leave the State
    in this condition very long. It just won't work. And the Senate
    won't support you all doing that so it's got to be on a let's
    get it fixed and I understand what you said.
        General Blum. Well, I appreciate that completely and you
    should not be satisfied with that. No American should be
    satisfied with what those charts represent. It's an
    unsatisfactory condition, pure and simple.
        Just appropriating money will not get it done. Our history
    and experience has shown that really doesn't get it--the money
    doesn't really get where you intended it to go. There's got to
    be some controls on there to be sure that the money that is
    appropriated gets to where the intent of Congress expects it to
    be, so we can give you the serial number and the zip code
    number where that equipment actually ends showing up.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, before Senator Mikulski asks
    a question, General Blum held up the card. Is that a card that
    we have, that describes what you've requested?
        General Blum. Senator, if you don't have this card, I will
    personally give you mine because I would hope every Member of
    Congress has this card.
        Senator Dorgan. What is this card?
        General Blum. This card is our fiscal year 2008 budget
    card. It lists in very plain language exactly the equipment
    that we need in the Army, and exactly the equipment we need in
    the Air National Guard, and what we think that equipment costs.
        It is to provide total transparency of what we're asking
    for. It has worked very well post-Katrina when you asked us for
    a similar list, and we gave it to you, and you appropriated the
    funds that we needed, and we have much better capabilities
    today to respond to hurricanes like Katrina next time.
        This equipment problem we're talking about exacerbates our
    problem to respond in multiple, simultaneous events around the
    Nation. There is no question about it.
        Senator Inouye. The card will be made part of the record.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I was still--still had----
        Senator Inouye. Oh, go ahead.
        Senator Domenici. I just want to say I'm not very
    impressed. I'd be much more impressed if I saw something that
    showed what we were doing. This presentation this morning with
    reference to the adequacy and effectiveness of the National
    Guard and Reserve to be a true partner in this war that we're
    involved in.
        Every time we get a full hearing with the leaders of the
    National Guard and Reserve, the situation is worse, not better.
    The ability that I see of the National Guard to be ready to
    fight in this war--it just gets more and more uncertain in my
    mind. I don't get it. I don't see how we can keep relying on
    the deployment of the National Guard and Reserve people with
    the kind of ineptness that exists in the Guard units
    themselves. I just--if I were the general accepting the
    equipment and manpower that is being deployed, I would really
    be worried about what's coming out of the National Guard.
    Nothing wrong with them. They are terrific people but they are
    not trained and/or equipped in a rationale, reasonable way to
    fight a war. They are being equipped with too many other things
    and it's not going to work much longer. It's not getting better
    in my opinion. Thank you for the time. I apologize for using
    it.
        General Blum. I'd just like to correct the record, if I
    may. The ineptitude lies in one area and that is insufficient
    equipment to do the job that we are organized and required to
    do. We are not inept in the area of quality of the force, with
    the manning of the force, because the commitment of the force,
    the patriotism of the force, the heroism of the force--all of
    the tough stuff we've solved. The easiest problem is equipping
    a force and that can be solved by this body. We need some help.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General. Senator
    Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    General Blum, we're glad to see you today and General Vaughn,
    at the table with the Maryland men, part of the Maryland Guard
    and I think his testimony shows today why we really need to
    pass the National Guard Empowerment Act so that the general is
    at the table when the decisions are made on personnel, budget
    and what we need to continue our role in the world for the
    National Guard and for the soldiers to be as robust as they
    are. Something was said about ineptitude today. That's not a
    word I like to see at this hearing. If there has been
    ineptitude, there's been at the top and it's been in the
    civilian leadership and for that, we apologize. That's why we
    are trying to set a timeline to bring this sorry situation to
    an end. So that's the way I feel about it. I'm sorry the word
    was used. We're concerned--we want to help you be able to
    fulfill your mission that the Nation has asked you to do.
        When we talk about a shortfall in equipment--so that's
    the--term--and we note that in Maryland now, we're going at
    about 35 percent for the Army, 65 percent for the Air Force.
    What kinds of equipment are short? What is the stock or the
    number?
        Forty billion dollars--that's what you said. Am I correct?
    If not $40 billion, then what are we talking about? Are we
    talking about jeeps? Are we talking about airplanes? Are we
    talking about guns? Are we talking about bullets? What do you
    say--when you say you don't have enough equipment, what are you
    talking about? For $40 million, I want examples. Don't talk
    about dollars.
        General Blum. Yes, ma'am. Trucks, radios, medical sets,
    helicopters, night vision devices, individual weapons for
    soldiers, you name it, we are short. This is meat and potatoes,
    basic items. Aviation, command and control, engineers, the
    engineering equipment--I'm talking about dozers, graders,
    loaders, backhoes, dump trucks, logistics. I'm talking about
    all classes of supplies that we're short. Deferred maintenance,
    repair parts, we're short. Medical sets.
        Senator Mikulski. Is the shortfall then due to the fact
    that you had to leave it in Iraq or is the shortfall due to the
    fact that the equipment is wearing out faster than it can be
    replaced? Or is it that it was never budgeted and essentially
    we are hollowing out the National Guard?
        General Blum. All three. Senator, you're exactly correct.
    That's why I'm here. That's why they are showed in red. The
    only thing that is unacceptable is the level of fill in our
    supplies to be able to do what we're asked to do. It's a result
    of all three things that you said. We started a war short. The
    war cost us to send equipment overseas that we had here at
    home. It has depleted our stocks. In other words, as we sent
    the equipment over there as we should have. It was the right
    thing to do and now we find ourselves with our shelf stockage
    so low that it's an unacceptable level in my judgment, here at
    home and it needs to be addressed.
        If I were coming here to present this in any other way, I
    wouldn't be doing my duty as a general officer, as a soldier or
    even a citizen.
        Senator Mikulski. I think the subcommittee really
    appreciates the candor of not only you, General Blum, but your
    ability, your service, your leadership but most of all, your
    candor, so that we can, I think get a best case example and
    General Vaughn, let's go to the fact that for Maryland National
    Guard, we are both RV (radar view) and air. We're in the
    national capital region. We're also in a hurricane zone. You
    lived through Isabel with us.
        We also had sent people down to respond to Katrina on our
    Doctrine of Mutual Aid, which we should but given where we are,
    if Maryland is at 34 percent, how could the Maryland National
    Guard respond to another natural disaster or a terrorist attack
    when we are in the national capital region and a very high risk
    area for which we could be called upon to serve in the District
    of Columbia?
        General Blum. The great men and women of the Maryland
    National Guard, they're going to respond but I'm going to tell
    you, their response will be slower than it needs to be. Time
    will be lost because we don't have all the equipment. Let me
    tell you about it in nonmilitary terms. If your house catches
    on fire and your fire department shows up with less than one-
    half the equipment it's supposed to have when it comes to put
    out your house fire, you're not going to be satisfied with the
    result. It's going to take them too long to put the fire out,
    which means you're going to lose your property and you're
    probably going to lose some lives. That is what I want to
    prevent and it's preventable if we can get the Guard resourced
    properly. The people are there. The training is available. All
    we need is the dollars to train the people, and the dollars to
    procure the equipment we need. The magnificent part of it is,
    we've got the people that are willing and able.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. And we've got 1,400 men and
    women that are going to leave for Iraq within the next 90 days
    with little bit--we are where we are with the leadership we
    have and my question is, if they are at 34 percent, do they
    take what they've got? What we have here when they go? Or is
    there going to be equipment there when they get there?
        What do they train with if they don't have the equipment
    here, as they get ready to go?
        General Blum. That is exactly the dilemma that General
    Vaughn and I and General McKinley face every day in every
    State.
        Senator Mikulski. Tell me the dilemma when they leave, will
    they take equipment with them?
        General Blum. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. So when they leave, they'll take their
    own equipment--I'm sure the Governor of Maryland is going to
    love to hear this.
        General Blum. Yes--but you're asking me what happens.
        Senator Mikulski. This is not in any way to be tart with
    you. We appreciate the risk. Then while they're here, what are
    they training with? The equipment they'll actually be using in
    Iraq?
        General Blum. Yes and that equipment is usually substituted
    out or substandard items that were not good enough to go to
    war.
        It is quite unacceptable to me because if it's not good
    enough to take to war, why should it be good enough to save
    American lives here--and why shouldn't we have training
    equipment that we're not going to use when we're deployed. We
    should be using exactly the equipment we're going to use in
    theatre and that is exactly why I'm telling you what the
    requirements are in funding and the protections that I think
    need to be put in place so that what is intended to get to us
    actually gets to us for the purposes that were intended. And I
    just want to make sure that everybody understands what the
    question is and what the solution is.

                           NATIONAL GUARD HEALTHCARE

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I think what's been
    presented here amounts to a national crisis. I think this is a
    national crisis when you talk about the shortfall of what the
    Guard has here today to respond to the needs of the American
    people but not to train to be able to be called up and then
    what they take with them when they go to battle.
        But if I could, Mr. Chairman, could I just have time to ask
    one question about healthcare? When they come back, where is
    their healthcare? What happens to the National Guard and the
    Reserves? Do you feel that because as you know, we are working
    on an effort here to make sure that the wounded warriors are
    not being wounded by the system and that they are not being
    wounded by the bureaucracy and they're not, one by one,
    standing in line behind a backlog to get any type of
    compensation that they earned--at war.
        General Blum. That is a great question.
        Senator Mikulski. Are we ready to take care of our--but
    there is one more stepchild in this sorry situation.
        General Blum. I think my perception is my firm commitment--
    my feeling is that Secretary Gates says with and sees it very,
    very--with the same passion you do. He has empowered us to go
    out and start up this taking care of our own system that allows
    every citizen soldier, airman, and marine, Coast Guard, sailor,
    you name it, when they come back to the United States, they're
    going to come back to where they live. Where they live may not
    be where they were deployed from or where they were deployed
    to.
        And as General McKinley showed you, there are less and less
    members of military bases coming back to their home State.
        Senator Mikulski. Are they coming back to TRICARE?
        General Blum. They are coming back to their community and
    yes, they're coming back to TRICARE for a period of time that
    has been extended. Frankly, and with the brain injuries, we may
    have to look at that for----
        Senator Mikulski. What is--how does TRICARE--it takes care
    of them for 180 days and what happens to them after that?
        General Blum. They are out of the care system. They are out
    of the system that's provided by the Department of Defense and
    they would have to go back to whatever they had in civilian
    life.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, suppose they had 30 percent or more
    permanent injury?
        General Blum. If they are injured, that is a different
    category. If they are injured, we keep them for the rest of the
    life cycle of their injury. We pass them, in a sense, to DOD
    and the Veterans Administration (VA) right now.
        Senator Mikulski. Don't talk to me about DOD, they----
        General Blum. It's not seamless now but they recognize it,
    and they're committed to trying to make it seamless. What we
    have is, we've set up community-based National Guard
    ombudsmen----
        Senator Mikulski. Is it operational now?
        General Blum. Yes, ma'am. It's operational now but it's
    insufficient to the number of cases that we have.
        Senator Mikulski. General Blum, my time is up. My
    colleagues have to go to the floor. But I would like to have
    a--essentially a memo or a white paper from the Guard Bureau on
    this healthcare issue. I know you're very passionate about it,
    so while we're looking at the equipment so they can go fight a
    war, we really have to be ready to take care of them when they
    come back.
        General Blum. I truly appreciate the fact that you're
    passionate about that. You should be. These kids have put
    everything on the line for us, and we need to take care of them
    if they get hurt and we try to do that in the best way we can.
    And can we improve? You bet. And I'll be happy to send you that
    paper.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    members of the subcommittee. First let me thank our witnesses
    and all the men and women in uniform who are serving our
    country. I have a great deal of respect for you, General. We've
    had a chance to meet in my office and had a very good
    conversation. I speak to you this morning having over the last
    10 days, visited five different hospitals, veterans' hospitals
    and others serving our men and women returning wounded from
    combat.
        These are emotional meetings, as you can imagine, sitting
    down with these guardsmen, reservists and regular Army and
    marines who come back with post-traumatic stress disorder and,
    in some very sad situations, with the signature wound in this
    war, traumatic brain injuries.
        I met with them and their families and I've come back with
    a heavy heart about this war. I think it is the biggest--the
    worst--foreign policy mistake we've made in modern time. I
    can't blame you for that. You're doing your duty. You're doing
    everything that's being asked of you. That decision was made by
    Members of Congress and the President.
        The question now is where do we go from here? Whether a
    person is a hawk or a dove--whatever their political party, I
    think the testimony that you have brought before America today
    brings home the reality of the tragedy of this war.

                            NATIONAL GUARD READINESS

        We're now asking members of the Guard and Reserve to return
    to combat and we have to ask ourselves, quite honestly, are
    they ready? The GAO did a study on the readiness of the Guard
    and Reserve. They say that 90 percent of the Army National
    Guard units are rated not ready to deploy. Many of these units
    will be deployed. They lack the training and the equipment and
    the rest that they need to be effective soldiers and to come
    home safely.
        I'd like to ask you a difficult question but one that I
    think many families would want me to ask. How can our Nation,
    in good conscience, continue to send our National Guard and
    Reserve into battle when we know that they don't have the
    equipment, the training or the rest that they need to do their
    best to come home safely?
        General Blum. Sir, I'd be proud to answer that question
    because the answer, I think, will reassure you. Make no mistake
    about this. No soldier, no unit of the National Guard will go
    to war unready. It will not happen. If I know about it, it
    won't happen, if General Vaughn knows about it, it won't
    happen. General McKinley and I just spent some time with a unit
    reassuring ourselves that it was ready and held them up until
    we were sure that they were ready. They will not go without the
    equipment they need. They will not go without the training they
    need. I don't want anything I've said here today to confuse
    anybody and think that we're sending National Guard soldiers
    that are unready to war in an unready status. We make them
    ready. We take the time and we give them what we have to give
    them to make them ready. The problem is, the problems I've just
    described have produced the unreadiness on the other side of
    the coin; back here at home and that needs to be addressed
    because to me, that mission is equally important as the
    overseas mission. Neither one is more important. They are both
    absolutely critically important and neither one is any
    different from the other.
        Senator Durbin. What we have trouble with is this. At home,
    we have 34 percent of the equipment that we need for the Army
    National Guard and over 85 percent of the units have been
    deployed, some for the second time and some serve for the third
    time. You're telling me that the equipment shortfalls not only
    diminish their ability to respond to a domestic crisis, it
    diminishes their ability to train and prepare.
        General Blum. True statement.
        Senator Durbin. So if all of this is true and these
    shortfalls can be documented to say that each of these units is
    ready is to suggest some miraculous change between your
    statistics, which show they don't have the equipment and their
    readiness to go into combat.
        General Blum. It's not a miracle. It's a matter of applying
    resources against time. They're not ready so it takes us time
    to get them ready. If this Nation were to resource them, that
    time could be given back to the civilian families, the civilian
    employer and the citizen soldier would be able to endure his
    contribution.
        Senator Durbin. General, aren't we pushing our Guard and
    Reserve to the absolute limit with these continued
    redeployments into Iraq when we know there are equipment
    shortfalls, when 90 percent of them are not combat ready? We
    keep calling on them and their families to sacrifice again and
    again and again. How can we ask these soldiers and their
    families to risk their lives when our Government knows that we
    need to do more to prepare them for battle?
        General Blum. Without being flippant, I'd like to present
    that back to you in the form of a question. How can we not call
    up the Guard and Reserve? When you call up the Guard and
    Reserve, you call up America and that's exactly what should
    happen when we send men and women into harm's way for this
    Nation. I would advocate that we never should be in a conflict
    without significant participation by the Guard and Reserve
    because they bring the conscience of America to the fight and
    it keeps the Congress----

                             MAINTAINING THE FORCE

        Senator Durbin. General, there are two different things
    we're talking about here. You've just addressed the obvious.
    The courage of these men and women when called to serve--they
    will stand and serve even if in the back of their minds,
    they're wondering about their situation at home? And they're
    going to do it, time and time again. That's what makes them the
    great men and women they are. I'm talking about our
    responsibility as a Government to have them ready for battle,
    to give them the rest they need, the training they need, the
    equipment they need and what we've been told over and over
    again from the testimony is, we're not. We're shortchanging
    them on resources not on their courage. No one is questioning
    their courage.
        General Blum. You're actually absolutely correct there.
        Senator Durbin. That concerns me. Let me also say that I'm
    concerned, too, about the mental status of many of these troops
    and I'd like you to address it because the numbers that are
    coming back here tell us that not only the soldiers but their
    families are under severe mental stress because of these
    continued redeployments under these circumstances.
        We are seeing alarming increases of the rate of alcoholism
    and drug use and the desertions that are involved, the divorces
    that are happening among these military families. Isn't that
    part of our responsibilities to take this into consideration
    when we ask whether a unit is ready?
        General Blum. I'm afraid so. Any time you ask an American
    citizen to go to war, I think the Congress of the United States
    ought to realize it has a responsibility to care for him and if
    he was injured in the war, we ought to try to make him whole
    any way we can. We should do it through the military and if the
    military can't do it, then we have to get other systems, other
    governmental or civilian systems to do it. That's what we owe
    him. I think we owe him that. He puts his life on hold and he
    puts his life at risk. I think we owe him that.
        Senator Durbin. Do you acknowledge, General, that the
    statistics that we're receiving, the information we're
    receiving, the Department of Defense says that the stress is
    starting to show in terms of these repeated deployments of
    soldiers into combat?
        General Blum. No question about it. There's no question
    this is a stressful time. Stress is produced in the most
    experienced combat force--but it also--but it doesn't need to
    be taken for granted. It's on autopilot. You have to watch it
    very carefully. Can the force be broken? Yes. Are we broken
    today? No.
        Senator Durbin. Does there come a time in the decision
    process of this administration whether we're talking about the
    redeployment of the civilian force or the escalation and surge
    force, when you feel duty-bound to report to the Secretary of
    Defense and the President that I'm sorry, we cannot meet your
    numbers? Has that moment ever come?
        General Blum. Yes, sir.
        Senator Durbin. Have you done that?
        General Blum. Yes, sir. So has General Vaughn. I'll give
    you a perfect example. The four brigades that have been called
    up now are my fault and his fault--like an orphan without the
    supervision of a battalion headquarters or a brigade
    headquarters and a support mechanism. When we found out about
    that, we tried to--and said, we're not sending our troops like
    this. We refused to send our forces and deploy them that way.
    The Secretary of Defense supported our decision.
        The Joint Chiefs supported our decision and the Department
    of the Army supported our decision. We're now sending four
    brigades with the right kind of senior leadership and the right
    kind of support, administrative logistics, and operations so
    that these companies can go out there and belong to a parent
    organization and be successful. If I ever get to the point
    where I think we've been asked to do something we cannot do,
    that is the day I'll--that's what they pay me for, is to tell
    them that and if I fail in telling that, I failed you, I've
    failed me and I've failed the Nation.
        Senator Durbin. I'm going to ask one last question. Do you
    know the current state of readiness? The equipment, the
    challenge--the courage and capability of our armed forces. How
    long can we sustain this war under these circumstances?
        General Blum. As long as the American people support the
    American soldier.
        Senator Durbin. General, that doesn't answer the question.
    The American people are behind the American soldiers, there's
    no question about that. The question is, is this Government
    behind these soldiers? Are we providing them everything they
    need to do their job and come home safely and how much longer
    can we continue this?
        General Blum. If we are provided the resources that we're
    asking this subcommittee today, the reason we're asking for
    that is so we can sustain a capable, ready, reliable, and
    accessible volunteer force indefinitely to do whatever this
    Nation needs, either here at home or abroad, to keep this
    Nation safe and to allow it to endure. I don't decide where we
    go.
        I certainly have some input into how many numbers we put
    where and what it can sustain and I will go on record in front
    of this subcommittee as telling you, we can provide and
    maintain what we are doing on the Southwest border and what we
    are asked to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Horn of Africa,
    and 40 other countries around the world and at the same time, I
    will deliver and ensure that they have the equipment and the
    plans that they need to be able to respond to the hurricanes
    and that the Governors have what they need to respond to any
    unforeseen contingencies in their States.
        The only thing that I don't have right now are the things
    that are listed on this card and the resources that will make
    that possible. If this were fully funded and got to where it
    was supposed to be going, in the next 6 years, I would stake my
    personal and profesional reputation on the ability of the
    National Guard, Army, and Air to maintain the level of effort
    we have right now at home and abroad and I'm not talking about
    whether we're doing the right thing in the right place or if
    that makes everybody happy. What I'm saying is, can the
    National Guard keep about 18 or 20 percent of its 350,000
    strong force, which is postured to go by the way and I expect
    that we will.
        Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, we've got to keep going
    because this country needs a larger Guard. So we're going to
    keep doing that as long as we can find the young men and young
    women of quality and right now, our quality is second to no
    one. There is not any other ground force, Active or Reserve,
    that can compete with the Army and Air Guard. It's at an all-
    time, historic high.
        The hard thing is maintaining the force, not the people.
    The people are there. They'll do it as long as this Nation
    supports and believes in what they're doing. They're that kind
    of people but they can't do it without the resources and that's
    what I'm addressing today. They've got to have the tools to do
    the job.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you for your testimony.
        General Vaughn. Senator Durbin, do you care if I could add
    something? Just as an insight into the four basic combat
    training that you were talking about. What is going on in
    recruiting business today that we're in and the pride in the
    force and the fact that so many young soldiers want to join.
    Out of 13,000, roughly 8,500 of those soldiers have not
    deployed. We are recruiting 20 percent of the force every year
    now so these are new soldiers. I have real concerns that the
    mid level assignments and officers that are having to start out
    big time careers, and where they move in that pipeline. If
    there is a package of some way to take care of a particular
    group of people, you know, old folks, it's hard to drive them
    out. Young folks, we're tracking them because of what the
    States have done and the way they've appreciated them. When
    they come back, they want to be members of the communities.
        And so, all is not quite so bleak as we're immobilizing
    everybody that is in that unit. We have a 20-percent attrition
    turnover every year--1 out of 5 gets out every year. In 5
    years, roughly 100 percent turns over. Well, obviously the
    leadership doesn't turn over. That's what we've got to watch.
    That's what we've really got to be concerned about.
        We can move equipment. We move equipment big time across
    State lines for training sets. We don't like to do that because
    you know the wrath we incur from the Governors when we do
    something that has to do with the dual purpose types of
    equipment, such as the trucks and transporters and what not
    that are short.
        We've been able to do this to point and there has been
    adequate equipment sent overseas for us to fall into and there
    are some who say we didn't have to take all the equipment. But
    now it's replacing, replenishing equipment back to the depots
    and having to bring equipment back and return it.
        We're seeing a regeneration deal where we have to take more
    equipment over, so where's the balance at? I don't know but we
    do have, through pulling everything across all the States and
    getting a lot of cooperation from the States, we do have some
    equipment sets out there and we train people for that wartime
    mission.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. General--all three
    of you, thank you for being here and you've always been
    straight with us and been willing to answer our questions. We
    very much appreciate that.

                     MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTECTED (MRAP)

        But General Blum, you indicated that we're also calling up
    America when we call up the troops. Recall Colonel Hamas
    talking to us about the Second World War. I think it was in
    Hammerstein's book, ``The Boy and the Dream'', described in the
    last year of the Second World War we produced 50,000 war
    planes. We had Rosie the Riveter. We had manufacturing plants
    just humming--50,000 war planes. We're not mobilized to do
    anything like that. The reason I mention that to you is I asked
    General Schoomaker and the Commandant Marine Corp about the
    MRAP (mine resistant ambush protected).
        The MRAP is listed as one of the top priorities. It's a
    mine resistant ambush protected vehicle. It's one of the top
    priorities of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. It provides
    40 percent increase in occupant survivability over an up-
    armored Humvee. They say it would reduce death by two-thirds
    from improvised explosive devices (IED). We're producing 40 a
    month. Forty a month! We're not mobilized.
        And the fact is, my guess is you would prefer to have
    National Guardsmen who are going there to assume equipment
    there to be able to ride in an MRAP but we're producing 40 a
    month. So the fact is, America hasn't gone to war--we're
    sending soldiers to war. We're not mobilized the way we should
    be mobilized in my judgment.
        Let me ask the question--well, first of all, do you agree
    with me with respect to the MRAP and the urgent need to
    mobilize to get the best equipment on the ground?
        General Blum. Absolutely. My son is deployed in Afghanistan
    and the best thing I could think of that he could be riding
    around in right now is a variant of the MRAP.
        Senator Dorgan. Does it bother you that we're manufacturing
    40 a month or 50 a month?
        General Blum. It bothers me that the--when most of the
    Nation is watching ``American Idol'' and ``Dancing with the
    Stars''.
        Senator Dorgan. And shopping. I mean, we send soldiers to
    war, but then go to the mall. Not much has changed.
        Did you have a list of resources that are shortfalls that
    you've identified? The President's supplemental request is for
    $1.78 billion, $1.7 billion for the Guard. That's far short of
    your identified shortfalls. Did you send these requests of
    shortfalls up the line and request that they be funded in the
    emergency supplemental?
        General Blum. Of course, sir. And you know I'm a title 10
    officer and I'm duty-bound to support the President's budget
    and there is some risk assumed in every budget and if the
    Congress wanted to pay down the risk, I've listed risk and I've
    listed the cost. So that's all I can do, Senator.
        Senator Dorgan. I understand, General, that you are duty-
    bound to support the budget as it comes to us but I was only
    asking if you identified for us today the substantial
    shortfalls that are similarly identified at the start of the
    budget process and denied and seen those requests denied and
    the budget process?
        General Blum. Yes, sir. I've never seen a budget ever that
    fully funded 100 percent of what everybody thought they needed.
        Senator Dorgan. I understand but the subcommittee has money
    but the subcommittee is one of the subcommittees that routinely
    adds money for the Guard.
        General Blum. This document--I'm sure you can't see it from
    here, but I'd be happy to give it to you. What this shows is
    this is one of the documents we did submit to show what is here
    as opposed to what we're being resourced to. This is why it is
    so important for the Congress to have funds go where they
    intended them to go, to put it in such a way and put it in such
    language that your team gets to where it has the impact you
    intend because money that just comes in is general monies. It
    has a tendency to go other places and then people don't
    understand why they thought they cured this problem and then it
    wasn't cured.
        Senator Dorgan. But General, from our standpoint, when
    something isn't requested but is identified as a serious
    shortfall and then it is added by somebody here, it's called an
    earmark and then scornfully described as an earmark. My only
    point is, if we have shortages, I understand you can't
    necessarily respond to all of them immediately.
        General Blum. This goes into--this is not a complete list
    of everything we would like to have and need to have. These are
    the things we absolutely must have if we're going to be able to
    deliver all the capabilities that are being questioned here by
    this subcommittee this morning.

                               RETURNING SOLDIERS

        Senator Dorgan. And that a requirement of the President and
    the President's budget and it's a requirement of the Congress
    to find ways to address these shortfalls.
        Let me ask, General, about a call I received from a mother
    recently. Her son came back about 1\1/2\ years ago, 18 months
    ago and he was a substance abuser. He could not sleep. He would
    pull the covers over his head and scream at night from
    nightmares and so on.
        They went to the VA system but couldn't get any help. Hired
    private psychiatrists and so on and finally after about 1 year,
    got him in a position where he was back in college and doing
    pretty well and then a couple of weeks ago, got his alert
    notice for June and she called me, crying and wondering, what
    has happened here? We spent a lot of money, a lot of time
    bringing our son back to health. Is he going to be sent to Iraq
    again?
        I don't ask you about that specific case, I only ask you
    about the issue of seeing that this is replicated in many areas
    of the country. Are we able to adequately identify those young
    soldiers who come back with very serious issues, who are not
    getting the help they need in the VA system, whose parents are
    then hiring psychiatrists and so on, nursing them back to
    health and then they get a notice that they're on alert status,
    going to be sent back to Iraq.
        General Blum. That, Senator, I don't have the details of
    exactly what you were describing but if you were to take that
    as a generic scenario, could that be possible around the
    country? Absolutely. Is it possible? Absolutely. I would not
    present in gross numbers.
        There are occasions of that happening and the unit
    commanders have discretion in that regard. We certainly would
    not take a wounded soldier and send him back and what you're
    describing is a very real combat wound and it would be very
    unlikely, I would think, that any prudent commander would even
    want to take a soldier like that while they were still in
    recovery, if they had already sustained injury. If you have
    details on it, pass it to me. I'll make sure that the right
    judgment is placed against the facts of the situation.
        But clearly, we have a system in place that watches that
    and what I've described to Senator Mikulski is that we do need
    to put additional resources against that because our caseload
    grows. The longer this goes on, the numbers don't get smaller,
    they get larger over time and we need to be able to make sure
    to treat these people well. There are people walking around,
    frankly, everybody that has post trauma type injuries that are
    not only the military. We have a lot of the civilian population
    that were witnesses to war that have exactly what you're
    talking about and unfortunately, I don't think they have the
    same safety net that we're providing in the Department of
    Defense. I don't think there is anybody out there that is as
    sensitive to that as we are.
        Senator Dorgan. General I think in response to the question
    asked by Senator Durbin, I think we're stretching the Guard and
    Reserve in a way that was not previously attempted and I have
    enormous gratitude to the men and women who make up the Guard
    and Reserve and these are people who have homes and families
    and jobs. They are citizen soldiers. In most cases, they've
    been taken for 18 months, longer than the active duty soldiers
    and some of that has changed, I know, recently but now with the
    3-month extension.
        This country owes a great debt of gratitude especially to
    all soldiers but to the Guard and Reserve and especially their
    families. So I know you will express that to them from us and I
    know all of us serving here serve on this subcommittee for a
    purpose and we want to provide everything that is needed for
    those soldiers who are ordered into harm's way.
        I want to make one final comment, if I may, to General
    McKinley. Thank you for your work with respect to the Fargo Air
    Guard, who Mr. Chairman has called the Happy Hooligans. I want
    to read two paragraphs before my colleagues are recognized. The
    Happy Hooligans have been the best Air Guard unit in the
    country. They've won the William Tell Award twice, which is the
    award for the best fighter pilots against the Air Force,
    against everybody. So here's something from USA Today,
    describing the Happy Hooligans. Now they lost their fighter
    planes.
        They do have UAVs now but it says, quote: ``Here is the
    bottom middle agers with chiseled faces, people whose other
    jobs happen to be in an insurance office, on the farm or flying
    for Fed Ex, members of the local church, officers of civic
    organizations, yet when you strap one of these senior flyers
    into a cockpit, into an F-16, the younger boys get out of the
    way.'' These are the Godfathers of air superiority. They won
    the William Tell twice as if to emphasize continued--their
    underdog status but one pilot was a lieutenant colonel named
    Peewee. The competition was for F-15s. The F-16s were at a
    distinct disadvantage. It was good see the F-15s this far.
    These guys, the Happy Hooligans, went out and beat them twice
    in the William Tell competition and the same year, won the
    Hughes Trophy for the best air combat unit in the United States
    Air Force. That's in the Air Guard unit in Fargo, North Dakota.
    That's an unbelievable legacy and I first saw it when the
    leader of the Air Guard unit flew over my hometown when I was a
    teenager and his sister-in-law was the neighbor and she was out
    there waving her apron. This was in the late 1950s and he took,
    I'm sure he broke all the rules but he took whatever jet he was
    flying down over a town of 300 people and then he pulled up and
    went straight up into the air in the blue sky.
        I guess maybe I was 10 years old. I stood there with eyes
    the size of dinner plates, first I'd ever seen a jet. He shook
    everything in that small community and I'm sure he broke all
    the rules but we were so proud of having somebody that we knew
    running the best Air Guard unit in the country. That was
    decades ago. And since then--the reason I mentioned this,
    General McKinley, because you specifically mentioned the Happy
    Hooligans and we appreciate very much what you and General Blum
    and others have done for them because that is a terrific unit
    of dedicated soldiers for this country. We appreciate your
    work.
        General McKinley. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. They're out there flying F-22s, by the way.
    But that's another subject.
        Senator Inouye. General, if I may, just to follow up on
    Senator Dorgan. The administration requested $1.7 billion to
    make up for shortfalls and this subcommittee added $1 billion.
    I suppose that's an add-on earmark. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me further
    understand this as well. The President asked for $1.7 billion
    and we added $1 billion. Is this in the President's request?
    The card that you've given us? Has he requested this or are you
    asking for this on top on that?
        General Blum. No, this is additional resources. This list
    represents unfunded requirements that we need to buy down the
    risk, to mitigate the risk that is underaddressed.
        Senator Murray. So the President has not requested the
    funds that are needed for the Guard or Reserve to be effective?
        General Blum. I wouldn't say it that way. I would say that
    even though there are considerable funds programmed, probably
    historically, high in numbers, it still does not fully address
    the requirements. I think that if I were asked, how we could
    mitigate the risk that still exists in the budget, I think that
    this card would answer the question.
        Senator Stevens. This is your 6 year figure, isn't it?
        General Blum. Yes, sir.

                                TRICARE COVERAGE

        Senator Murray. Well, I thank you. I thank you for your
    candor today, gentlemen. I really appreciate your candor to
    tell us what you need to make sure that this problem--what this
    country has asked them to do.
        I was at Camp Murray in my home State 2 days ago and I sat
    down with a large crowd of people who were Guard members. Some
    of them had been called up and had returned home. Some of them
    were about to be called up, and some of them were family and
    spouses.
        The stress, and I'd say anger, was at an all-time high.
    I've talked with members of the Reserve and Guard many, many
    times over the last years. You talked about getting our troops
    ready. We've heard a lot about equipment and I know my State is
    one of the red States on your chart. We have earthquakes and
    floods and volcanoes and I'm deeply troubled by that and I
    don't know which State you'd call on to help us when all the
    States beside us are red, too, should something like that
    occur.
        But that's one more issue. The issue of troop readiness is
    much larger than that, and that is about whether or not these
    men and women are physically ready to go back again. The
    brigade that is about to be called up, the last one to be
    called up, haven't gotten their orders yet. I assume they'll
    get it in the next several weeks. I was told specifically that
    a number of them know that they have medical conditions that
    need to be taken care of before they can leave ground here.
        But the fact is, they don't get covered by TRICARE until
    they get those orders. When they get those orders, they'll have
    about 4 weeks, I believe, until they are on duty. And in that
    4-week time span, they'll have to get a medical appointment and
    get whatever issue they know they need taken care of right now.
        I was told, for example, that someone who had an issue
    with, I believe it was a kidney, but had no personal healthcare
    was waiting for his orders. But once he got those orders, he
    needed to call TRICARE right away, which he knew he couldn't
    get in the few weeks' time he had. He was not deployed with his
    unit--because of his loyalty.
        I'm deeply worried about the way that we have structured
    this right now with a lot of these men and women coming home
    with both visible and invisible wounds that are not going to be
    ready when we deploy them because of that condition that I just
    described to you. Are you hearing that?
        General Blum. Yes, I am and that's why I've brought the
    command sergeant major, a senior enlisted advisor, with us.
    That's what they watch out for. It's our obligation and it's
    our duty and responsibility to not take someone who is not
    whole to war. So if someone was to withhold and we cannot
    detect a fault, I guess that could occur----

                                DEPLOYMENT CYCLE

        Senator Murray. I understand we don't have the medical
    capability----
        General Blum. That's not exactly truly accurate and I'm
    trying to make it totally accurate. Secretary Gates has made a
    very courageous decision on January 11. He made a decision that
    we're going to call the Guard and Reserves up for 1 year, start
    to finish and within that 1 year, we would alert them as far
    out forward as we possibly could to give them some
    predictability in their lives.
        When they're enrolled, they get full health benefits
    coverage. We can identify the faults and fix them and the
    Government pays for it, just as if they were mobilized, in the
    past and we've brought them to some help station like Fort
    Lewis and then started working on them. So this will help them
    to stay healthy--healthcare in advance. What it also requires
    is that we train those people and equip those people during
    that period of time, which means that they are only there in a
    significant way and equipment from the past mobilization model
    and give it to General Vaughn to distribute to Washington
    State. It might help so that the year that they are alerted,
    they are working on the equipment they need to work on, the
    more equipment they have their finger on, they're getting the
    healthcare down.
        They're getting training so the time it takes to get them
    ready for partial mobilization is dramatically shortened and
    then they have to be back in 1 year, which means they'll only
    been deployed on the ground hopefully somewhere between 9 to 10
    months out of that year, which to me is a much more reasonable
    time, which is much more considerate of the wear and tear on
    the mind and the mind of the soldier, even if they don't get
    hurt. Better in a hospital environment for 9 months, it has
    wear and tear on the psyche and physical part of it.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I hope that's actually happening on
    the ground. It wasn't what I----
        General Blum. If you find any evidence that it's not, I
    would welcome you to bring it to my attention because that
    would get fixed immediately. That is not what Secretary Gates
    signed off on the 11th of January. Maybe you're talking about
    what was existing before and maybe not now, but that's where we
    are now. He made a very tough call here. He listened to the
    citizen soldiers and the Guard and Reserve components. He is
    sensitive to the partnership of the other two members of this
    partnership, the civilian employer and the family members and
    he has modified against--against the bureaucracy of the
    Pentagon. He is against that and he has made that decision so I
    have to give him credit for the State--and collaborating with
    the Congress and taking a bold measure to address what has been
    around as a problem for probably decades before he got there.
        Senator Murray. General, I appreciate the answer. I'll just
    tell you that I have some concerns. But I think the original
    comment of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
    injury, are particularly troubling. What we're hearing from
    Senator Dorgan is that it's a one-time, one-person injury.
        General Blum. I think it only affects about 7 out of 10 of
    our wounded, frankly.

                             TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

        Senator Murray. The problem is particularly because, as I
    heard them said to me, is that they don't want to be labeled
    with post-traumatic stress syndrome or traumatic brain injury
    (TBI), not because of their service but because of what they do
    outside the service and they don't want it to impact on their
    employment with some kind of a label that will cause them to
    have jeopardy in their lives outside the service.
        General Blum. Absolutely.
        Senator Murray. So I think we have to be especially
    diligent with the invisible wounds of war, with these men and
    women.
        General Blum. I'm really glad you understand and appreciate
    that because we're on the very beginning of even understanding
    how to treat and make those people whole.
        We're just starting to understand what traumatic brain
    injury really is, what it produces and how to effectively treat
    it to bring them back to where they were before the sustaining
    injury. It's not as significant because 7 out of 10 of our
    injured soldiers are first injured by improvised explosive
    devices that go off. They don't kill them. They may look
    absolutely perfect but they have soft tissue brain damage that
    is tough to detect unless you really knew that person extremely
    well.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, this is a huge issue because
    I had a chance to talk to the doctors there. So one simple
    question you can ask somebody to try and learn if they have
    traumatic brain injury----
        General Blum. They may not even know.
        Senator Murray. They may not even remember the explosion
    and they're telling me that many of the soldiers who return are
    in multiple explosions and they continue to over time to have
    injury. They can't just say, oh, we're in trouble for getting
    something done. They may not even know it.
        But their injury may be in a different part of the brain,
    the other soft tissue of this type of impact that we don't know
    about that will have future implications. So, there is a
    concern with redeployment and not having those--making sure
    that we have really gone above and beyond the call to make sure
    we're covering those injuries.
        That goes to the next question I have, because with all
    those Guard members that I met with, there was a huge level of
    anxiety and stress and I'll even say anger about how they are
    treated when they come home in relation to the regular Army.
    They felt they were constantly being asked, are you in regular
    Army or are you in the Guard and Reserves. And the minute they
    answered that question, they did not get the same treatment.
    Whether it's real or not, it is certainly perceived. As long as
    that perception is there, I think that's a real issue and I'm
    deeply concerned about it.
        General Blum. I couldn't agree more. That is certainly not
    anything the senior leadership of the military wants to exist
    or tolerate. If you--if any member has evidence of that and you
    get it to us, it will immediately be addressed.

                         NATIONAL GUARD EMPOWERMENT HCI

        Senator Murray. Well, in particular, I have concern for the
    group of people I talked to in terms of healthcare. And there
    are people there who have been waiting to get their medical
    evaluation paperwork for well over 1 year, and they were
    fighting with the disability ratings and expect that they are
    not getting granted full disability and having to fight, that
    to get their disability was especially troubling to these
    people because it affects their outside personal employment
    opportunities as well.
        General Blum. If I might, if I could respond to that, I'll
    just give you some perspective on that. I had a meeting with
    Secretary Gates on that very issue. He is very much aware of
    what you just described and he is absolutely committed to not
    tolerating it. He has a commission looking at that right now,
    and he's got a pretty quick turnaround when he wants things
    done. He looks at his watch, not at the calendar. He wants this
    done quickly.
        He wants to find out if this is a cultural thing or is this
    because the Reserve component's medical records are on paper
    and the active duty are electronic. The question is asked, how
    to treat them differently so they can figure out how they're
    going to track the records. This is not as sinister as it
    appears. I will tell you that there is absolutely--
    unfortunately, there are people that if they're not watched
    very carefully, you don't know what they may do. They may
    discriminate in their behavior. People like myself and General
    Vaughn and General McKinley and the Sergeant Major are
    committed to making sure that doesn't exist. I will also tell
    you that General Casey and General Schoomaker and General Cody
    are as well.
        If you would get the scout reports from your constituents,
    they are both far more open and far more candid on issues
    sometimes than they will with us, if you can share that with
    us, if you want to take their name or just tell us where the
    facility is, we'll go there and look at it. We're committed to
    making sure that does not exist. There should be one standard;
    one standard of care and treatment.
        Senator Murray. We have a long way to go. I can tell you,
    as an American, I'm very concerned. I'm concerned about the
    indications of our equipment and supplies. I'm concerned about
    how these men and women are being treated. I'm concerned that
    we are sending people back into conflict, especially with
    invisible wounds that they can't identify. The family members
    don't know. Traumatic brain injury is a perfect example--they
    might not even know it.
        And post traumatic stress disorder, because of the labeling
    of that, there's a huge issue, especially for a Guard who--and
    frankly, Mr. Chairman, we are having a hearing tomorrow, a
    joint hearing with the DOD and VA to talk about this whole
    disability rating--but we have a long way to go to make sure
    that these men and women are not given a low disability rating
    that will impact their lives forever. And we shouldn't have
    them sitting in medical halls fighting some kind of bureaucracy
    to get through that. That is ridiculous. They've gone to fight
    a war. They shouldn't be fighting their own country when they
    return.
        So I am very, very concerned about this and Mr. Chairman,
    we've got a lot of work to do on this. I want you to know those
    are brave men and women. They're courageous. They want to fight
    for their country and they want to do what's right. But I am
    deeply concerned that the President is not requesting what we
    need for facilities and we're fighting backwards to try and get
    them what they need and sending them into conflict. That really
    is just not the American way. Thank you, Mr. President.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Bond.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and General
    Blum and General McKinley, welcome. We honestly appreciate the
    great work that you and the men and women in the Guard do. I
    want to provide a little different slant on some of the things
    that have been suggested. Number one, war is tragedy. Nobody
    ever likes war. Nobody likes to be in a war. But as I recall--
    al Qaeda declared war and it wasn't until the tragic events of
    9/11 that it was here in the United States. We're in danger.
    And that's why we have active Guard and Reserves fighting in
    Afghanistan and Iraq and these brave men and women have helped
    keep our Nation free from more attacks. If they were not there,
    they would not forget about us. They would come after us.
        I had the pleasure of visiting with members of the Guard in
    Iraq and Afghanistan and many senior leaders were there and a
    former TAG (tactical airlift group) from Missouri was there.
    These men and women know what they're doing. They understand
    the mission. The only thing that really bothers them is why the
    media and some in the United States Congress don't understand
    that they are there to keep us safe. And that, to me, the fear
    that I hear most often. Now, shortfalls that you've described,
    as I understand, we had what we thought was a peace dividend
    for many years prior to 9/11 and did these shortfalls not--are
    these not a carryover from the short funding in those years?
        General Blum. Senator, they existed before 9/11. They were
    exacerbated by what you just described.
        Senator Bond. Well, as we have discussed here, this
    subcommittee put in for money that was requested in the
    supplemental and I'm pleased that there is $1.5 billon in that
    supplemental for the MRAP vehicles, which I gather is about as
    fast as they can be produced.
        Senator Leahy and I as co-chairs of the National Guard,
    fought to get an additional $1 billion for equipment. I would
    hope this Congress would get about the job of conferencing this
    supplemental, taking out the things that would have
    micromanagement of the war and allow this money to be supplied
    to the Guard or Reserve or the active units so they can do
    their jobs.
        We have had in this subcommittee continually to add dollars
    to the Pentagon request and that's why the National Guard
    Caucus has urged and demanded that we give the Guard a seat at
    the table so when the budgets are being discussed, the
    resources of these are being discussed, the Guard will have a
    seat at the table. And you've described the way that Secretary
    Gates has responded to the request to have the deployments cut
    back to 1 year and I am hoping that we will hear good news from
    Secretary Gates. I don't know what the plan will be but we and
    the Guard Caucus are going to continue to push for it, to push
    to get the Guard a seat at the table and I'm sure that this
    subcommittee with the great leadership that we have with
    Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens, we'll do as much as we can
    and we're committed to getting you the equipment you need.
        But as I understand it, you have said that no guardsman or
    woman is deployed without being fully resourced and trained. Is
    that accurate?
        General Blum. Yes, sir.

                          NATIONAL GUARD END STRENGTH

        Senator Bond. I would say just for the record, the
    situation that you and I have discussed many times before. I
    know what happened before when the Guard is not adequately
    resourced when Katrina hit. One of Missouri's fighter engineer
    battalions was called up to go to New Orleans. They took their
    equipment down there and did a great job. They got a call from
    Louisiana saying we need another battalion. They said, we're
    sorry. We got the engineers. We've got all the personnel but we
    don't have the equipment. So we gave Louisiana one-half of what
    they needed and we should have been able to provide because we
    had not been adequately resourced at the Guard.
        Now, I also want to touch on Fort Stewart, where several
    years ago, we had a Guard Caucus about poor treatment,
    bureaucracy, medical holds and inadequate facilities. And our
    staff went down there. We had to fight to get that changed and
    we continue to hear of problems of bureaucracy but having
    visited the VA facilities in my State, the DOD facilities, the
    people I've talked to said they get the best healthcare
    available but we have to cut through the medical holds.
        Let me get back to questions. General Blum, you have stated
    that equipment shortages, if they continue to extend a period
    of time, will have an impact on both the wartime and stateside
    nation. Can you give a little better judgment of what would
    happen if these shortfalls continue?
        General Blum. If the shortfalls continue, we will go
    further and further in the hole or we'll get further and
    further--we'll get more and more incapable over time because as
    you can see, this is having a roll-over effect. It's not a
    building effect.
        So we have to overcome the shortfalls if we're going to
    stop this death spiral with capability.
        Senator Bond. I want to ask General Blum this question.
    Some have questioned the ability of the Army National Guard to
    recruit an end strength of 350,000 personnel and to predict
    that we'll probably need to recruit additional personnel. Can
    you give us an update on the Guard's recruitment and retention
    efforts?
        General Blum. We went through 350,000 the last of March.
    We're sitting today around 350,500--we expect at the end of
    April to be at about 351,000.
        Senator Bond. Part and parcel of that is the same question
    that I asked General Vaughn, though. We're going to have to
    equip them because we can't expect folks to come back from
    overseas having trained on the right equipment and we don't
    know what the right equipment looks like--they are not a second
    rate team. They are a first rate team but they needed to be
    treated like that. What kind of capability do we have?
        I take that this nation needs as large a Guard force,
    decentralized as much as possible in as many communities as we
    can around the country, around this United States. I think
    that's our strength and I think 360,000 is very reasonable for
    us to be looking at early next year.
        In fact, as long as someone doesn't turn off the machine,
    as long as we have the resources available to recruit like we
    do now, I think--to be around 356,000 at the end of this year.
        General Blum. Well, thank you, Senator.
        Senator Bond. Knowing the Guardsmen and women who serve in
    my State, I can tell you that they are real fighters. They do
    great work and make a lot of sacrifices and the people who
    serve in the Guard are top flight, as you've already said.

                            AIR NATIONAL GUARD RESET

        Now I have another question for General McKinley. Some of
    us are extremely concerned about the recent decision by the Air
    Force to modernize or reset the Air Guard. General Moseley
    recently wrote to the Guard and Reserve Commissions with some
    suggestions as to how the Air Guard, the National Guard, could
    be improved.
        There are things in that, that really concerned me and I
    would like to know, what's going on?
        General McKinley. Sir, I think that I concur with your
    assessment. I think the best way to explain it is that General
    Blum and General Moseley had a following meeting after those
    letters were written. I was present along with several other
    key members. I watched General Blum put the equity of the
    National Guard on the table. General Moseley spoke candidly
    too, and I think it was a very open and frank discussion.
        As a result of that very negative action, I think something
    positive has come about. I think we're going to be able to
    reset our forces. We've been supplied by you, and we thank you
    for all the support. There are honest differences of opinion in
    this town over how services treat their Reserve components. I
    know from attending that dinner, General Bradley was there from
    the Chief of the Air Force Reserve, that those differences were
    discussed in a collegial environment and all the feelings were
    put out on the table.
        Senator Bond. But knowing General Blum, I can only imagine
    that there was some frank discussion. It's probably best not to
    get into that frank discussion but General Blum, would you like
    to give us just a brief overview?
        General Blum. Sir, it was frank, and it was very candid and
    ultimately, it was very collegial. I think we are in a good
    place with total force right now, with the leadership of the
    Air Force, the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard.
    All of us have a more common vision than we had before that
    meeting.
        As a former commander of one State's National Guard, I can
    tell you that we want the Guard to be strong and to be able to
    available for national security missions. We want a TAG with a
    deputy for Air and for Army, and keep the structure that we
    have, and make sure that we can make our home State missions
    our civil defense missions, as well as responding to the
    President and the Secretary of Defense call on the Guard for
    their overseas security efforts. By doing that, I hope you will
    lessen the likelihood that we will need to defend against
    actual terrorist activities here in the United States.
        General McKinley. Sir, I think not only you're right, there
    are 53 concurring Governors in our great Nation of the States
    and territories.
        Senator Bond. Thank you very much for all the work that you
    and all the members of the Guard do. We appreciate it. Mr.
    Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you. In the year 2006, we heard much
    negative and positive rhetoric during the campaign cycle.
    Chairman Stevens, who was chair then of the subcommittee at
    that time, felt that it was incumbent upon us to send a message
    to the men and women in uniform that we may disagree on the war
    but we are supportive of them. And I just want to recall once
    again, the last year of the subcommittee unanimously passed the
    largest budget ever. The full committee followed suit with a
    unanimous vote and the full Senate voted 100 to zero, something
    that has never happened before. And we hope to do the same
    thing again.
        I've decided to keep the record open for 2 weeks to give
    all of you an opportunity to provide addendums if you so wish
    in light of the discussions we've had today.
        First of all, I'd like to get a report on the Bureau as to
    what you need today and what you need to maintain 100 percent
    global fully equipped force. How long would that take?
        General Blum. We can have it to you this afternoon, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I'd like to know how long this would take
    and then how much you need to maintain this 100 percent.
        General Blum. Sir?

                      NATIONAL GUARD FUTURE FUNDING NEEDS

        Senator Inouye. Second, I think in your recruiting, you
    should note that in the Army, for example, you spent $770
    million in bonuses for retention and recruiting. My question
    is, do we have to maintain that level indefinitely or is that a
    one-time thing?
        General Blum. There are a couple of variables, Mr.
    Chairman, that play into this. It depends on what level of
    commitment that we have when we deploy our troops overseas;
    what level of commitment that we have here at home. That would
    change some of the demographics of our force and the pressures
    on the retention bonuses. For now, I would say that they
    probably need to be left in place so we don't break the
    contract with these young men and women of America that are out
    there currently. Certainly, I don't see this as something that
    you just put in cruise control. I think it needs to be
    evaluated and checked on from time to time to see if it needs
    an adjustment down or maybe you might even need adjustment up
    in the out-years, I don't know.
        Senator Inouye. How much do you need for the next fiscal
    year? We can do that for the record unless you want to do it
    now.
        General Blum. Sir, we can get that to you this afternoon
    for the record. Is that all right?
        Senator Stevens. Could I add to that, Mr. Chairman? Given
    that it is a 6-year readiness concept in that pamphlet, can you
    add to what the chairman has asked you? How does this phase in?
    You're not asking for the whole thing, for the $34 billion or
    whatever it is, in 1 year, obviously.
        General Blum. No, sir. We can get this for you this
    afternoon.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I'd like to see it beyond what he
    has asked for 1 year. How is this going to phase in over a
    period of years? Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Now, it's been a long day for the Guard.
    The Reserves are still waiting here. I'd too thank all of you
    for your testimony this morning. We appreciate you being with
    us and the subcommittee would wish to have you go back to the
    men and women under your command, and give them our deepest
    gratitude for their service to our Nation.
        General Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens and
    now in turn, we'd like to convey our greatest gratitude for
    your concern and your unwavering support for the American
    soldiers, airmen and Coast Guard serving our great Nation.
    Thank you, sir.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Inouye. We'd like to demonstrate our admiration and
    our gratitude by providing you the funds that you need.
        General Blum. Thank you, sir.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Bureau for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
            Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General H Steven Blum
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. General Blum, we've heard that the Stryker Brigades are
    performing well in theater--and that the National Guard may be
    interested in gaining two Stryker Brigades. For example, Governor
    Schwarzenegger recently suggested fielding a Stryker Brigade in
    California; we understand that other states may also be interested. Is
    the National Guard reviewing any proposals along this line--and are you
    considering increasing the number of Stryker Brigades? Are any new
    equipment or mission changes planned for the Guard at this time?
        Answer. The mission of the Stryker was to fulfill an immediate
    requirement in the Army's transformation process to equip a
    strategically and operationally deployable brigade capable of rapid
    movement anywhere in the world in a combat ready configuration. The
    armored wheeled vehicle is designed to enable the Stryker Brigade
    Combat Team (SBCT) to maneuver easily in close and urban terrain while
    providing protection in open terrain.
        The Stryker is an excellent multi-functional platform that is a
    good fit within the Army National Guard (ARNG) brigade structure.
    However, the Army has not validated or programmed any additional
    requirements for the ARNG beyond the one Stryker brigade stationed in
    the Pennsylvania National Guard.
        Currently, all components of the Army have severe equipment
    shortages. The Army is working to alleviate these shortages and has
    programmed $36 billion over the fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2013
    period for ARNG equipping priorities. It is imperative that any plan to
    field additional Stryker units to the ARNG not impact funding for other
    systems currently programmed, as these systems are critical for
    training and response to domestic emergencies.
        Question. Are any new equipment or mission changes planned for the
    Guard at this time?
        Answer. I will refer you to the Department of the Army (DA) for a
    more detailed response to this question. The Army National Guard (ARNG)
    works directly with DA on all matters pertaining to missioning and
    equipping of the ARNG. All Army National Guard programs are validated
    by the Department of the Army. The Guard continues to serve admirably
    in its dual federal/state mission as prescribed by the U.S.
    Constitution. While the primary mission of the Guard hasn't changed;
    specific roles, responsibilities and alignments are continually
    analyzed and modified to support the President's National Military
    Strategy.
        Question. General Blum, a recent GAO report found that the National
    Guard is critically short of equipment it needs for its domestic
    response and homeland security missions. What items needed for domestic
    missions are in shortest supply, and what steps are being taken to
    measure and track the Guard's readiness for domestic missions?
        Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) is in the process of
    converting from a Strategic Reserve to an Operational Force. As a
    Strategic Reserve, the Army assumed risk when equipping the ARNG
    because there would be sufficient lead-time to equip the deploying
    force. We can no longer afford to take that risk. The Department of the
    Army has shown a commitment to fully equip the ARNG to 100 percent of
    its requirement. The fiscal year 2009-13 POM (Program Objective
    Memorandum) ``fenced'' $21 billion as a down payment on fully equipping
    and modernizing the ARNG. This effort will require Army attention and
    steadfastness for several years after fiscal year 2013 to properly
    equip and modernize the ARNG to be fully interoperable and identical to
    active component units, having the ability to perform any mission in
    support of full spectrum operations.
        In the short term, the ARNG is fully committed to ensure its units
    are sufficiently equipped to perform their Homeland Defense/Defense
    Support to Civil Authorities (HLD/DSCA) mission. The ARNG has
    identified critical dual use items of equipment that are useful for
    both war and HLD/DSCA. These items were vetted through the States and
    the Army G3 and validated as the HLD/DSCA requirement. This list is
    currently under review to ensure that the need capabilities are
    reflected in the equipment list.
        An Army wide effort is underway to provide equipment to the
    hurricane prone States, just as we did last year. Some new equipment is
    being diverted to these States; some depot RESET/Recap equipment is
    being redirected; some equipment is being loaned to the ARNG; and the
    ARNG is cross-leveling some equipment among the States. The ARNG is
    taking great care to ensure that each State has equipment on hand to
    respond to State missions and are ready to move equipment into non-
    hurricane States, if required. The States have also negotiated
    Emergency Management Assistance Compacts (EMAC) to provide capabilities
    to each other if requested. Although the Army is strapped for
    equipment, in the short term, all components, working in concert, will
    support the ARNG in its mission of aiding/assisting the States in
    responding to natural disasters or other State missions.
        Question. The National Guard is currently performing important
    missions to assist in securing the southern border, including building
    roads, fences, and vehicle barriers. How much longer do you anticipate
    the mission on the border will continue, and how will this mission be
    funded in light of the absence of a request in the 2008 budget
    submission for that purpose?
        Answer. This mission will be completed in July 2008. Of the $415
    million reprogrammed for OJS we received $191 million for the remainder
    of fiscal year 2007. The $224 million left is being held in the Defense
    Wide Account. All the funding designated for Operation Jump Start (OJS)
    expires at the end of fiscal year 2007. The issue is--OSD needs to
    request transfer authority be forwarded to fiscal year 2008. Therefore,
    the unused fiscal year 2007 funding plus the $224 million can be used
    to support the fiscal year 2008 OJS requirements.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
        Question. Mr. Chairman, at the start of the 20th century, Theodore
    Roosevelt said that ``all of us who give service, and stand ready to
    sacrifice, are the torch-bearers.'' Today, in these early years of this
    new century, the members of our National Guard and Reserve are the
    torchbearers of our times. They wear the uniform of this nation with
    pride, carrying high that torch of freedom. But what do they get in
    return? A system that abuses their pledge of service and jeopardizes
    the safety of their communities here at home?
        I must ask why are the members of our National Guard and Reserves
    being treated so poorly? Why are they being sent back again and again
    to Iraq and yet being shortchanged when it comes to training,
    shortchanged when it comes to replacing equipment, and shortchanged
    when it comes to supporting them and their families?
        Answer. Past resourcing of the National Guard was a direct result
    of the Cold War paradigm of having the National Guard serve as a
    strategic reserve. Only in the past decade have we seen the shift of
    the National Guard to be more of an operational force. The resourcing
    model is still catching up. As an operational force the National Guard
    will be equipped and trained to the same standard as that of the active
    component.
        Currently, the National Guard is at its best level of training and
    equipment ever for the away game overseas, and that's how it should be.
    We will never deploy soldiers or units into combat that are not fully
    trained, equipment and ready for their assigned mission. A soldier's
    well-being to include family support is of the utmost priority.
        Now, the home game that is a different story. We can get our
    mission done, but we are not at our optimum. Past resourcing practices
    combined with today's high operational demand in support of the Global
    War on Terror has left us with a diminished capacity to respond to
    emergencies at home. In this area we still have a way to go.
        Question. General Blum: How are you planning to address all of the
    requirements of the National Guard, including homeland security,
    disaster response at home and combat operations and support, while
    major elements of the Guard are deployed?
        Answer. Currently, when the NG deploys they have the best equipment
    possible, as it should be. With the Congress' help we can equip our
    homeland defense and training missions at home to the level that would
    maximize their effectiveness.
        The National Guard continues to be committed to supporting the War
    on Terrorism in addition to providing sufficient capabilities to
    perform Domestic Operations. The National Guard Bureau's goal is to
    continue to provide a predictable model for operational unit rotations
    while still ensuring that sufficient unit capabilities and equipment
    remain under state control to perform Domestic Operations. Existing
    Army and Air National Guard domestic capabilities could be further
    leveraged by ensuring that dual use line items remain available and
    ready in sufficient quantities.
        Question. General Blum: How much National Guard and Reserve
    equipment has been left in Iraq; how many trucks, humvees, helicopters
    and other equipment? How much will it cost to replace them; and, given
    your current level of funding requests, how long will it take to
    replace them?
        Answer. There is a broad spectrum of equipment and categories of
    equipment that has been left in theater. Between battle losses, normal
    consumption and equipment diverted by the Department of the Army,
    diversions of Army National Guard equipment has had the greatest impact
    upon Guard readiness.
        Currently, we are tracking over 35,000 pieces of diverted ARNG
    equipment valued at over $3 billion. A critical category that has
    greatly impacted Guard capabilities is in Tactical Wheel Vehicles,
    where we have left over 7,000 of our best vehicles, 3,800 of which were
    our newest High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMWWVs).
        Question. Generals Blum, Vaughn and McKinley: Does your budget
    request to this Committee truly reflect all of the requirements
    necessary to accommodate your homeland security role, your disaster
    response role, your equipment needs, and the funding for programs
    necessary to provide quality support to those in the National Guard who
    are being called upon to serve their country, as well as their
    transition back to civilian life? If not, where are the deficiencies
    and why are they not being addressed?
        Answer. The current budget request goes a long way in meeting many
    of our needs. However, there are challenges. The Air National Guard has
    a $1.5 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2008. We have challenges in
    Personnel & Force Sustainment, Total Force Integration, Depot
    Maintenance, and flying hour shortfalls. We have additional challenges
    funding equipment for the ``Essential 10,'' an area tied to bringing
    capability to bear for the states and the governors. Finally, our
    information technology and installation security programs are
    critically under funded for fiscal year 2008.
        While the budget request submitted to the Committee reflects the
    needs of the National Guard to be properly equipped, trained, and
    manned to fulfill its duty to the nation as a strategic reserve, it
    does not fully fund us as an operational force. The table below
    depicts, by year, current funding plus the additional funding needed in
    the National Guard Personnel, Army (NGPA), Operation and Maintenance,
    National Guard (OMNG), and National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Appropriation (NGREA) accounts to achieve and maintain a 100 percent
    ready force.
      --Current POM funding levels will bring the ARNG to 77 percent
            equipment on hand by fiscal year 2013.
      --The additional $23.6 billion for equipment in the table would bring
            this level to 100 percent by fiscal year 2013.
      --The ARNG cannot reach 100 percent readiness until equipping levels
            reach 100 percent.
      --100 percent equipping levels will provide a robust homeland defense
            capability, will allow ARNG units to train for their war
            fighting mission prior to mobilization, and will provide the
            Nation and the Army with a surge capability, if needed.
      --The ARNG has transitioned from a strategic reserve to an
            operational force and must be resourced accordingly.

                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year--
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NGPA:
        Budget Request ( 65 Percent Readiness Level).........    5,959    6,196    6,464    6,751    6,957    7,167
        Additional Requirement................................    2,011    2,590    3,170    3,749    4,329    4,908
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------
          Budget (100 Percent Readiness Level)................    7,970    8,786    9,634   10,500   11,286   12,075
                                                               =====================================================
    OMNG:
        Budget Request ( 65 Percent Readiness Level).........    5,840    6,065    6,021    6,031    6,278    6,382
        Additional Requirement................................    1,322    2,493    3,665    4,836    6,007    7,179
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------
          Budget (100 Percent Readiness Level)................    7,162    8,558    9,686   10,867   12,285   13,561
                                                               =====================================================
    ARNG EQUIPMENT: Add'l Requirement (100 Percent Readiness      3,933    3,933    3,933    3,933    3,933    3,933
     Level)...................................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. This Critical Care team was comprised of soldiers from
    both the 332nd Expeditionary Operational Support Squadron and an
    aircrew from the 172nd Airlift Wing from Jackson, Mississippi. The crew
    diverted from their scheduled mission to help this seriously injured
    soldier. This kind of effort is something of which we can be proud.
        General Blum, could you please share with the committee the
    importance of these Air National Guard teams in these missions? And
    does the budget request before us and the Emergency Supplemental
    provide you the resources necessary to ensure the continued response to
    our soldiers in need?
        Answer. The No. 1 medical advancement seen during this conflict is
    en-route care. In Vietnam, from the time of injury till the patient was
    able to get back to the states averaged 43 days. Today, we're getting
    wounded troops back to the states oftentimes within 48 to 72 hours.
    Critical Care Air Transport Teams (CCATTS) are regionally responsible
    for patient collection, injury stabilization, airborne care en route
    and transfer of care to the next level of medical support. Patients can
    be U.S. service members, coalition forces, civilians or whoever may
    need help. The medical teams care for up to three critical condition
    patients at a time. Each team has a critical care doctor, a critical
    care nurse and a respiratory therapist. When an urgent trauma patient
    is being transported, his or her condition can go bad in a minute. Now
    we have critical care air transport teams that are like an intensive
    care unit in the sky.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
        Question. With the transition of Holloman Air Force Base to an F-
    22A base, the Air Force plans to utilize the National Guard at
    Holloman. How many New Mexico National Guardsmen do you expect to use
    in connecting with the F-22 squadrons at Holloman, when will this
    associate unit be established, and where will recruits for this unit
    come from?
        Answer. The Air Force has a Total Force Integration (TFI)
    initiative to form a classic associate F-22 unit with the New Mexico
    Air National Guard and the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman AFB, New
    Mexico. This association will begin in fiscal year 2008 with the first
    aircraft arriving during fiscal year 2009. To date, the Implementation
    Plan is still in coordination with Air Combat Command. Final personnel
    numbers have not been determined. We will continue to work with the
    state leadership to facilitate adequate recruiting for the unit.
        Question. As you know, a Government Accountability Office report
    released in January studies National Guard Domestic Equipment
    Requirements and Readiness and indicates that as of November 2006,
    nondeployed Army National Guard forces in New Mexico ranked last in the
    nation regarding equipment readiness, with less than 40 percent of the
    total amount of dual-use equipment they are authorized to have for war-
    fighting missions.
        Your budget requests $43 billion to recruit, man, train, operate,
    and equip National Guard and Reserve forces. How will this $43 billion
    funding request be used to address the serious domestic equipment
    shortfalls in New Mexico and many other States, what other actions is
    the Department taking to ensure that New Mexico's National Guard has
    the equipment it needs for missions at home, and how are domestic
    equipment shortages affecting the National Guard's ability to respond
    to disasters and other emergencies?
        Answer. Part of the $43 billion will be used to purchase more
    equipment for the Army National Guard (ARNG.) After it is received,
    this equipment will be issued in accordance with our priorities at that
    time. I am sure that New Mexico, as well as other States will benefit
    from the new equipment. As more units deploy, the National Guard Bureau
    (NGB) will be forced to cross-level equipment out of New Mexico to fix
    the deploying units to ensure that all of our deployed soldiers are
    properly equipped. We cannot afford to allow soldiers to go into battle
    under-equipped, if we have the equipment available in another State. I
    do not believe we should entertain State by State solutions because
    that is not in the best interest of the entire National Guard.
        The ARNG is in the process of converting from a Strategic Reserve
    to an Operational Force. As a Strategic Reserve, the Army assumed risk
    when equipping the ARNG because they knew there would be sufficient
    lead-time to equip the deploying force. We can no longer afford to take
    that risk. The Army is committed to fully equipping the ARNG to 100
    percent of its requirement. In the fiscal year 2009-13 Program
    Objective Memorandum (POM), they are ``fencing'' $21 billion as a down
    payment on fully equipping and modernizing the ARNG. This effort will
    require the Army's attention and steadfastness for several years after
    fiscal year 2013 to properly equip and modernize the ARNG to be fully
    interoperable and identical to active component units, having the
    ability to perform any mission in support of full spectrum operations.
        In the short term, the Army is fully committed to ensure the ARNG
    is sufficiently equipped to perform its Homeland Defense/Defense
    Support to Civil Authorities (HLD/DSCA) mission. The ARNG has
    identified critical dual use items of equipment that are useful for
    both war and HLD/DSCA. These items were vetted through the States and
    the Army G3 and validated as the HLD/DSCA requirement. We are providing
    equipment to the hurricane prone States, just as we did last year. Some
    new equipment is being diverted to these States; some depot RESET/Recap
    equipment is being redirected; some equipment is being loaned to the
    ARNG; and the ARNG is cross-leveling some equipment among the States.
    We are taking great care to ensure that each State has equipment on
    hand to respond to State missions and are ready to move equipment into
    non-hurricane States, if required. The States have also negotiated
    Emergency Management Assistance Compacts (EMAC) to provide capabilities
    to each other if requested. Although the Army is strapped for
    equipment, in the short term, all components, working in concert, will
    support the ARNG in its mission of aiding/assisting the States in
    responding to natural disasters or other State missions.
        Question. Last year the President announced Operation Jump Start,
    an initiative in which 6,000 Guardsmen were sent to the border to
    assist with border patrol operations. I support this initiative and had
    earlier introduced border security legislation that would expand the
    ability of States to use the National Guard in additional border
    security efforts. Can you tell us a little bit about the National
    Guard's work as part of Operation Jump Start and what do they need from
    Congress to continue their worthwhile efforts there?
        Answer. The President sent the National Guard to the Southwest
    Border in May of 2006. We put 6,000 personnel on the border in support
    of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). We have had over 16,000
    personnel that have rotated to work in support of this operation, and
    as you are aware this is an all volunteer force. Our job is to bridge
    the gap until CBP can hire and train enough personnel to take over all
    operations on the border. CBP had 20 different skill sets that they
    needed us to work in. By us working in these positions CBP was able to
    return 586 agents back to the border to perform law enforcement duties.
    We need for Congress to continue the funding for us, and we can provide
    the personnel.
        Question. The 150th Fighter Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base has a
    proud heritage as part of the Air National Guard. The 150th used to fly
    Block 40 F-16s, but gave them to the Active Duty force to assist in
    meeting mission priorities. Now the 150th flies Block 30 F-16s, which
    are at risk as a result of BRAC.
        What are you doing to develop a new mission for Air National Guard
    Units that fly F-16s, are their potential new Air National Guard
    missions at Kirtland, and are there potential National Guard missions
    for Cannon Air Force Base, which will become an Air Force Special
    Operations base in October?
        Answer. The 150th Fighter Wing ``Tacos'' have made great
    contributions to national defense. They have volunteered to participate
    in numerous Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) deployments to support
    wartime taskings. As a result of BRAC 2006, the 150th Fighter Wing
    increased from a 15 Primary Aircraft Authorized (PAA) Block 30 F-16
    unit to an 18 PAA Block 30 F-16 unit. As the Air Force moves from older
    generation aircraft to fifth generation aircraft, the Air Reserve
    Component (ARC) will be a full participant. The current Air Force
    aircraft roadmap has ARC units receiving low time, fourth generation
    fighters and fifth generation fighters to keep the units relevant and
    ready to participate in AEFs.
        At this time, we do not anticipate an Air National Guard mission at
    Cannon Air Force Base; however, as a Total Force partner, we continue
    to work with Air Force and all of the states to consider future
    missions at all locations.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
        Question. What has been the Guard's experience in establishing a
    Stryker brigade in Pennsylvania?
        Answer. The transformation of the 56th Infantry Brigade (Divisional
    Brigade) to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) is on schedule to
    achieve Initial Operational Capability by September 2008. The keys to
    success for converting a unit to a SBCT are the fully funding of
    requirements, the dedication of the Soldiers and the assistance of the
    active component in the form of the HQDA G-8 Transformation Team. To
    start, the Army programmed $1.5 billion to fully equip this unit, with
    much of the equipment that was programmed already delivered.
    Additionally, the Army also fully funded the facilities, ranges and
    training necessary for the successful transformation of a legacy
    Divisional Brigade to an SBCT. HQDA G-8 provided the Army
    Transformation Team to assist in the transformation of the 56th
    Brigade. This team is chartered, placed and funded to maintain
    oversight of the transformation process. The team also provides the
    direct link between all organizations involved and maintains a position
    to ensure that the transformation process remains on schedule. The
    Pennsylvania Army National Guard received $220 million for facilities
    and ranges to support the 56th Brigade transformation. As for training,
    the Army fully funded the increased training requirements to support
    New Equipment Training as well as collective training. The Unit
    Training Assemblies and the number of Annual Training days performed by
    a Soldier were increased to meet the required training benchmarks.
    Several highly technical skilled positions require large amounts of
    additional training days in addition to the required equipment NET. The
    commitment, understanding and involvement of the leadership are
    imperative for the success of a transition of this magnitude. The extra
    training requirements placed an additional burden on the Soldiers which
    marks their dedication to duty and to their BCT.
        The team work between the National Guard, Active Army, industry and
    others enabled the success of this unit. Numerous formal agreements
    were established to identify responsibilities in support of the
    transformation of the 56th SBCT. These agreements greatly assisted in
    the transformation process.
        Question. Compare the capability of a Stryker brigade for National
    Guard missions to that of an infantry brigade that it replaces, such as
    improved command, control, and communications. Please address the
    Guard's combat mission in support of the active Army, and also the
    State missions of disaster-response and homeland security.
        Answer. The Heavy, Infantry, and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams each
    provide unique but complimentary capabilities across the spectrum of
    military operations. Each Brigade relies on a suite of Command,
    Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
    Reconnaissance (C4ISR) assets to provide greater situational awareness
    that increases the lethality and survivability of each Brigade Combat
    Team. The Stryker Brigade, as opposed to a Heavy or Infantry Brigade
    Combat Team, has greater tactical agility and is better able to bridge
    the entire spectrum of military operations (i.e., conduct operations in
    support of medium to high intensity conflict [i.e., maneuver warfare]
    and operations in low-intensity conflicts). The wheeled-based chassis
    allows the Brigade to move personnel and equipment over a variety of
    terrain to include improved road networks. The standard family of
    Stryker vehicles can move at speeds of 60 plus miles per hour while
    containing infantry squads and equipment. This capability supports the
    Army National Guard's combat missions as well as disaster response in
    its role of support to civil authorities. The purpose of the Brigade
    Combat Team in Combat operations, regardless of Army Component, is to
    provide a Division Headquarters the ability to conduct full-spectrum
    military operations with organic combat and combat service support
    units all within the command and control of a brigade commander. The
    utility of the Stryker brigade extends to the low-end of military
    operations more suited for the Army National Guard's role in support to
    civil authorities. In a scenario in which the Army National Guard
    initially responds to a natural or man-made disaster, the family of
    Stryker vehicles and the Stryker Brigade's other organic tactical-
    wheeled vehicle fleet can easily and rapidly move the entire Brigade's
    personnel and equipment over the interstate highway system to the
    affected area. This provides the States with the crucial capability of
    rapidly responding to the needs of their citizenry thereby serving as a
    confidence building measure and promoting order as a key component to
    the humanitarian response.
        Question. The Committee understands that DOD has committed to
    increase funding over the next 5 years for modernization of the
    National Guard. Is there any reason that a portion of these funds could
    not be used for transformation of National Guard infantry brigades into
    Stryker brigades?
        Answer. Currently the Army National Guard does not have a
    requirement for additional Stryker Brigades. However, if the Department
    of the Army identifies and validates such a requirement, it is critical
    that separate funding be provided to convert current force structure
    into new SBCT structure. It is absolutely imperative that the cost of
    such a conversion not delay the equipping and modernization of the rest
    of the ARNG force.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Clyde A. Vaughn
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. General Vaughn, this past week the Army Guard announced
    the mobilization of four brigades for Iraq. For some of these
    guardsmen, this will be their second deployment in a few years time. A
    recent change in Department policy has made these second deployments
    possible since guardsmen and reservists are no longer limited to a
    total of 24 cumulative months of deployment in support of the war on
    terror. At the same time, the Department is decreasing the length of
    mobilizations for guardsmen and reservists from 18 to 12 months. But
    these deployments also signal a failure by the Department to meet its
    goal of 1 year deployed to 5 years at home for its guard and reserve
    troops. Are you concerned that these changes will hurt recruiting and
    retention? Do you believe that soldiers will prefer 12 month
    deployments, even if it makes the 1 to 5 deployment to dwell ratio all
    that much harder to achieve?
        Answer. Recent changes in the mobilization policy have not hindered
    Army National Guard recruiting. We have recently recruited to an end-
    strength of 350,000, and we are moving towards 360,000. Soldiers,
    Families and employers prefer the 1 in 5 deployment ratio because it
    provides predictability. Soldiers prefer a 12-month deployment period.
    While it is certainly true that frequent deployments place stress on
    our force, I can report that recruiting and retention are strong in the
    ARNG. Current operations since the initiation of the Global War on
    Terror have not had a significant impact upon ARNG retention or the
    overall ARNG loss rate. Retention and attrition rates remain consistent
    as a testimony to the dedication and professionalism of our traditional
    Guardsmen. However, survey feedback from ARNG Soldiers and Family
    members indicates that mobilization and the associated factors
    including time away from family and the potential impact on the
    civilian career are considerations that can effect long-term commitment
    to the ARNG if not mitigated through leadership focus and Soldier/
    Family focused initiatives and benefits.
        Question. General Vaughn, do you believe that the 1 to 5 deployment
    to dwell ratio is a realistic goal while operations continue in Iraq?
        Answer. The current operational demand, although not exceeding our
    total force capacity, does exceed the available forces for several
    capabilities referred to as high demand units. These high demand units
    are the most likely targets of shortened dwell time, and include
    brigade combat teams, military policy companies, and engineer
    battalions. There are also high demand capabilities that are in short
    supply; these include specialty aviation units, specialty engineer
    units and military intelligence teams. For high demand units and
    special capabilities the cycle must be adjusted by compressing dwell
    time to meet the mission requirements.
        While the operational demands of the current warfight remain
    constant, in both numbers of soldiers deployed and the types of
    capability required, a one in five deployment cycle is most likely not
    a realistic goal for high demand units.
        Question. General Vaughn, the Army National Guard will soon begin
    receiving the Light Utility Helicopter. Has the Guard reviewed its
    aviation requirements to determine whether it is seeking the proper mix
    of Light Utility Helicopters, UH-60 Black Hawks, and CH-47s?
        Answer. The Army establishes aviation organizational units across
    all three components based on the Army's strategic force structure
    requirements. The Army makes the decision as to the proper overall mix
    of rotary wing capability. The Department of the Army works
    collectively with the Army National Guard (ARNG) through the Total Army
    Analysis (TAA) program in establishing the right mix to meet future
    warfight needs. The ARNG currently owns approximately 43 percent of the
    total Army rotary wing aviation structure. At this time, the ARNG's
    number of on hand aircraft is short of the Army requirement. The ARNG
    agrees with the planned mix of aircraft for ARNG and what is currently
    planned.
        Question. General Vaughn, with the increasing demand for Army
    National Guard aviation assets, both overseas and at home, is the
    Guard's helicopter fleet experiencing the same strain seen on other
    National Guard equipment? Has there been a reduction of readiness for
    National Guard helicopters to respond to domestic emergencies?
        Answer. The Army National Guard's (ARNG's) helicopter fleet is not
    strained as much as other National Guard equipment as aviation
    equipment and aircraft are much more intensely managed, scrutinized,
    and maintained. Also there are simply more aircraft to meet the
    requirements. The required ARNG rolling stock on hand is at
    approximately 42 percent, where the aircraft on hand is approximately
    80 percent.
        The ARNG readiness, as a specific maintenance term, has remained
    approximately the same as before OIF, however availability can be an
    issue for States with deploying assets. As of April 2007, the ARNG
    overall Operational Readiness rate was 66.23 percent. States with a
    mixture of airframes are effectively able to manage both deployments
    and domestic emergencies, and predominantly have a mutual assistance
    agreement with another State. For example, Georgia, which is a
    Hurricane State, has OH-58s, UH-1s, UH-60s, CH-47s, and C-23 assets.
    With some aircraft deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
    (OIF), and some aircraft deployed to the SW Boarder mission, GA still
    has sufficient assets available to assist any state in the region, such
    as what happened during Hurricane Katrina. Aircraft availability
    becomes an issue through deployment because of the long times the
    aircraft are unavailable due to deployment, transit, and RESET. The
    times involved include: a 12 month deployment, approximately 45 days in
    transit to ship the aircraft to or from theater, and then approximately
    9 months of RESET for 25-50 percent of the aircraft post mobilization.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
        Question. That is why the Emergency Supplemental Bill that the
    Senate recently approved includes a $1 billion increase above the
    President's request to equip the National Guard and Reserve.
        Generals Vaughn and McKinley: What plans are you aware of within
    the active components of your respective services to address issues
    relating to the reliance on the National Guard to perform routine
    combat operation activities?
        Answer.
    Air National Guard Answer
        For the Air Force, the Air Expeditionary Forces construct has
    worked well for all components (Active Duty, Guard and Reserves).
    Predictability is the key to mitigating the disruptive nature of
    mobilizations. The Air Expeditionary Force construct has helped
    tremendously by making it possible for Total Force members to forecast
    the likelihood of deployments. This affords our members the opportunity
    for advance planning and in many cases we can use volunteerism to
    decrease the number of mobilization requirements.
    Army National Guard Answer
        Recognizing the key role of the National Guard in the Army's
    overall capability to perform continuous operations for the long war,
    the active component is making unprecedented strides forward toward
    organizing and equipping National Guard forces in a like manner to the
    Active Component Forces. We are aware of this plan on the part of the
    Active Component and applaud it.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. General Vaughn, according to your posture statement the
    Army National Guard has had positive recruiting results this past year
    and a large part of that success is attributed to the Guard Recruiting
    Assistant Program and the Every Soldier a Recruiter Program.
        I have been informed that in the Guard Recruiting Assistance
    Program, the Recruiting Assistants are paid $1,000 when a new soldier
    enlists and another $1,000 when the new soldier departs for basic
    training. It would seem to make more sense for the Recruiting Assistant
    to be paid after the new soldier completes basic training. General
    Vaughn, can you elaborate on these programs and can you tell us if
    these programs are fully funded in the fiscal year 2008 budget request?
        Answer. G-RAP consists of qualified individuals hired and trained
    by a civilian contractor to serve as part time Recruiter Assistants
    (RA). Each RA cultivates quality potential Soldiers from within their
    individual sphere(s) of influence. Once a potential Soldier enlists,
    the RA will receive an initial payment of $1,000. The RA will receive
    an additional payment of $1,000 upon successful shipment to Initial
    Entry Training.
      --At the end of fiscal year 2006, the ARNG had 88,984 Active
            Recruiting Assistants.
      --The ARNG had 39,902 potential Soldiers in the enlistment process.
      --G-RAP accounted for 15,106 enlistments, 92 percent are TIER I (HSG
            Grads), and 60 percent Test CAT I-IIIA.
      --In fiscal year 2006, 4,496 accessions became RA's and loaded 1,800
            Potential Soldiers who turned into 665 accessions.
        The RA's mission is to find potential Soldiers, prescreen them, and
    facilitate a meeting with a recruiter. Once the individual enlists in
    the ARNG, the RA maintains contact with the recruit and has a vested
    interested in ensuring that the recruit ships off to basic training.
    This continued interest and support by the RA and Recruit Sustainment
    Program (RSP) Cadre ensure minimum training pipeline loses. This
    program has been very successful in that Soldiers are supervised
    throughout every step of the process until they ship. Once the recruits
    ship to basic training they are handed over to the Active Duty Cadre
    for training. Currently 9 out of 10 Soldiers who ship to training
    complete basic training and become Military Occupational Skill
    Qualified. Because the RA has no control over whether a recruit gets
    injured or does not complete basic training, the RA is paid when the
    soldier ships to basic training. Currently, the ARNG has the highest
    graduation rate at basic training of 98.5 percent. This is higher than
    the Active Duty and Army Reserve.
        The GRAP program was not validated in the fiscal year 2008-13 POM
    and is not currently funded in the President's Budget (PB). Without
    this program the ARNG cannot make its accession or end-strength
    mission.
        Question. Lieutenant General Vaughn, the Army's fiscal year 2008
    budget request contains $270 million to purchase 126 lightweight
    howitzer systems. I am aware of the 71 system shortfall identified in
    the Army National Guard's fiscal year 2006 financial statement. With
    only 19 of the required 90 systems programmed for the National Guard,
    how does this shortfall impact your ability to provide 7 of 13 Field
    Artillery brigades as called for in the Army modernization plan?
        Answer. The ARNG (Army National Guard), per Command Plan 08, is
    required to have 7 Fire Brigades with one BDE (Brigade) available each
    year of the ARFORGEN (Army Force Generation) cycle. Currently, the ARNG
    has a requirement for 90 M777 howitzers, with only 38 programmed and
    zero on hand. Our first fielding is of 19 howitzers in fiscal year 2008
    that are DA (Department of the Army) earmarked for the 56th SBCT
    (Stryker Brigade Combat Team). In fiscal year 2012 the ARNG will
    receive an additional 19 M777s which will leave the ARNG short 52 from
    the requirement of 90 howitzers. The impact of this critical shortage
    is that the ARNG will have only 2 of 7 Fire Brigades equipped with
    modern M777s.
        Question. Lieutenant General Vaughn, I understand Camp Shelby in
    Mississippi has been integral in preparing National Guard and Reserve
    Soldiers with theatre immersion training to help prepare them for
    conditions they may face when deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Would
    you explain to the Subcommittee the importance of the pre-deployment
    training Soldiers are receiving at Camp Shelby? Also, is there
    sufficient funding requested in your fiscal year 2008 budget request
    and the Emergency Supplemental request to conduct the required pre-
    deployment training?
        Answer. First, it is absolutely essential to their effective
    preparation for combat operations overseas.
        Second, The Department of Defense recently revised its policy with
    respect to the mobilization of National Guard and Reserve forces for
    service in contingency operations. Previously, ARNG (Army National
    Guard) units would spend 18 months or longer in a mobilized status in
    order to serve approximately 12 months of boots on the ground (BOG) in
    theater. The extra six months, or more, of mobilized time was consumed
    primarily by individual and collective training that took place at the
    mobilization station (Camp Shelby) prior to overseas deployment. The
    policy change now limits the mobilized time to no more than 12 months
    per specific contingency operation. The Army National Guard units doing
    premobilization training in fiscal year 2008 are associated with fiscal
    year 2009/fiscal year 2010 rotations. The basic calculations include
    the additional IDT (Inactive Duty Training)/AT (Annual Training)/ADT
    (Active Duty Training) days plus support tails. These are being
    considered GWOT (Global War on Terror) expenses and the fiscal year
    2008 supplemental is being updated to reflect this.
        The Army supports what is allocated in the fiscal year 2008
    President's Budget. The new mobilization policy was enacted after the
    submission of the President's Budget; therefore, the ARNG pre-
    mobilization training requirements were not included. The Army National
    Guard unfunded requirement is $818 million. Current fiscal year 2008
    budget funding levels allow National Guard units to achieve the minimal
    training requirement for a peacetime force. This is a risk that is no
    longer acceptable for an operational force. Resourcing for pre-
    mobilization training is essential to ensure trained and ready units
    prior to official mobilization dates.
        The majority of required individual and collective training will
    need to migrate to pre-mobilization, paid from the ARNG appropriations.
    Extra unit mandays, as well as extra OPTEMPO (Operation Tempo) and
    associated operations and maintenance costs, will be needed for these
    requirements. The approximate incremental costs for each ARNG brigade
    will be $68 million. The amount estimated for this new challenge will
    fund pre-mobilization requirements for approximately 12 brigades, the
    number projected to be used in contingency operations in fiscal year
    2008.
        The Army will not deploy a unit that is not fully manned, trained
    and equipped to perform their mission. There is significant risk by not
    addressing this challenge. Without resourcing for pre-mobilization
    training, units will endure increased post-mobilization training
    resulting in decreased boots on the ground (BOG) time performing their
    mission. This will significantly increase the overall stress on the
    force, from all components, by compressing dwell time and accelerating
    units through the Army Force Generation Model.
        Pre-mobilization training for National Guard pay and allowances is
    $543 million, for operation and maintenance for the National Guard is
    $275 million.
        Question. Lieutenant General Vaughn, I want to thank you for a fine
    ceremony in December accepting the first Light Utility--Lakota--
    Helicopter at the American Eurocopter facility in Columbus,
    Mississippi. Even with a delay of three months caused by the contract
    award being protested, the program is on schedule and on budget. It
    appears to me that the Army's acquisition strategy of procuring a
    commercial off-the-shelf platform has been successful. Would you
    provide this Subcommittee with a program status update and talk to the
    significance of the Light Utility Helicopter for Army units.
        Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) is extremely excited about
    the Lakota aircraft and the capabilities it brings to the Army, our
    formations, and our Adjutants Generals. The ARNG begins fielding the
    Lakota in fiscal year 2008. The ARNG, along with the active Army, are
    fielding the Lakota through the fiscal year 2008-13 POM to complete the
    initial acquisition and emerging requirements. The Lakota will be
    assigned to our Security and Support Aviation Battalions. The aircraft,
    as planned right now, will be located in 45 states and territories.
    This wide distribution offers an added capability to meet many of our
    Domestic Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) requirements. The Lakota
    with the standard aircraft equipment and the Medical Evacuation
    (MEDEVAC) version will assist The Adjutants General in managing the
    high warfight Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO) and preparing for state and
    domestic contingencies.
        Question. Lieutenant General Vaughn, I have been informed the
    planned production rate for the Light Utility Helicopter is 44 aircraft
    in fiscal year 2008, 44 in fiscal year 2009, and 28, 23, 46, 43, and 54
    aircraft in successive fiscal years. This uneven production schedule
    will likely result in laying-off workers in one fiscal year and
    bringing them back on in subsequent years. There is a high cost to
    conducting business in this manner, and I ask that you and the Army
    leadership consider a more consistent and efficient production
    schedule.
        Answer. As you may know the Army manages the acquisition process.
    The Lakota is competing with ongoing war effort expenditures, other
    Army aviation requirements, and other platform acquisitions. We
    understand that the production rate could be higher and would continue
    to encourage the Army to increase the production rate as monies become
    available.
                                     ______

          Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Craig R. McKinley
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. General McKinley, the Air National Guard has greatly
    increased its operational tempo since 2001, and it continues to fly
    some of the oldest aircraft in our inventory. Are the current plans for
    replacing aging aircraft, such as the C-130E, adequate to meet the
    needs of the Air Guard's domestic and warfighting missions?
        Answer. Yes, like our Air Force, we face a looming modernization
    and recapitalization challenge. We simply possess too many legacy
    platforms. Maintenance on old equipment, fuel consumption, and
    groundings resulting from lack of parts no longer available all degrade
    our readiness. They either impair our ability to train or make us
    unable to enter the fight because our equipment is incompatible.
    Airpower is a hedge to an uncertain future and the foundation of our
    nation's military power. Our people need to be ready and our equipment
    has to be without peer.
        For the foreseeable future, Air National Guard will continue to
    face the challenge of keeping legacy platforms relevant to meet
    Combatant Commander capability needs. The outstanding support Congress
    has given us by way of NGREA funds has been extremely successful in
    assisting us fielding capabilities to meet 21st century challenges such
    as targeting pods, engine modernization, night vision capability,
    defensive systems, etc. For fiscal year 2008, the Air National Guard's
    identified requirements of $500 million for ``Essential 10'' Homeland
    Defense operations, and over $4 billion in modernization needs.
        Question. General McKinley, what is your view of the future of the
    C-5 cargo plane in the Air National Guard?
        Answer. I am on board with the Air Force's modernization and
    recapitalization priorities. They intend to modernize the C-5 Fleet and
    will continue to assess most cost effective solution for meeting
    strategic airlift requirements.
        Question. General, are your highest priority needs--such as
    defensive systems and radios--being met in the current budget?
        Answer. The current budget request goes a long way in meeting many
    of our needs. However, there are challenges. The Air National Guard has
    a $1.5 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2008. We have challenges in
    Personnel & Force Sustainment, Total Force Integration, Depot
    Maintenance and flying hour shortfalls. We have additional challenges
    funding equipment for the ``Essential 10'' an area tied to bringing
    capability to bear for the states and the governors. Finally, our
    information technology and installation security programs are
    critically underfunded for fiscal year 2008.
        Question. General McKinley, we often hear the flying hour program
    described as the ``bread and butter'' of Air Force Reserve and Air
    National Guard operations. Please describe the factors influencing the
    decision to decrease flying hours by 10 percent in fiscal year 2008.
        Answer. With an overriding need to modernize and recapitalize its
    aging fleet, the Air Force was left with few options in a fiscally
    constrained environment. The 10 percent reduction to flying hours is a
    reduction in requirements which the Air Force believes they can
    mitigate through increased simulator time and Distributed Mission
    Operations.
        Question. General McKinley, what are the risks associated with
    decreasing flying hours by this magnitude? Does the Air Guard plan to
    continue funding the program at the lower level for the foreseeable
    future?
        Answer. A 10 percent cut to Air National Guard flying hours
    requirements directly impacts readiness. The 10 percent reduction to
    flying hours is a reduction in requirements which the Air Force
    believes they can mitigate through increased simulator time and
    Distributed Mission Operations. Our pilots receive an average of six
    flights per month versus 10 for AD pilots. The efficiency solutions
    employed by the AD (simulators/Distributed Mission Operations) are not
    readily available to ANG pilots/aviators. It is difficult for the Air
    National Guard to absorb a close to 24,000 hours reduction in Flying
    Hour requirements and expect this to have negative impacts on training
    and readiness. We will continue to work with Air Force to mitigate the
    negative impacts of this cut.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. General McKinley, based on the success of the Army Guard
    Recruiting Assistant Program and Every Soldier a Recruiter program, are
    these types of programs being used or considered for use by the Air
    National Guard?
        Answer. Yes, in fiscal year 2006 $3 million was directed toward
    funding for the Guard Recruiting Assistant Program and in fiscal year
    2007 $5.1 million is allocated. We have $2.2 million shortfall in the
    program for fiscal year 2008.
        Question. General McKinley, I understand the RC-26B aircraft is
    presently deployed in support of combat operations and it is also used
    for counter-drug operations here in the United States. Would you
    provide this Subcommittee with an overview of the need for the RC-26B
    aircraft both here and abroad and also provide your thoughts on the
    need to upgrade the aircraft?
        Answer. Due to an urgent, short-term need for Intelligence
    Surveillance and Reconnaissance assets to support our troops engaged in
    the war fight, the National Guard Bureau has moved to deploy several of
    these Air National Guard aircraft and their crews overseas for
    approximately one year.
        To prepare, 5 aircraft are being modified for their new combat
    mission by the ATK company of Fort Worth, TX. Four planes will deploy
    with one remaining stateside to train new crews. Approximately one-
    third of the RC-26 crew force will be deployed at any one time,
    rotating through every 60-120 days.
        We're optimistic that when the replacement capability the Special
    Operations Command has planned comes on line, our Guardsmen will have
    again answered our nation's call in a time of need and will resume
    their domestic mission at full capacity.
        Additionally, the National Guard Bureau is in the process of
    modernizing the sensor packages and avionics for the RC-26. We
    anticipate the upgrades will continue into the near future based on
    availability of funds.
        Question. Lieutenant General McKinley, I understand the Air Force
    and Army signed a memorandum of agreement and created a joint program
    office for the Joint Cargo Aircraft last year. I commend the Air Force
    and Army for working together and coming up with a common solution.
    General, can you provide this Subcommittee an update on the status of
    the program and highlight the importance of the joint cargo aircraft to
    the Air National Guard?
        Answer. The JCA offers the potential for additional solutions to
    the Air Force's intra-theater airlift recapitalization strategy. JCA
    will provide a modern mobility platform suited to accessing an array of
    demanding and remote worldwide locations, including short, unimproved,
    and austere airfields. As a multifunctional aircraft, it will be able
    to perform logistical re-supply, casualty evacuation, troop movement,
    airdrop operations, humanitarian assistance, and missions in support of
    Homeland Security.
        The Joint Service Acquisition Review Council met on April 16, 2007
    to review program issues presented at the Overarching Integrated
    Process Team. The Army and Air Force senior leadership endorsed the
    decisions of the Process Team and recommended that the program proceed
    to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in preparation for a
    Milestone C review in May 2007 at which time aircraft selection will
    follow. A Joint Training Business Case Analysis (BCA) is scheduled for
    late fiscal year 2007 and will likely finish in fiscal year 2009. This
    will trigger the decision on training strategy and sites.
                                    Reserves

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much and now I'm going to
    call upon General Stultz, Admiral Cotton, General Bergman, and
    General Bradley to come forward.
        Thank you for waiting. I hope you understand that I felt
    the discussions were necessary and the issues discussed were
    important to us and therefore, we did not place a time limit as
    we usually do. I'd like to once again thank you for joining us.
    I can assure you that your full statements will be made part of
    the record. I'll now call upon General Stultz.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JACK C. STULTZ, CHIEF,
                ARMY RESERVE
        General Stultz. Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, it's an
    honor to be here, first of all, just to reiterate what General
    Blum and General Vaughn have all said, we thank you for your
    support of our soldiers. It is my honor to be here representing
    almost 200,000 soldiers and heroes of this Nation who serve in
    the Army Reserve.
        Since 9/11, we have mobilized 168,000 Army Reserve soldiers
    in support of this war. On an ongoing basis, we normally keep
    approximately 25,000 to 30,000 Army Reserve soldiers mobilized,
    deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, or other nations as well as here
    in the homelands, supporting this Nation.
        We are dependent upon the support of this Nation and the
    support of this Congress for our resources. Many of the issues
    that you've already discussed with General Blum and General
    Vaughn and General McKinley apply also to us. The operational
    tempo that we're under is something that we've never
    experienced before. We are truly an operational force. We are
    not the old strategic Reserve that existed when I joined the
    Army Reserve way back in 1979.
        An example of that is best exemplified in that right now,
    currently two-thirds of the units that I have deployed in Iraq
    and Afghanistan are there for the second time. We have only a
    5-year rotation plan, just as Senator Stevens said, we're
    becoming part of the permanent force.
        We're utilizing new recruits, as General Blum outlined, as
    well as volunteers who have stepped up to the plate to go back
    for a second or third tour. Currently in the Army Reserve, I
    have approximately 42,000 soldiers who have deployed for at
    least the second time. Those 42,000 deployed as volunteers for
    the second tour.
        We're now in the process of trying to get that under
    control as we apply the Secretary of Defense's new policy
    allowing us to manage our force and maintain cohesion with the
    units when we call them up.
        But before I go any further, what I want to do today and
    I'll keep it just very short because I'm very conscious of the
    time, is to at least recognize two of the young citizen
    soldiers that I have.

                     INTRODUCTION OF ARMY RESERVE SOLDIERS

        Just to epitomize what the Army Reserve components brings
    to this Nation, the first soldier I have is First Sergeant
    Karen Henderson. Where is she? There she is. Okay. She is a
    graduate of Virginia Tech with a Bachelor's in Accounting. She
    works with Bright Point as a consultant. She was deployed to
    Iraq with one of our training divisions and because of her
    skills, she became the Associate Director of Communications for
    Iraq and astonishing communications with our country--and
    training Iraq forces on how to set that equipment up and get it
    running.
        But also she epitomizes the dedication of our soldiers
    because she is a combat lifesaver and one specific incident
    when she was traveling with her convoy, they were attacked by,
    hit by a vehicle but that vehicle did not detonate but it hit
    the lead Humvee, the soldier in it was thrown from the turret
    and he was severely injured. She immediately stopped and got
    out and started applying the combat lifesaving skills and
    administered aid to that wounded soldier until they could get a
    medivac in. She went one step further and this is what
    separates our Nation from others. She then turned and started
    administering aid to the driver of the vehicle that rammed
    them, a Syrian driver, and she also took care of him until they
    could evacuate him and get him back to Iraqi authorities for
    processing. That epitomizes what our soldiers bring to this
    war. Dedication, loyalty, civilian skills that take care of not
    only our soldiers but take care of others.
        The other soldier I brought with me, sir, is Staff Sergeant
    Martin Richburg. Sergeant Richburg works in the court systems
    as a supply officer. He is also a managing senior in the
    Reserve. He has been to Iraq where he was also working with the
    Iraqis, helping them to establish maintenance operations,
    helping the Iraqi Army get stood up and servicing them.
        On one occasion when he was in one of their compounds,
    where we are co-occupying with them, there is an Internet cafe
    so the American soldiers over there have an opportunity to stay
    in touch with their families back home. There are 13, I think,
    12 stations in that Internet cafe where 13 soldiers are waiting
    to log in and talk to their families.
        Sergeant Richburg, the NCO, said soldiers lower ranking go
    first. I'll stand outside. While he was standing outside, he
    noticed a suspicious individual that continued to lurk around
    that Internet cafe. Then he noticed that individual place an
    item on the ground and leave. He knew that something was wrong.
    He not only chased down the individual, secured him, found out
    that he was a terrorist, went back to that Internet cafe,
    risking his own safety to get the people out of that cafe. Not
    only did he evacuate 12 American soldiers, he evacuated four or
    five Iraqi soldiers that were in that area at the same time,
    before the bomb detonated, destroying the cafe, saving their
    lives. Again, a great American we have serving our country in
    the Army Reserves.
        So sir, I just wanted to recognize these two soldiers but
    they epitomize the 200,000 that we have in our force that are
    true heroes for this Nation.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I submit my statement for the record and I look forward to
    your questions. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. We admire you and we thank you for your
    services.
        [The statement follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz
      purpose and organization of the 2007 army reserve posture statement
        The 2007 Army Reserve Posture Statement describes how the Army
    Reserve continues to transform from a strategic reserve to an
    operational force, meeting today's challenges as it better prepares for
    future uncertainties. Focusing on the Army Reserve skill-rich Warrior
    Citizens, equipment and resources needed to support The Army Plan, the
    Posture Statement provides the context to examine Army Reserve
    initiatives, accomplishments and compelling needs. The Posture
    Statement begins with a look at a few of the more than 166,000 Warrior
    Citizens who have mobilized in support of the Global War on Terror.
    Then, the Posture Statement discusses Army Reserve initiatives in the
    following strategies: leading change; providing trained and ready
    units; equipping the Force; and Warrior Citizens sustaining the All-
    Volunteer Force. The Posture Statement concludes with a discussion on
    managing risk to underscore the Army Reserve's compelling needs.
        All figures throughout the 2007 Army Reserve Posture Statement are
    current through 22 February unless otherwise noted.
                      message from the chief, army reserve
        The Army Reserve of the 21st Century is a force facing the
    challenges of transforming from a strategic reserve to an operational,
    expeditionary, and domestic force--a transformation that is being done
    at an unprecedented pace. As never before, the Army Reserve is an
    integral part of the world's best Army. Demand for the authorized
    205,000 Army Reserve Soldiers attests to that integration. Today more
    than 20,000 Army Reserve Soldiers are forward-deployed in Iraq,
    Afghanistan and 18 other countries. An additional 7,000 Army Reserve
    Soldiers are mobilized and are serving here in the United States. In
    the more than five years since September 11th, more than 166,000 Army
    Reserve Soldiers, including 71 general officers who either mobilized or
    deployed in support of the Global War on Terror, have answered the call
    to mobilize in defense of our Nation.
        As a strategic reserve, our Warrior Citizens served one weekend a
    month and two weeks every summer. Due to the demands of this new
    century, and our transformation to an operational force, we are asking
    more of our Soldiers as we prepare them for the challenges they will
    face both overseas and domestically in this new, continuous state of
    mobilization. Our commitment to readiness is driving how we train,
    support, and retain our Warrior Citizens.
        As Chief of the Army Reserve, my mission is to build and sustain
    our operational force into a flexible, responsive and dynamic
    organization that is fully manned, trained, and equipped to support our
    Army and our Nation. To accomplish that, we must provide our Soldiers,
    their families, and their employers with predictability and stability--
    to know when they can count on being home, mobilized, or deployed. Our
    goal is to mobilize Soldiers no more than once in a five-year time
    frame. We must also ensure the Army Reserve has the right equipment to
    sustain operations, the manpower to support our operations, and the
    resources to facilitate our operations.
        The recent decisions by the Secretary of Defense to ensure access
    to all components of the force require significant changes that affect
    the Army Reserve--the duration of deployment of our Warrior Citizens
    and the cohesiveness of deploying units. Our Soldiers will now mobilize
    as cohesive units for one year only, rather than eighteen months. This
    new policy is designed to support the total forces with recurrent,
    predictable access to Army Reserve units to meet the sustained global
    demand for Army forces. The benefits of deploying Soldiers who have
    trained together cannot be overstated, even though the short-term
    effect is that some Soldiers, who may have previously deployed with
    other units, will now deploy again earlier than expected.
        The Army Reserve receives resources from Congress through the
    President and the Secretary of Defense. Those resources historically
    allowed the Army Reserve to train as a peacetime strategic reserve,
    with some degree of risk, not as an operational force that supports the
    Global War on Terror and domestic requirements. Although a surge in
    contingency operations funding has prepared Army Reserve Soldiers and
    units for deployment, the discrepancy between past resourcing and
    operational demands has taken a toll. We will work with the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Army Reserve forces
    required to meet the national security strategy are fully manned,
    trained and equipped to combat current and future persistent
    adversaries in the Global War on Terror, provide Homeland Defense, and
    combat proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
        To prepare for future uncertainties while implementing new policy
    changes and sustaining the current operational tempo, the Army Reserve
    needs continued support and leadership from Congress to provide full,
    timely and sustained funding; modernized equipment for training and
    deployment; and support to sustain our Warrior Citizens and their
    families. The resources allocated to the Army Reserve in the fiscal
    year 2008 budget, and in supplemental appropriations, are essential for
    the Army Reserve to continue its mission of providing trained and ready
    skill-rich Soldiers to protect the freedoms and values of American
    taxpayers. The bright, talented men and women of the Army Reserve are
    part of the foundation of this century's ``greatest generation'' of
    Americans. It is an honor to serve with the men and women of the Army
    Reserve.

                                       Lt. Gen. Jack C. Stultz,
                                                   Chief, Army Reserve.
                         army reserve warrior citizens
        The Army Reserve is a community-based institution with a one
    hundred year history of supporting the security needs of the Nation.
    The Army Reserve is serving our Army and our Nation at war.
        Currently deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and 18 other countries, the
    Army Reserve has transformed from a strategic reserve to an operational
    force of skill-rich Warrior Citizens. Army Reserve Soldiers' skills and
    backgrounds reflect the diversity of America.
        Seventy-seven percent are men; 23 percent are women. They are black
    (23 percent), white (59 percent) and Hispanic (12 percent). They are
    young (46 percent are aged 17-29) and they are mature (46 percent are
    aged 30-49). When mobilized and deployed, they are enlisted Soldiers
    (81 percent), officers (18 percent) and warrant officers (1 percent).
        But, when not serving in uniform, they are doctors, lawyers,
    mechanics, homemakers, accountants, teachers, supply clerks, elected
    officials and journalists, to name a few of the civilian occupations
    represented in the Army Reserve. Army Reserve Soldiers are your
    neighbors; they are the parents of your children's friends, their
    teachers and their coaches. They are employees and employers in our
    towns and communities around the Nation.
        Army Reserve Soldiers are Warrior Citizens with their ``boots on
    the ground'' overseas and across the United States. They can lead a
    platoon, organize a social function, run a campaign, or chair a
    business meeting. They have all answered the call to serve our Nation.
        Here are some of their stories.
        Dr. Frank J. Miskena is a colonel in the 308th Civil Affairs
    Brigade of the Army Reserve. A veterinarian who is fluent in three
    languages, he has deployed to Albania, Kuwait and Iraq where he was
    assigned to the Coalition Provisional Authority. There, he became known
    as the ``Voice of Baghdad,'' following Iraq's liberation. Coalition
    forces looked to him for help communicating curfews and information to
    the Iraqi people. He spoke their language and he understands the price
    of freedom.
        Colonel Miskena was born in Baghdad. He earned his veterinary
    degree in Iraq and was drafted into the Iraqi Army, where he served for
    two years. In 1977 he came to America, where five years later he became
    a U.S. citizen. Colonel Miskena shows allegiance to one flag--the Stars
    and Stripes. He is the highest-ranking Iraqi-American in the U.S.
    military.
        First Sergeant Karen Henderson is a 20-year veteran of the Army
    Reserve. She always knew she could be called on to deploy.
        As a civilian, Karen Henderson is a consultant to one of the
    world's largest providers of management and technology services. Her
    civilian-earned skills came into play when she deployed to Iraq with
    the 80th Division. There, she was assigned to the Iraqi Director
    General of Communications, part of the Ministry of Defense, where she
    worked with Iraqis and the U.S. military to evaluate communications
    needs for the Iraqi military throughout the country.
        First Sergeant Henderson is typical of Army Reserve Soldiers. She
    brought a unique set of civilian-earned skills to her unit. But she
    also acquired skills during training, after she was mobilized. She
    became combat-lifesaver certified, a skill she used when an insurgent
    attacked the convoy in which she was riding. As the combat medic on the
    scene, First Sergeant Henderson treated coalition forces, the Iraqi
    driver and the insurgent while her unit secured the scene.
        Martin K. Richburg likes people. His strong work ethic and easy-
    going demeanor are traits he brought to the 142nd Maintenance Company,
    where Staff Sergeant Richburg serves as a heavy-vehicle mechanic. In
    his civilian job, he is the supply clerk for the district court of a
    large city. But unlike many Warrior Citizens who have skills that are
    shared by their civilian and military careers, Staff Sergeant
    Richburg's two careers do not share common skill-sets. So when his
    call-up letter arrived, he looked forward to the intensive training he
    would receive prior to deployment. He knew that training would help him
    identify potentially dangerous situations.
        When his unit was posted to an Iraqi base to provide logistics,
    maintenance and Soldier training to Iraqi Soldiers, some of the Iraqi
    Soldiers welcomed the training and guidance they received from the
    Americans; others did not. On the morning of March 27, 2006, 47 Iraqi
    Soldiers and civilians were attacked as they entered the base to work.
    Thirty died. So later that day, while American Soldiers were inside an
    Internet cafe on the Iraqi base, Staff Sergeant Richburg waited on
    guard outside for a computer terminal to become available.
        His Army Reserve training taught him to observe people, their
    movements, and things that looked out of place. Outside the Internet
    cafe, something unusual caught his eye. He saw a man with a large blue
    bag peer into the cafe, then enter and leave the cafe several times.
    When he dragged a chair to the cafe's air conditioning unit, left the
    bag on the air conditioner, and ran, Staff Sergeant Richburg
    instinctively acted. He chased down the man and learned the blue bag
    contained a bomb that was timed to detonate while the Americans were
    inside the cafe.
        Staff Sergeant Richburg ran back to the cafe, ordered everyone out
    and took cover. When the bomb exploded, no one was killed, but the
    cafe's interior and several small buildings were damaged. Staff
    Sergeant Richburg's actions saved the lives of 12 American Soldiers and
    five Iraqi citizens.
        Kristen King is a college student who is scheduled to graduate in
    May 2008, 18 months after her classmates, with a degree in broadcast
    journalism. While researching a way to help defray her tuition costs,
    she learned about the Army Reserve's education benefits and the
    valuable hands-on broadcast experience she could get in the Army
    Reserve. When she deployed to Iraq, Specialist King learned skills that
    would set her resume apart from other young graduates.
        For the first eight months of her tour, Specialist King was
    assigned to a television unit where she was an anchor, reporter, and
    one of two videographers assigned to Saddam Hussein's trial. During the
    final four months of her tour, Specialist King hosted ``Country
    Convoy,'' a four-hour country music program that aired on 107.7 FM
    Freedom Radio, the only American-run radio station in Baghdad. Her Army
    Reserve broadcast experience exceeded her expectations--it was unlike
    anything she could ever learn in a classroom.
        In 2005, Specialist King was honored as the Army Reserve Broadcast
    Journalist of the Year. Now back at school, she talks about her Army
    Reserve experience with high school and college students. Specialist
    King did not just bring civilian-acquired skills to the Army Reserve;
    she brought enthusiasm and a desire to serve. She is now a Warrior
    Citizen who can apply her Army Reserve-acquired skills to her civilian
    broadcasting career.
        Chief Warrant Officer Bob Louck is a Warrior Citizen who retired
    from the military in 1985. After September 11th, the former instructor
    pilot turned pastry truck driver wanted to return to active duty. As a
    57-year-old Vietnam War veteran, he thought the Army Reserve could use
    his skills and volunteered for retiree recall. He was right, and soon
    found himself at aircraft qualification school with instructors half
    his age.
        As a member of Company B, 7th Battalion, 158th Regiment, he was
    scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan to support coalition operations
    against Taliban fighters. But when an earthquake devastated remote
    mountain villages in Pakistan, the unit was called up to fly medicine,
    food and shelters to earthquake survivors in the region. After several
    months of supporting relief efforts, his unit conducted a phased
    deployment to Afghanistan to assume their original mission.
        Hostile environments are nothing new to Bob. Whether the enemy is
    the Taliban or the Viet Cong, Chief Warrant Officer Louck, who last
    flew a Chinook in 1970, knows that age is not a liability. With 1,000
    hours of Chinook flight experience, this 20-year military retiree is an
    example of the skill-rich Warrior Citizens that make the Army Reserve
    ``Army Strong.''
        These are only a few Army Reserve Soldiers' stories; thousands of
    others have similar stories to tell. All are evidence that Army Reserve
    Soldiers possess a broad range of civilian-acquired skills to
    complement their traditional military training and military training to
    complement their civilian careers. They are Warrior Citizens who have
    answered our Nation's call to service.
        In support of the Global War on Terror, 136 Warrior Citizens have
    sacrificed their lives during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
    Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, two Warrior Citizens, Staff Sergeant Keith
    ``Matt'' Maupin and Specialist Ahmed K. Altaie are currently listed as
    missing and captured.
        The Warrior Citizens of the United States Army Reserve will never
    leave a fallen comrade.
                               strategic overview
        Today's security environment is volatile, complex and uncertain.
    The dynamics of that environment often require the option of a rapid
    military response. Therefore, today's Army Reserve units must be
    prepared and ready to respond rapidly to our Nation's and our Army's
    needs.
        World and national conditions that present a variety of emerging
    challenges to our national security interests include:
    Global War on Terror
    Rogue states
    Budget pressures
    Homeland Defense
    Adversarial nations and leaders
    Treaty obligations
    Protracted war
    Ethnic and sectarian conflicts
    Propensity for military service
    Nuclear proliferation
    Regional instability
    Environmental degradation
    Global terrorists and their networks
    Ad hoc coalitions
    Cyber network attacks
    Insurgencies
    Globalization
    Public focus
    Natural disasters
    Narco-trafficking
    Declining manufacturing base
    Failed and failing states
    Disaster response/relief Disease
    National will

        Within such an environment, the Army Reserve has evolved from a
    strategic reserve to an operational force of skill-rich Warrior
    Citizens that provides unique capabilities to complement Army and
    National Guard partners. The Army Reserve must also complete
    transformation into a more lethal, agile and modular force. Today's
    operational tempo does not allow time for extended post-mobilization
    training. Army Reserve Soldiers and units are expected to be trained
    and ready when our Nation calls. To meet those realities, the Army
    Reserve is making the most dramatic changes to its structure, training
    and readiness since World War II. This transformation is being
    accomplished while Army Reserve Soldiers and units are engaged in
    operations at home and in Iraq, Afghanistan and 18 other countries
    around the globe.
    Essential Functions of Army Reserve Transformation
        Reengineer the mobilization process to simplify, streamline and
    automate procedures that are currently time sensitive, paper-based,
    multi-layered and occasionally repetitive.
        Why? To respond quickly to domestic and combatant commanders'
    needs.
        Transform Army Reserve command and control structure to focus
    functional and operational commands on training, leader development,
    unit readiness and shorter mobilization timelines for units within
    their functional scope of expertise.
        Why? To focus on the Army Reserve's core mission of providing
    trained and ready Soldiers and units when needed.
        Restructure units into a flexible and adaptable modular force that
    meets anticipated mission requirements. Divest structure that is not
    able to deploy, is habitually unready, or is too costly to modernize.
        Why? To deliver maximum value and utility for the resources
    expended.
        Improve Human Resources staff, technologies, and business practices
    to assist commanders and leaders at all levels to recruit, develop,
    train, and care for Army Reserve Soldiers, families, civilians and
    contractors.
        Why? To support and sustain an all-volunteer force and ensure it is
    trained and ready when called.
        Implement the Army Force Generation model, realizing that may take
    up to five years to attain, to create stability and predictability for
    Army Reserve forces so a Soldier will deploy only one year out of every
    five. Create additional depth in high demand capabilities.
        Why? To provide stability and predictability to Soldiers, families
    and employers while simultaneously supporting the Global War on Terror,
    major combat operations, domestic operations and contingencies such as
    natural disasters.
        Improve individual support to combatant commanders by increasing
    the number of trained and ready Soldiers in critical military
    occupational specialties available for individual augmentation.
        Why? To meet the Army's demand for individual capabilities without
    cannibalizing existing units for those skills and threatening unit
    readiness.
        Build mutual support between the Army Reserve and employers and
    communities.
        Why? Combine/leverage civilian-acquired skills with leadership,
    maturity and experience gained in the military.
                      leading change and shaping the force
    Accomplishments
        Some of the most significant organizational changes during fiscal
    year 2006 include the accomplishments listed below:
      --Activated two theater signal commands and three expeditionary
            support commands, one of which will deploy in support of
            Operation Iraqi Freedom during 2007.
      --Initiated actions to inactivate 10 Regional Readiness Commands and
            activate four Regional Readiness Sustainment Commands to reduce
            overhead structure and focus on supporting Army Reserve units
            on a regional basis.
      --Applied the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model to how Army
            Reserve units are scheduled and resourced for deployment. In
            fiscal year 2006, approximately 77 percent of the Army
            Reserve's mobilized units were from the ARFORGEN model.
      --Aligned 80 percent of Army Reserve forces, to include 58 modular
            combat support/combat service support brigades and 8 civil
            affairs brigades into ARFORGEN.
      --Completed the realignment of command and control of the U.S. Army
            Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations forces from the
            Army's Special Operations Command to the U.S. Army Reserve
            Command to improve Civil Affairs/Psychological Operations
            support to conventional forces.
      --Completed the realignment of the U.S. Army Reserve Command--as a
            Direct Reporting Unit to the Department of the Army--as part of
            the Army's efforts to more effectively administer and support
            its operating forces.
      --Initiated actions to restructure Army Reserve training support
            divisions and institutional training divisions to support the
            Army's individual and collective training requirements.
      --Advanced plans to close or realign 176 Army Reserve facilities
            under BRAC, a higher percentage of real property closures and
            realignments than any other component of any service, and to
            build 125 new Armed Forces Reserve Centers to support Army
            Reserve units and Soldiers more effectively.
      --Completed three Lean Six Sigma business projects with future cost
            savings and cost avoidance estimated at $47 million over the
            next seven years.
        Transforming to meet today's demand for Army Reserve forces has led
    to the development of a host of strategic initiatives in support of
    major objectives. Some are complete, while others are still in
    progress. The prioritization of the Army Reserve transformation efforts
    will result in a complementary, operational force that is ready to
    support America's global and domestic commitments. The Army Reserve's
    strategic initiatives, when fully implemented, will accomplish the
    following:
      --Provide the joint force and combatant commanders with ready combat
            support and combat service support units made up of skill-rich
            Warrior Citizens.
      --Increase the number of Army Reserve Soldiers in deployable units.
      --Reduce the time needed from mobilization to deployment.
      --Provide predictability to the Army in terms of the capabilities
            available in the Army Reserve.
      --Provide predictability to Army Reserve Soldiers, families and
            employers regarding deployments--allowing them to better
            prepare and plan for mobilization periods.
      --Ensure more focused and efficient administrative management of Army
            Reserve forces, and increase unit and Soldier readiness.
      --Provide improved facilities and more effective training to Army
            Reserve Soldiers.
      --Streamline the command and control of Army Reserve forces.
      --Increase the number of Soldiers in specialties needed to support
            the long war.
      --Improve Army Reserve business, resourcing and acquisition
            processes.
      --Provide better citizens to America's communities and better
            employees to America's employers.
                The Army Force Generation Model: Predictability Through
                        Focused, Efficient Management
        The Army Reserve's wide-ranging transformation is focused on
    providing needed capabilities to combatant commanders as they fight the
    long war. As the Army Reserve continues to transform, it is
    implementing a system that will establish predictability, not only to
    those commanders, but also to Army Reserve Soldiers, their families and
    their employers. That system is called the Army Force Generation
    (ARFORGEN) model.
        ARFORGEN is an Army-wide readiness model to support expeditionary
    deployment on a rotational basis. ARFORGEN consists of the structured
    progression of training, resourcing and unit readiness over time,
    resulting in recurring periods of availability of trained, ready,
    cohesive units that are prepared for an operational deployment, in
    support of civil authorities or combatant commander requirements.
    ARFORGEN is a model driven by operational requirements that facilitates
    assured, predictable access to the Army's active and reserve forces for
    future missions. That model task-organizes forces into expeditionary
    force packages, and manages them to progressively higher levels of
    capability and readiness through sequential force pools. Those pools
    train to corresponding metrics that ultimately provide a tailored force
    capability to meet an Army requirement. Packaging forces in a
    predictable deployment cycle, against specific requirements, will
    improve unit readiness as units progress through the system.
    Additionally, it will eliminate the old, tiered resourcing system,
    which included units resourced insufficiently that were never ready for
    deployment. The ARFORGEN strategy ensures that deploying units will be
    fully-trained--as cohesive units--on the most modern equipment.
        When implemented fully, ARFORGEN will add a rotational depth of
    ready units to the force and spread the operational demand for Army
    Reserve forces over a manageable time period.
                Increasing the Operational Force
        The Army Reserve continues to improve force structure to meet the
    demands of current and future operations. Reorganizing command and
    control structure resulted in more deployable command posts, functional
    commands and sustainment commands that are streamlined and more
    efficient than former command and control organizations. Those
    reorganized units are tailored to provide increased combat support and
    combat service support to the Army expeditionary force packages. In
    total, the Army Reserve converted 78 units with 5,076 spaces of ``non-
    deploying'' structure during fiscal year 2006 to deployable
    organizations. Additional reorganizations in fiscal year 2007 are
    expected to yield even larger numbers of operational forces. The
    reorganization process has been carefully managed to maintain a high
    capacity of quality training support services with no diminished
    training capability.
        The Army Reserve is adjusting its Trainees, Transients, Holdees and
    Students (TTHS) account from 20,500 to 12,000. These additional spaces,
    8,500 Soldiers, will be converted to operational force structure, by
    right-sizing the TTHS account, and will be used in support of domestic
    and overseas missions.
        Recent decisions to reduce and streamline the training structure
    and to shift Soldiers from non-deployable units into a deployable force
    structure resulted in a more efficient training base without
    diminishing training capacity or capability. As a result, 5,000
    personnel billets have been reconfigured into the deployable force
    pool.
                Ready Response Reserve Units
        A key operational initiative for the Army Reserve is the
    development of the Ready Response Reserve Units (R3Us). This initiative
    capitalizes on Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers who are willing to
    volunteer to serve on part-time active duty, that is, more than the 39
    days per year, but less than 365 days per year. The Army Reserve seeks
    to leverage these volunteers and match them against the need to fill
    short-notice requirements for combatant commanders and against other
    known requirements with R3Us. Additionally, the ARFORGEN model may
    identify other high-demand, low-density RC units, which may be required
    to rotate faster through the ``Reset, Ready and Available'' pools to
    support combatant commander and/or domestic requirements. Units
    matching those requirements are potential R3U candidates. Those R3Us
    will serve for more than the traditional 39 days per year or may be
    used repetitively as voluntary units in accordance with current laws
    and Department of the Army policy. Units that participate as R3Us may
    not only be short-notice deploying units but may also be used to
    improve the readiness of Army units and Soldiers for deployment. A test
    of the R3U concept has been proposed for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
    The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
    (ASA M&RA) and the Army Reserve have identified three categories of
    units to test in the pilot program. The three categories include: Early
    Entry Operations, Known Surge Operations, and Sustainment Operations.
    As the lead for the test, the Army Reserve will develop processes and
    gather ``lessons learned'' that will improve the readiness of the
    entire Army.
                Improved Facilities and Training Support: Realignment and
                        Closure
        Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 will realize significant
    cost efficiencies to the Army Reserve and improve the support the Army
    Reserve will be able to provide its Soldiers. BRAC will require the
    Army Reserve to create joint or multi-functional installations and
    improve readiness of current installations and facilities. It will
    provide the Army Reserve the opportunity to station forces in modern,
    state-of-the-art facilities and to redesign many Cold War facilities
    that no longer reflect current requirements. Under BRAC, the Army
    Reserve will close or realign 176 of its current facilities. That
    represents a higher percentage of real property closures than any other
    component of any service. In turn, Army Reserve units will move from
    those older facilities into 125 new Armed Forces Reserve Centers
    (AFRCs), many of which will be shared with at least one other reserve
    component, enhancing joint relationships and facility use. That
    construction will eliminate duplication of facilities where different
    components of the Armed Forces are in the same areas.
        The new AFRCs will have high-tech, distance-learning and video-
    teleconferencing capabilities as well as fitness centers, family
    readiness centers and enhanced maintenance and equipment storage
    facilities. Those dramatic changes, closely coordinated among Army
    Reserve planners and the BRAC agencies, were synchronized with the Army
    Reserve's efforts to reshape its structure and grow war fighting
    forces. The Army Reserve needs support from the President's budget to
    ensure that base operations support and sustainment, restoration, and
    modernization for Army Reserve facilities remain funded to ensure force
    readiness.
                Streamline Command and Control
        The restructuring of the Army Reserve's command and control creates
    a more functionally-aligned force. These efforts were supported by
    BRAC. The Army Reserve reduced the number of administrative commands
    and increased the number of operational commands while maintaining the
    same number of general officer billets, in order to improve support for
    the Army. Seventy-one of the Army Reserve's 143 general officers have
    been mobilized or deployed to support the Army since September 11,
    2001.
        Ten regional readiness commands will be replaced by four more
    efficient regional readiness sustainment commands (RRSCs). Those RRSCs,
    which will be fully operational by the end of fiscal year 2009, will
    provide base operations, personnel, and administrative support to Army
    Reserve units and Soldiers within their geographic regions.
        Two signal commands were converted to theater signal commands in
    2006. One of those commands relocated to Hawaii to provide support to
    U.S. Army Pacific Command on a full-time basis. Additionally, three
    expeditionary sustainment commands were activated to support the Army's
    modular logistics concepts. The commands were activated from older
    structures that were designed for Cold War engagements.
        Another expeditionary sustainment command and a theater aviation
    command will activate during fiscal year 2007. The Army Reserve
    training structure, which supports all Army components, is also
    restructuring to support the growth of more operational forces.
                Increasing Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations
                        Assets
        Given the global population and urbanization trends, the importance
    of preparing and maintaining trained and ready civil affairs units has
    become increasingly evident. As the Army Reserve continues to support
    military operations in the long war, it is essential that Army Reserve
    forces are knowledgeable about the culture and customs of the people
    they will encounter. To address this and the numerous challenges of
    civil-military operations, the military uses Civil Affairs (CA) units
    that are focused on those operations.
        Today, more than 96 percent of all CA forces are in the U.S. Army
    and 93 percent of those forces are in the Army Reserve. The knowledge,
    skills, abilities and maturity required to operate effectively in the
    civil environment, particularly in areas such as city management,
    banking, and public health administration, overwhelmingly reside in the
    Army Reserve and are maintained by Army Reserve Warrior Citizens. Army
    Reserve CA units and Soldiers are trained and ready to deploy anywhere
    they are needed to plan, coordinate and execute civil-military
    operations. Those Soldiers set the conditions for transition to follow-
    on civilian government agencies, international organizations,
    nongovernmental organizations and private sector contractors.
        In the area of psychological operations (PSYOP), the Army Reserve
    also provides key capabilities to the operational environment of this
    century. PSYOP forces help reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior
    favorable to our Nation's goals. More than 63 percent of the Army's
    total PSYOP force resides in the Army Reserve.
        To meet the needs of the 21st century battlefield, over the next
    six years, the Army Reserve will add 904 CA Soldiers and 1,228 PSYOP
    Soldiers. The most significant growth will be the addition of 48 new CA
    companies and 10 new PSYOP companies. That will add critical skill sets
    at the tactical level required by the conventional force to understand,
    interact, and influence foreign populations and institutions.
        To assist the Army Reserve's efforts to create and sustain trained
    and ready CA and PSYOP Forces, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    approved the transfer of Army Reserve CA and PSYOP forces from U.S.
    Army Special Operations Command to the U.S. Army Reserve Command
    (USARC) last year. That move will integrate Army Reserve CA and PSYOP
    forces into the conventional force, providing the conventional force
    commanders dedicated CA and PSYOP forces consistent with the Army Force
    Generation model.
                Improving Business Practices
        A permanent Business Process Improvement/Lean Six Sigma (BPI/LSS)
    office was established in April 2006 at the U.S. Army Reserve Command
    (USARC). LSS is a business process improvement methodology that focuses
    on speed, efficiency, precision and accuracy. Three BPI/LSS projects
    were completed in fiscal year 2006 with cost savings estimated at $47
    million over the next seven years.
        LSS recognizes the unique skills and certifications Army Reserve
    Soldiers bring to the Force that are not normally found within the
    active components. For example, the Army Reserve has identified several
    Army Reserve Soldiers who are qualified as Lean Six Sigma master black
    belts (MBB), black belts (BB), and green belts (GB). Those Soldiers
    obtained LSS certification through their civilian occupations,
    typically investing over 200 hours in classroom instruction for the
    MBB, 144 classroom hours for the BB and 64 classroom hours for the GB
    in addition to completing projects.
        By optimizing the civilian-acquired skills of our Soldiers, in
    combination with contractor support, the Army Reserve estimates
    obtaining full integration of best business practices by January 2009.
    The cost will be approximately $4 million, which is about 73 percent
    less than the cost of relying exclusively on contractors. As LSS is
    employed throughout the Army Reserve, other commands are recognizing
    the value associated with using Army Reserve Soldiers and are asking
    for assistance. The Army Reserve will continue to assist wherever
    possible.
    Compelling Needs for Leading Change and Shaping the Force
        Support the President's fiscal year 2008 budget which includes
    resources for a myriad of Army Reserve initiatives associated with the
    Army Force Generation model to include training, equipping and facility
    requirements during the ``ready'' phase of ARFORGEN.
        Support the fiscal year 2008 budget request for resources for the
    Army Reserve to continue implementing BRAC-legislated projects to close
    installations, construct Armed Forces Reserve Centers and fund 13 Army
    Reserve Military Construction projects. Full, timely and predictable
    funding will enable the Army Reserve to institute necessary force
    structure changes.
        Accelerate momentum established in modernization of the Army
    Reserve with the implementation of Ready Response Reserve Units,
    increased annual training requirements and upgraded facilities to train
    and support Soldiers.
                       providing trained and ready units
    Accomplishments
        Since 9/11:
      --The Army Reserve had mobilized more than 166,000 Soldiers; more
            than 42,000 Soldiers have served on multiple deployments.
      --Ninety-eight percent of Army Reserve units have provided mobilized
            Soldiers or have deployed in support of the Global War on
            Terror.
        Fiscal year 2006:
      --Expanded rotational force management in support of ARFORGEN and
            aligned with the Army Campaign Plan.
      --Mobilized 24,303 Warrior Citizens and deployed 13,240 Army Reserve
            Soldiers.
      --Developed and executed plans to help prepare for the 2006 hurricane
            season. Those efforts involved regional readiness commands and
            units in 15 states and required that 1,996 separate items of
            equipment be prepositioned on the eastern seaboard and the Gulf
            Coast.
      --Army Reserve mobile training teams developed and executed a program
            of instruction (POI) to train Afghan National Army
            noncommissioned officers (NCOs). The course blended Afghan
            culture and needs with material and standards of the U.S. Army
            Drill Sergeants School.
      --Army Reserve Soldiers also continued to support the training of
            Iraqi Security Forces.
      --Implemented the defense readiness reporting system (DRRS) that
            gives senior leaders knowledge of Army Reserve capabilities to
            support future combatant commander requirements.
      --Successfully integrated the Army Reserve Training Strategy (ARTS)
            into the ARFORGEN training model.
      --In 2006, the Army Reserve conducted Patriot Warrior and River
            Warrior exercises which included two eight day field training
            events to challenge units' collective responsiveness under
            stressful, contemporary operating environment conditions. The
            exercises included Joint and Coalition Forces.
      --Two thousand Army Reserve Soldiers sharpened their technical skills
            in tactical environments through functional exercises.
      --Sixty-one thousand Army Reserve Soldiers completed 70,000 training
            courses provided through the Army Reserve Virtual University.
        During the 20th century, Army Reserve recruiters sought men and
    women willing to give up one weekend a month and two weeks every summer
    in return for college tuition, an interesting part-time job and an
    opportunity to serve their country. In return, the Nation got the
    strategic reserve it needed during the Cold War era. That was last
    century.
        This century, the Army Reserve is engaged in operations across the
    globe as an integral part of the world's greatest Army. Army Reserve
    units must be prepared and available to deploy with a full complement
    of trained and equipped Soldiers when the Nation calls. The recent
    decisions by the Secretary of Defense will facilitate the deployment of
    trained and equipped Army Reserve units as whole cohesive units.
                Operations
        At the end of fiscal year 2006, more than 35,000 Army Reserve
    Soldiers were serving on active duty. Approximately 25,000 Army Reserve
    Soldiers served overseas, in Iraq, Afghanistan and 18 other countries,
    while another 10,000 Army Reserve Soldiers supported homeland defense
    missions at training centers, mobilization sites, and medical centers
    in the continental United States.
        The Army Reserve is an integral part of the Army. Army Reserve
    Soldiers provide 88 unique skill sets and bring value-added experience
    and maturity to the joint force with their civilian-acquired
    capabilities. The Army Reserve force of Warrior Citizens includes
    surgeons, fire chiefs, teachers, city planners, waterworks directors,
    and police officers who have skills acquired in their civilian careers
    that aren't resident in the active Army. The wars in Iraq and
    Afghanistan have demonstrated the Nation's need for the critical
    capabilities of the Army Reserve Warrior Citizens.
                Combined, Joint Operations
        From supporting all military branches (running truck convoys of
    food, ammunition, fuel and other items) to conducting combat
    operations, responding to ambushes, and directly engaging the enemy,
    the Army Reserve has been an integral element of U.S. military and
    coalition operations.
        In fiscal year 2006, Army Reserve Soldiers continued to train
    Afghan Security Forces. While the 95th Division (Institutional
    Training) from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, administered the Afghan Drill
    Sergeant School, the 98th Division (IT) of Rochester, New York (which
    had previously supported the creation and training of Iraqi Security
    Forces), augmented forces standing up the Afghan National Military
    Academy (NMA). Additionally, more than 900 Soldiers from the 108th
    Division (IT) in Charlotte, North Carolina, are supporting the training
    and creation of Iraqi Security Forces throughout Iraq.
                Domestic Operations
        The Army Reserve is the Title 10 first responder to support civil
    authorities during a domestic emergency. Lessons learned from Hurricane
    Katrina relief efforts prompted the Army to ask the Army Reserve to
    support state and local responders during the 2006 hurricane season. In
    March 2006, the Army Reserve developed regional and state Hurricane
    Task Forces to prepare equipment and personnel for hurricane support
    operations required within their regions. Task Force South supported
    Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Task Force North supported
    Tennessee and North and South Carolina. Each task force was headed by a
    brigadier general and operated out of the 81st Regional Readiness
    Command (RRC) in Birmingham, Alabama. The 90th RRC, in North Little
    Rock, Arkansas, stood up state task forces for Louisiana and Texas.
        More than 1,996 separate items of Army Reserve equipment were pre-
    positioned along the eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast. By July 2006, the
    equipment and units involved in the contingency planning operations
    provided added capabilities to local authorities in the event of a
    hurricane. The Army Reserve task forces coordinated with U.S. Army
    North (the Army's component of U.S. Northern Command), and state and
    local authorities for support operations. Separate plans were developed
    for support to U.S. territories in the Pacific and Caribbean areas.
        The Army Reserve remains committed to supporting those
    contingencies as the federal first responder, and has elected to keep
    most of the pre-positioned equipment in place for the 2007 hurricane
    season.
        As demonstrated by the Army Reserve's support to Hurricane Katrina
    recovery operations (where the Army Reserve provided all of the CH-47
    aircraft support, two truck companies and over 90 vehicles), the
    relevant and critical capabilities provided by the Army Reserve will be
    needed for future homeland defense and security missions. Resident
    within the Army Reserve structure are skilled medical professionals,
    hazardous material reconnaissance teams, casualty extraction, mass
    casualty decontamination, engineer units, aviation units and water
    purification units that will provide key capabilities support to both
    expeditionary Joint Force and National Guard partners in the United
    States.
        Army Reserve Soldiers who deploy for civil support missions
    frequently do so while in a training status. In the case of Hurricane
    Katrina, Army Reserve support for relief efforts was possible because
    training funds were still available for Army Reserve Soldiers. Access
    to Title 10 first responders in the future cannot depend on
    availability of training days or training funds. Therefore, changes
    should be made to permit the mobilization of Army Reserve capabilities
    in support of domestic operations.
                Army Reserve Training Strategy
        To meet the demands of an operational and expeditionary force, Army
    Reserve units must be trained and ready prior to mobilization as
    cohesive units. The Army Reserve is transitioning to a train-alert-
    deploy training model. That training model represents an essential
    element of the ARFORGEN process; implementing ARFORGEN requires a
    fundamental change to the Army's strategy of how to prioritize limited
    resources.
        Historically, Army Reserve units trained during two-day monthly
    battle assemblies and a 14-day annual training event. In support of
    ARFORGEN, the Army Reserve's five-year training cycle calls for an
    increase in unit annual training requirements in the third and fourth
    years. Those additional training requirements will allow units
    approaching their mobilization phase to conduct pre-mobilization
    training and participate in collective training events such as national
    training center exercises.
        The Army Reserve Training Strategy (ARTS) establishes the
    fundamental concepts of the train-alert-deploy model for Army Reserve
    Soldiers. It includes progressive training and readiness cycles,
    priorities for resources, managed readiness levels, and predictable
    training as dictated by the ARFORGEN model. As units advance through a
    series of cumulative and progressively complex training events, each
    training phase improves the level of unit readiness. When ARFORGEN is
    fully matured, units in years one to three (reset/train) will
    reconstitute and train on basic mission-essential task list (METL)
    tasks. While some Soldiers complete professional education and
    individual training, units complete collective training in squad-to-
    company-level training in local areas and functional exercises. Units
    complete the reset/train phase of ARFORGEN with a Warrior Exercise--a
    multifunctional, multi-echelon event that improves unit proficiency.
        In the fourth year (ready) immediately before mobilization or
    deployment into a theater of operations, training focuses on collective
    war fighting skills and theater specific mission tasks, and accounts
    for approximately one-third of the total 92 training days per Soldier
    mandated by the five year ARFORGEN model. Upon successful completion of
    a combat training center (CTC), or a comparable event and the
    validation of their combat skills, the unit will move into year five
    (available).
                Warrior Exercises (WAREX)
        Warrior Exercises produce competent, confident, adaptive Soldiers,
    leaders and units that are trained and ready to fight. Focusing on
    collective war fighting skills, these eight day, continuous operation
    field training exercises replicate the process of mobilization,
    deployment and employment in theater.
        Exercises ensure Soldiers can conduct combat support and combat
    service support operations in a contemporary operating environment. The
    training is battle-focused and incorporates basic skills and lessons
    learned from combat zones to enhance battle drill training.
        The demanding, collective training of the Warrior exercises
    provides unit leaders with additional training and prepares Soldiers
    for combat training center exercises or comparable events and
    subsequent deployment for contingency-expeditionary force and domestic
    operations.
                Functional Exercises
        In fiscal year 2006 the Army Reserve conducted 16 functional
    exercises to sharpen Soldiers' skills in a tactical environment.
    Functional exercises are branch specific and are held in the second
    year (reset/train) of the Army Reserve Training Strategy.
        For example, Golden Medic 2006, the U.S. Army Reserve's largest
    medical command and control exercise, drew 2,000 Soldiers from units
    throughout the country, to Camp Parks in Dublin, California, and to
    Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia. Soldiers established and administered
    a makeshift medical complex equipped with facilities resident in a U.S.
    hospital, (ventilators, X-ray machines, dental equipment, a pharmacy, a
    laboratory and a triage wing). Golden Medic also tested the ability of
    Army Reserve units to evacuate casualties from the battlefield to a
    hospital outside the region, and to practice the skills they need to
    treat injuries sustained in battlefield conditions, such as blast
    injuries and severed limbs. The exercises prepared Army Reserve
    Soldiers for handling large numbers of patients, which is something
    that most medical professionals do not experience in a civilian
    hospital setting.
        The training Army Reserve field medics receive today, coupled with
    advances in aero-medical evacuation systems and enroute support care,
    has increased casualty survival rates tremendously. With today's
    military medical care system, there is a 97 percent survival rate for
    casualties that are evacuated from the battlefield to the theater
    hospital. Army Reserve Soldiers, who make up 50 percent of the Army's
    medical capacity, are ready and answering their call to duty.
                Combat Support Training Centers
        After BRAC implementation, the Army Reserve will establish combat
    support training centers (CSTCs) at Fort Hunter Liggett, California,
    and at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Those centers will enhance training in the
    following ways:
      --Provide training and maneuver space for technical and field
            training in austere environments.
      --Allow more rigorous and realistic weapons qualification.
      --Enhance Army Reserve collective training capabilities.
      --Support the Army Reserve's Warrior Exercise program.
        Both centers will support joint, multi-component, interagency, and
    convoy training up to brigade level at Fort Hunter Liggett and up to
    battalion level at Fort Dix.
        When the combat support training centers achieve their full
    operational capability, units in ARFORGEN's fourth year (ready) will
    validate their collective mission tasks in combat training center-like
    rotations. They will help command, plan, prepare, supervise, and
    execute simulation-supported unit pre-mobilization collective training.
    The CSTCs will provide predictable access to state-of-the-art training
    centers that focus on the deployment, training, and redeployment
    experience for Army Reserve units.
                The Army Reserve Leadership Development Campaign Plan
        Updated and executed in 2006, the Army Reserve Leadership
    Development Campaign established requirements and integrated programs
    unique to the Army Reserve. Two significant components are listed
    below:
      --The Senior Leader Training Program.--The Senior Leader Training
            Program develops the intellectual and strategic thinking skills
            that senior leaders need to implement change in the Army
            Reserve. The program focuses on general officer and colonel-
            level leaders with seminars that address organizational change,
            Army transformation and ethics-based leadership.
      --The Pre-Command Courses.--The Army Reserve Brigade and Battalion
            Pre-Command Course was upgraded to enhance training that
            prepares field grade commanders and command sergeants major to
            lead Army Reserve Soldiers.
        In addition to a company pre-command course for commanders, Army
    Reserve company command teams (commanders, first sergeants, and unit
    administrators) participate in new company team leader development
    courses to better prepare them for the challenges of leadership at the
    company level, which is critical to success.
                Phased Mobilization
        Phased mobilization minimizes unit personnel reassignments,
    enhances Soldier medical and dental readiness, improves unit leadership
    and enhances individual skills and unit collective training before
    deployments.
        Under the phased mobilization concept, selected Soldiers and
    leaders mobilize in intervals before their unit's mobilization to
    perform Soldier leader training, Soldier skill training and unit
    collective training. Phased mobilization allows selected Soldiers and
    leaders to receive individual training according to a planned and
    phased schedule, to ensure they are fully-trained and mission-ready
    prior to deployment.
                Army Reserve Virtual University
        To enable commanders to spend more time with Soldiers for mission-
    essential training, the Army Reserve Virtual University (VU) began
    operating in June 2003. Since then, the VU has exceeded 155,000 student
    enrollments.
        The VU hosts web-based training, provides valuable user tools, and
    has real-time reporting features that are essential to commanders. The
    VU is available anytime and anywhere Soldiers, civilian employees and
    family members have Internet access. The site is accessible to anyone
    with an Army Knowledge Online (AKO) system username and password. It
    offers 24/7/365 customer service.
        As of November 2006, the VU offered 49 Internet-based courses, many
    of which meet the Army Reserve's mandatory course requirements,
    including: Information Assurance Awareness, Subversion and Espionage
    Directed against the Army, and Substance Abuse. It also offers course
    discussion threads, chat rooms, electronic libraries, collaborative
    learning environments (CLEs) in the continental United States and
    overseas theaters of operation, individual downloadable transcripts,
    and custom portals for each major command. The CLE provides every major
    subordinate command staff with a video conferencing capability that is
    accessible at home, school, or place of work. No special
    teleconferencing facilities are required.
        The VU is also a place where Soldiers, civilians and family members
    can enhance their personal or professional knowledge about the Army
    Reserve. The VU is an effective and efficient vehicle for providing
    family readiness information and training to Army Reserve families that
    are geographically dispersed and located far from units and
    installations. Included in the online VU package is a Family Readiness
    Library and two Family Readiness courses within the catalog.
    Compelling Needs for Providing Trained and Ready Units
        Support the President's fiscal year 2008 budget initiatives for
    Reserve Personnel, Army (RPA) funding levels to support Army Force
    Generation model phased training requirements that include:
      --Equipment training.
      --Improved collective training.
      --Warrior Exercises.
      --Leader education.
        Support the President's fiscal year 2008 budget initiatives for
    Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) funding levels:
      --To establish combat support training centers at Army Reserve
            primary installations.
      --To increase emphasis and additional operating tempo for warrior
            task and drill training; skill reclassification training,
            convoy live fire training, and additional support.
      --To provide training equipment sets to support Army Reserve Training
            Centers.
      --To dedicate equipment training sets at centralized locations and
            training equipment sets for schools and deployable units.
    Army Reserve Capabilities That Support Joint, Combined and Interagency
            Operations
        Many of the skills unique to Army Reserve Soldiers complement
    joint, expeditionary and domestic operations. Examples of Army Reserve
    capabilities that support national objectives include:
                Countering Terrorism
        Highly specialized counterterrorism support to Special Operations
    Command (SOCOM), the U.S. Department of State's Office of the
    Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and other government agencies.
        Units and Soldiers for combatant commands to execute their regional
    war on terror (RWOT) plans.
                Defending the Homeland
        Critical capabilities to commands with significant domestic
    response responsibilities: U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM); U.S.
    Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM); Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-
    CS); Joint Forces Command's (JFCOM) Standing Joint Task Force
    Headquarters; and U.S. Army North (ARNORTH).
        Twenty-six Army Reserve chemical companies with specialized
    military and civilian response equipment that can perform mass casualty
    decontamination and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear
    (CBRN) and hazardous materials (HAZMAT) responder operations.
        Much of the Army's combat and combat service support capability to
    include medical, chemical, transportation, logistics, and civil affairs
    capabilities, all of which are available for homeland defense missions.
        Aviation, Transportation, and Logistics capabilities to include
    1,996 pre-positioned pieces of fully mission-capable equipment with
    identified crews to provide rapid domestic disaster response for the
    2006 hurricane season using programmed funding. Most of those assets
    will remain in place for future domestic response operations.
        One hundred and ninety-four emergency preparedness liaison officers
    (EPLOs) who are embedded in all 10 FEMA regions to support federal and
    state emergency managers for domestic response operations.
        Support to NORTHCOM's Consequence Management Response Forces 1-3,
    which includes chemical, quartermaster, and medical-type units.
                Shaping Choices of Countries at Crossroads
        Units and Soldiers to allow geographic and functional combatant
    commanders to execute their theater security cooperation plans (TSCP)
    to build partner capacity in exercises such as Nuevos Horizontes in
    Guatemala and Cobra Gold in Thailand.
                Preventing Acquisition of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
                        by State and Non-State Actors
        Direct support to the 20th Support Command in its lead Department
    of Defense role as the primary responder for CBRN consequence
    management operations. These capabilities are available for use in the
    prevention of acquisition of WMD.
        Chemical units that provide unique capabilities to detect,
    identify, and mitigate selected WMD in support of nonproliferation
    activities.
        While the challenges the Army Reserve faces will evolve, Soldiers
    with ``boots on the ground'' will remain vital to our Nation's
    solutions.
                              equipping the force
    Accomplishments
        Since 9/11:
      --Cross-leveled more than 300,000 items of equipment (65,000
            transactions) among Army Reserve units to support ongoing
            operations.
      --Developed and fielded cutting-edge logistics information management
            programs to improve situational awareness and support decision-
            making.
      --Developed and implemented innovative and cost-effective methods to
            improve logistics readiness by centralizing equipment and using
            centrally managed databases to manage and track equipment.
        Fiscal year 2006:
      --Developed and began implementation of a logistics program that
            directly supports the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model.
      --Reduced the backlog of equipment, redeployed from Iraq and
            Afghanistan, for inspection, repair, and/or overhaul from
            14,000 items to less than 1,500.
      --Achieved a maintenance readiness level of 91 percent for reportable
            equipment on hand as fully mission-capable.
      --Provided Rapid Fielding Initiative equipment to 62,000 Army Reserve
            Soldiers.
      --Integrated 7,014 pieces of equipment transferred from the Active
            Component to the Army Reserve.
      --Inducted 5,337 major end items and 30,725 items for calibration
            into depot maintenance.
      --Identified $742 million of Army Reserve stay-behind equipment
            retained in Iraq for replacement (such as HMMWVs, Trucks,
            Material Handling Equipment and communications equipment).
      --Retired 6,800 M16A1 rifles from Army Reserve units in preparation
            for M16A2, M16A4, and M4 rifle replacement fielding.
        Meeting future obligations will require the Army Reserve to do much
    more than focus on managing current resources. The continued high pace
    of operations will require additional expenditures to reset the force
    in addition to the costs associated with modernization and modular
    conversions.
                The Army Reserve and the Modular Force Logistics Concept
        The Modular Force Logistics Concept (MFLC) is the Army's redesign
    of logistics business rules, processes, and procedures to support the
    modular force. The MFLC seeks to integrate logistics operations,
    vertically and horizontally, to provide the speed and flexibility
    needed to deploy and sustain the Modular Force in training and combat.
    Vertical integration streamlines logistical support to the warfighter.
    The 143rd Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) based in Orlando, Florida,
    is transitioning to become an Expeditionary Sustainment Command. It
    will then be able to employ the concept of logistical integration for
    easier coordination between units. Horizontal integration consolidates
    material management centers (MMCs) and movement control centers (MCCs)
    into logistics headquarters support operations; logistics at the
    operational level are then focused on theater and brigade combat team
    support.
        As the Army Reserve adapts to those changes and procedures,
    concepts such as the Army Reserve Equipping and Fleet Management
    Strategy (AREFMS) are evolving to integrate and complement MFLC.
                The Army Reserve and GCSS-A/T and SALE
        Central to the implementation of the MFLC is the development of
    Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) software, which will provide the
    Army with a holistic, fully integrated logistics data warehouse and
    accompanying management and decision making tools. The current concept
    is to build on the development of a Global Combat Support System--Army/
    Tactical (GCSS-A/T) and a national level system, which will be replaced
    and integrated at a future date into one enterprise--the Single Army
    Logistics Enterprise (SALE). The Army Reserve is a full partner with
    the Army and defense industry leaders in the development of GCSS-A/T
    and SALE, providing a team to adapt current Army Reserve business
    rules, processes and procedures to the ``best commercial'' practices
    embedded in the ERP.
        Until the new software is completed and fielded, the Army Reserve
    will continue to use and refine its bridging solution, the Logistics
    Data Warehouse (LOGDAT). LOGDAT integrates data from Army Reserve unit
    and command-level logistics systems at the national level. In a single
    warehouse, Army Reserve commanders, staffs and managers can access the
    data, review unit readiness and develop and implement management
    decisions.
                Equipping Units in the ARFORGEN Cycle
        As previously stated, the Army Reserve, as a full participant in
    the ARFORGEN model, is no longer a strategic reserve but an operational
    force. The Army Reserve must train under the same conditions and
    standards as their Active Duty counterparts, including training with
    the same types of equipment they are expected to operate on the
    battlefield. To accomplish the training necessary for units to flow
    through the model, the most modern equipment must be made available to
    Army Reserve units as they move through the pre-mobilization and
    deployment phases of ARFORGEN.
        The Army Reserve has developed a strategy to optimize the use of
    its available equipment, based on the training requirements of units,
    as they move through the ARFORGEN cycles. Army Reserve unit equipment
    will be housed at respective unit home stations, collective training
    sites and individual training sites. That provides equipment for
    individual training as well as small unit training at home stations.
    The unit's collective training will be accomplished at the collective
    training sites and will be evaluated at the unit level. The Army
    Reserve can meet a single large contingency and continue to operate a
    rotational readiness model under ARFORGEN. Although military support to
    civil authorities (MSCA) activities do provide a collective training
    benefit, if there are repeated or significant domestic contingencies,
    such as repeated or long-lasting hurricane responses or additional
    foreign contingencies, collective unit training cycles at collective
    training sites could be delayed or canceled.
        The Army Reserve requires a steady flow of procurement to reach
    equipment and modernization goals. If the right equipment is
    unavailable when needed, mission accomplishment and the survivability,
    safety and morale of Army Reserve Soldiers are jeopardized.
    Compelling Needs for Equipping the Force
                Procurement of equipment to support the Global War on
                        Terror (GWOT) and the Modular Force
        The modernization of light-medium trucks (75 percent are not
    Modular Force compatible or deployable and are not integral to training
    and operational efficiency).
        The modernization of medium line-haul tractors (50 percent do not
    support single-fleet policy and are not integral to training and
    operational efficiency).
        Medical equipment.
        Night vision systems.
        Chemical/biological/radiological detection/alarm systems.
        Modular Force equipment needed to support designated individual and
    collective training locations, including unit level collective training
    in a field environment.
        Communications and automation equipment.
                Sustainment
        Support Army Reserve participation in the development and fielding
    of GCSS-A/T and SALE.
        Support initiatives to ensure depot maintenance funding at 90
    percent or better.
        Support recapitalization of tactical truck inventory.
        Endorse retention of Army Reserve tactical maintenance contract
    labor to reduce mobilization and training equipment backlogs.
              warrior citizens sustaining the all-volunteer force
    Accomplishments
        In fiscal year 2006, The Army Reserve achieved over 100 percent of
    its goal for the reenlistment of first-term Soldiers; the first time
    that has been accomplished since 2002.
        The Army Reserve continues to retain its career Soldiers, reaching
    103 percent of the 2006 re-enlistment goal.
        Despite the continued high operational tempo, the Army Reserve
    realized 95 percent of its overall recruiting mission, including the
    U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Human Resource Command-Alexandria,
    Virginia, and Retention-Transition Division missions.
        The Army Reserve is tailoring its incentives program to the
    ARFORGEN model in order to realize maximum results.
        In fiscal year 2006, the Army Reserve began three BRAC military
    construction projects and 13 conventional military construction
    projects that will directly enhance quality of life for more than 4,800
    Soldiers in seven states.
        Since its launch (in early fiscal year 2006), The Army Reserve
    Family Programs web portal (www.arfp.org) has recorded more than one
    million visitors.
        The Army Reserve continues to recognize Soldiers' sacrifices via
    the Army Reserve Welcome Home Warrior Citizen Program. Of the 70,366
    awards delivered (since the program's inception in 2004), 62,359 awards
    have been presented during ceremonies.
        The Army Reserve's mobilization/deployment assistants made 79,913
    successful telephone contacts, received 12,444 incoming emails, sent
    57,027 outgoing emails, and recorded 18,982 in-person contacts in an
    effort to keep Army Reserve Soldiers and their families up to date on
    the latest deployment information.
        The Army Reserve developed the Army Reserve Employer Relations
    (ARER) program, tailored to build relationships with civilian employers
    of Army Reserve Soldiers.
        ``Honor is never off duty'' is now the Army Reserve touchstone. The
    Soldier's Creed and the Warrior Ethos are the bedrock of the United
    States Army Reserve. Warrior Citizens now entering the Army Reserve
    understand that mobilizations and deployments are not
    ``possibilities''--they are ``probabilities.''
        Fully appreciative of today's realities, the Army Reserve no longer
    focuses solely on pay and benefits as an incentive to serve. The Army
    Reserve reinforces Army Values and embraces the Soldier's Creed. While
    pay and other incentives are still important, today's focus is now on
    pride in service to community and to the Nation.
        The Army Reserve also continues to ensure that the best quality of
    care for Army Reserve Soldiers and their families is provided and
    constantly works to improve the quality-of-life for Soldiers and their
    families. Army Reserve leadership manages Soldiers through accession
    and assignment, reassignment, training, and retraining or
    reclassification. Additionally, the Army Reserve manages relocation to
    conform to the ARFORGEN model.
                Recruiting
        The success of bringing new Soldiers into the Army Reserve ranks
    reflects the patriotism of this century's ``greatest generation.'' The
    U.S. Army Recruiting Command recruited 25,378 new Soldiers into the
    Army Reserve in fiscal year 2006; an increase of 6,000 new Soldier
    recruits from fiscal year 2005--a 95 percent achievement of the Army
    Reserve's fiscal year 2006 recruiting goal. In fiscal year 2007, the
    Army Reserve remains committed to garnering 100 percent of the needed
    Army Reserve Soldiers.
        Key to meeting that goal is ensuring that filling Active Guard/
    Reserve recruiter positions are a top priority. Those recruiters are
    essential to ensure the Army Reserve supports the ARFORGEN model.
    Incentives are also tailored to ensure the right Soldier skills are
    brought into the Army Reserve's ranks for emerging missions.
        Additionally, the plan ensures the maximum return on the Army
    Reserve's investment as part of Lean Six Sigma. The Army Reserve
    realizes the market is very competitive for potential recruits and
    tailors incentives to attract not only the right skills, but the best
    candidates to join the Army Reserve ranks.
                Selected Reserve Incentive Program
        One of the most publicized new programs in the Army Reserve is the
    referral bonus. The program originally offered Soldiers who referred
    applicants who complete their initial military training a $1,000 bonus.
    This bonus was later increased to $2,000 and made available to Active
    and Reserve component retirees.
                Recruitment and Reenlistment
        In addition to the bonus, a host of incentives tailored to attract
    specific audiences (listed below) are now being offered.
      --Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus (6 yrs./up to $20,000).
      --Prior Service Enlistment Bonus (3 yrs./$7,500 or 6 yrs./$15,000).
      --Reenlistment Bonus for up to 20 years service (3 yrs./$7,500 or 6
            yrs./$15,000).
      --Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (3 or 6 yrs./up to $20,000).
      --Officer/Warrant Officer Accession Bonus (3 yrs./up to $10,000).
      --Officer/Warrant Officer Affiliation Bonus (3 yrs./up to $10,000);
            given when an officer/warrant officer chooses to serve the
            remainder of their obligation in a troop-program unit, as
            opposed to going to the Individual Ready Reserve.
      --Enlisted Affiliation Bonus (3 or 6 yrs./up to $20,000).
        The 103 percent reenlistment rate for fiscal year 2006 highlights
    the success of Army Reserve incentive programs. The programs initiated
    by the Army Reserve during the current operations highlight the Army
    Reserve's dedication to taking care of not only Soldiers, but also
    their families and employers. Army Reserve career counselors who are
    geographically dispersed, including 11 in theater, exceeded their
    annual reenlistment mission by more than 500 reenlistments. This
    enables the Army Reserve to continue to meet the needs of America's
    expeditionary Army.
        Fiscal year 2006 accomplishments highlight the Army Reserve's
    steady retention success in recent years. The Army Reserve reduced
    attrition from 24.7 percent in 2001 to 22.3 percent in 2006; expanding
    the reenlistment window to 12 months with incentives, coupled with
    continued funding, made this success possible.
                Retention Initiatives
        The Army Reserve places a priority on retaining Warrior Citizens
    after their mandatory service obligation (MSO) is fulfilled. The value
    these mature, trained and ready, skill-rich Soldiers bring to the total
    force cannot be overlooked. Resources to fund programs targeted to
    recruit and retain Soldiers are vital for the Army Reserve to support
    the total force. Some incentives to retain Army Reserve leadership and
    fully staff high priority ARFORGEN units are listed below:
      --The Secretary of Defense has authorized Command Responsibility Pay
            (CRP) bonuses for officers serving in positions of special
            responsibility. The number of officers eligible for bonuses is
            capped within each officer grade.
      --ARFORGEN designated unit pay. This is a key incentive to promote
            retention and stability. Included in the 2006 National Defense
            Authorization Act, this program allows payment for non-
            obligated Soldiers, in designated critical skills and units,
            such as Soldiers who belong to ARFORGEN units targeted for
            deployment, and who make a service commitment to the Army
            Reserve. The program will likely reduce the need to cross-level
            Soldiers by increasing volunteerism and retention in high
            priority Army Reserve units.
      --The Army Reserve is pursuing a Critical Skill Retention Bonus for
            Soldiers assigned to high priority units. This bonus will be
            geared toward O-3 and below for Officers, E-7 and below for
            Enlisted, and W-3 and below for Warrant Officers with critical
            skills and experience that the Army Reserve must maintain for
            the war fight.
                Mobilization Within the Army Reserve--Reflecting the
                        Cultural Change
        The number of Army Reserve Soldiers who mobilized and then
    volunteered for further deployments reflect the experience and
    patriotism of today's Warrior Citizens.
      --More than 166,000 Army Reserve Soldiers have mobilized since
            September 11, 2001.
      --More than 42,000 Army Reserve Soldiers have mobilized more than
            once since September 11, 2001 (as of December 31, 2006).
                Full Time Support
        Today's demand for the Army Reserve to meet operational
    requirements quickly with fully-trained Soldiers and units on an
    enduring basis highlights the increased importance of Army Reserve
    full-time support (FTS) personnel. The Active Guard and Reserve (AGR)
    Soldiers, Department of the Army Civilian Employees and Army Reserve
    Military Technicians play a crucial role in preparing Army Reserve
    units for war.
        Full-time support personnel serve in a variety of positions
    throughout the Army Reserve. Operations personnel plan the training
    that will move the unit through the cycles of ARFORGEN. Human resources
    personnel direct the life-cycle management of unit personnel to ensure
    the right Warrior Citizen is in the right place at the right time.
    Human resources personnel coordinate with unit training personnel to
    ensure personnel are scheduled for, and attend, military schooling for
    career competency, progression and enhancement.
        The DOD average FTS manning level in fiscal year 2005--the last
    year data was available--was 21 percent of end strength, while the
    projected fiscal year 2007 manning level for the Army Reserve is 11.7
    percent, the lowest of any component of any service. As the Army
    Reserve transforms to an operational force and the demands for Army
    Reserve Soldiers increase, FTS requirements must be re-evaluated to
    ensure continued unit mobilization readiness.
        The Army is developing new full-time support requirements;
    utilizing the requirements methodology validated by the U.S. Army
    Manpower Analysis Agency (USAMAA) in fiscal year 2006. The Army Reserve
    is currently applying that methodology to its ARFORGEN force structure
    requirements to ensure it has the personnel necessary to carry out the
    day-to-day workload for mobilization readiness. The Army Reserve will
    work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure that this
    ``revalidation'' will allow the Army Reserve to determine the right
    balance of full-time support personnel for an operational force.
                Quality of Life and Well Being of Soldiers and Family
                        Members
        Quality of life issues directly affect the retention of Soldiers in
    the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve recruits Soldiers and retains their
    families.
        General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has
    said, ``Taking care of our people is fundamental to the ethos of the
    American Armed Forces. Our men and women in uniform are our most
    precious resource. We must continue to ensure their welfare and that of
    the families who support them.''
                Family Programs
        Support to family programs remains a top Army Reserve priority,
    especially during this time of unprecedented deployments for Army
    Reserve Warrior Citizens. Full funding of programs such as the
    following, are crucial to the Army Reserve's retention goals and to
    sustaining the All-Volunteer Force.
      --Children's programs have been initiated that realize the unique
            pressures children of reserve component military members face,
            especially when their parents deploy.
      --A highlight of fiscal year 2006 activities included expansion of
            Operation Purple Camps. These camps represent a joint effort
            between the National Military Family Association, the
            Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau and local camp
            providers to help children of deployed Army Reserve Soldiers
            deal with deployment-related separation issues in a summer camp
            environment.
                Health Benefits
        Few programs reflect care for Soldiers more directly than health
    care plans. It is crucial that support for those programs continue.
      --Army Reserve Soldiers who are on active duty for less than 30 days
            are covered for any injury, illness, or disease incurred or
            aggravated in the line of duty. That includes travel to and
            from the Soldier's duty station.
      --After 30 consecutive days of active duty service, Soldiers and
            family members are entitled to comprehensive health care
            coverage. Dental coverage is also available to Army Reserve
            Soldiers and family members regardless of their mobilization
            status.
      --For Army Reserve families, health care benefits begin 90 days prior
            to the effective date of the Soldier's mobilization orders
            (early TRICARE). The Soldier's location and selection of a
            primary care provider determines any possible deductibles and/
            or co-payment.
      --A demobilized Army Reserve Soldier (and his/her family) is eligible
            for up to 180 days of transitional health care, called
            Transitional Assistance Medical Program (TAMP). TRICARE
            coverage ends when they return to their previous employer based
            health coverage.
      --TRICARE Reserve Select has been fully implemented and is a premium
            based health insurance program that offers all members of the
            Selected Reserve an opportunity to purchase comprehensive
            health coverage similar to TRICARE Standard and TRICARE Extra.
            It is a three-tiered system of eligibility and cost shares,
            which also allows those benefits to be purchased by non-
            deployed Reserve Soldiers.
      --Reserve Soldiers who are eligible for TAMP transition benefits may
            receive dental care at military dental facilities on a space-
            available basis only. Family members are not eligible for
            dental care at these facilities. Civilian dental care is not a
            covered benefit for sponsors or family members under the TAMP
            program. Reserve members and their families may, however,
            receive dental care by enrolling in the premium based TRICARE
            Dental Program (TDP).
        Congress has supported and the Reserve community has received
    numerous expanded health benefits over the last year. These programs
    provide for TRICARE coverage options and provide additional benefits
    for those being activated in support of a contingency operation. DOD is
    evaluating the expanded healthcare programs and their impact on
    readiness and retention of Army Reserve Soldiers.
                Well-Being Advisory Council
        The new Well-Being Advisory Council (WBAC) reflects the additional
    support being provided to ensure the proper care for Army Reserve
    Warrior Citizens and their families. The WBAC is responsible to the
    Chief, Army Reserve for providing strategic oversight for a holistic,
    well-being process. Plans are underway to hold the first WBAC meeting
    during the second quarter of fiscal year 2007.
                Child and Youth Services (CYS)
        CYS programs are initiatives designed to reduce the conflict
    between parental responsibilities and Soldier mission requirements.
    When Army Reserve Soldiers are mobilized, their families and children
    become part of the military community. These Army Reserve families
    often do not live near a military installation and may not live in a
    community with a significant military population. Army Reserve
    Soldiers' families do not transfer to a military installation when the
    Soldier mobilizes. The transition from community lifestyle to military
    lifestyle often happens without the benefit of experiences and support
    systems available to Active Army families who often reside on Army
    installations. The Army Reserve recognizes the strain that mobilization
    puts on the Warrior Citizen family, and now has a Child and Youth
    Services Directorate to provide services that support the readiness and
    well-being of families, including those families that are
    geographically dispersed. Programs designed to assist Warrior Citizen
    families include:
      --Operation Military Child Care (OMCC).--OMCC is a program that
            ``buys down'' the cost of child care for military families.
            Families of Soldiers who are mobilized or deployed in support
            of the Global War on Terror receive help locating state-
            licensed or regulated child care services in their communities
            at reduced rates.
      --Operation Child Care (OCC).--OCC is a nationwide voluntary
            community based initiative that accesses local child care
            providers who donate their services to military families. The
            initiative provides short-term ``respite and reunion care'' for
            children of service members returning from Operation Iraqi
            Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom for their two-week R&R
            leave.
      --Operation Military Kids (OMK).--OMK focuses on the children of
            ``suddenly military'' Army Reserve and National Guard personnel
            who are being mobilized in increasing numbers for extended
            assignments.
      --Operation Proud Partners.--The goal of this program is to enhance
            the quality of selected Boys and Girls Clubs of America located
            in the civilian community. This organization will provide
            services to military youth who do not live on a military
            installation.
      --Army Teen Panel (ATP).--The Army Reserve has two seats on the ATP.
            The ATP was started in 1995 to help young people communicate
            concerns to the Army's senior leadership. The ATP promotes
            youth and adult partnerships.
      --Educator Training.--The Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC)
            has designed training for educators. The ongoing, nationwide
            training focuses on the issues that Army Reserve and National
            Guard youth face when a parent is mobilized and deployed.
        Among other activities, CYS will host a Youth Leadership Education
    and Development (YLEAD) conference in Tacoma, Washington, in fiscal
    year 2007. This conference will empower youth to become community
    leaders locally and within the Army Reserve through involvement, action
    planning, and leadership programs.
                Education Benefits
        Education benefits clearly enhance the development of Army Reserve
    Soldiers and retention activities. During fiscal year 2006, Tuition
    Assistance was used by 19,088 Army Reserve Soldiers and degrees were
    earned by 1,021 participants; clear evidence of the desire of Army
    Reserve Soldiers to further their education. An additional advantage
    the Army Reserve brings to our Nation is the induction of college
    students. While some college students, or prospective college students,
    may be reluctant to join the ranks of the active component military,
    many have enlisted in the Army Reserve. The benefits they gain toward
    their college tuition complement the military's desire to retain a
    high-quality pool of knowledgeable Soldiers.
        Army Reserve Voluntary Education Services is a Department of
    Defense-mandated commanders' program that promotes lifelong
    opportunities for Selected Reserve Soldiers through voluntary education
    services that enhance recruiting, retention and readiness of Army
    Reserve Soldiers.
        Some major educational programs are detailed below:
      --The Montgomery GI Bill now has a pilot program allowing Active Army
            Soldiers in critical skills who reenlist, to transfer up to 18
            months of their Montgomery GI Bill benefits to their spouses.
            This benefit is not yet available to Reserve Component
            Soldiers.
      --The Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) is an educational
            assistance program paying benefits to Soldiers in the Selected
            Reserve and to Individual Ready Reserve members who have been
            ordered to active duty. The allowance is a percentage of the
            Montgomery GI Bill active duty rate based upon the number of
            continuous days served on active duty.
      --The Army/American Council on Education Registry Transcript System
            (AARTS) is a program which translates military job experience
            and education into college credits. The AARTS staff fills more
            than 2,000 transcript requests a week. Requests are processed
            and mailed within three business days to academic institutions,
            Soldiers, education counselors, and employers worldwide. AARTS
            transcripts are available free of charge to qualified members
            of the Army Reserve.
                Welcome Home Warrior Citizen Award Program
        The proper reception for Army Reserve Soldiers returning from
    deployments lets them know, in a direct manner, the Nation's
    appreciation for their sacrifices. The Welcome Home Warrior Citizen
    Award Program was created to publicly recognize the sacrifices that
    Army Reserve Soldiers have made in the long war. As indicated
    previously, of 70,366 awards delivered (since the program's inception
    in fiscal year 2004), 62,359 have been presented to Army Reserve
    Soldiers during ceremonies. The program has been expanded to include
    recognition items for family members and employers.
                Support to Wounded Soldiers
        The Army Wounded Warrior Program (AW2) assists disabled Soldiers
    who suffered severe injuries on or after September 11, 2001, and who
    have been awarded (or are likely to receive) an Army disability rating
    of at least 30 percent. Assistance is provided from initial casualty
    notification through the Soldier's assimilation into civilian community
    services (for up to five years after medical retirement). AW2
    facilitates the linkage between the Army and organizations that stand
    ready to assist those Soldiers and their families, such as the U.S.
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
        Assistance includes:
      --Funding travel for family members to the Soldiers bedside (via
            Invitational Travel Orders).
      --Resolving pay issues.
      --Providing options for remaining on active duty.
      --Assisting Soldiers with the tools to navigate the medical
            evaluation board and physical evaluation board process through
            information and assistance.
        Some of the Soldiers in the AW2 program may be in the process of
    medical retirements, pending other dispositions such as being extended
    on active duty, or enrollment in the Community Based Healthcare
    Initiative. The program allows selected reserve component Soldiers to
    return to their homes and receive medical care in their community based
    on each Soldier's medical needs.
                More Efficient Promotion Management
        To continue efforts to keep experienced Soldiers in Army Reserve
    ranks, promotion policies have been updated. Recent, important changes
    to provide equity and increased quality to the Army Reserve's promotion
    policies include:
      --Acceleration of promotion consideration to captain for the various
            competitive categories. This accelerated consideration will
            result in first lieutenants being considered for captain 12
            months earlier than with previous boards.
      --In 2007, minimum time-in-grade for lieutenant colonels before
            consideration for promotion increased by one year. This will
            allow for a greater variety of assignments, military schooling,
            and command time. The change should also slightly increase the
            overall selection rate to colonel.
      --A new regulation allows enlisted Soldiers to request waivers to
            requirements for military schools for promotion consideration.
            The waivers can be requested for reasons such as deployment,
            operational requirements, or lack of school seats.
                Enhanced Care for Professional Development
        As the Army Reserve transforms, regional personnel service centers
    (RPSCs) are being structured to provide modernized life-cycle
    management services. Those centers will address issues pertaining to
    Soldiers' career requirements (including schools and assignments) as
    they progress in rank or until they retire or separate. The RPSC will
    actively manage Soldiers' careers even when they transfer into another
    civilian job--the RPSCs will find another Army Reserve unit for the
    Soldier to join.
                Army Reserve Employer Relations
        When Army Reserve Soldiers return from deployment, the experience,
    confidence, and leadership skills they earned on the battlefield give
    them a deeper appreciation for their civilian careers and opportunities
    in America. When Warrior Citizens return to work, employers get better
    employees who have renewed energy, broader perspectives, a desire for
    more responsibility, and are creative problem solvers.
        Forging relationships with civilian employers is fundamentally
    important to the success of the Army Reserve's mission. Without
    civilian employer support it would be difficult, at best, to sustain a
    creditable force of Warrior Citizens; the Army Reserve shares the
    workforce of the civilian business community. In an effort to build
    positive and enduring relationships with civilian employers of Army
    Reserve Soldiers, Army Reserve Employer Relations (ARER) was
    established in 2005.
        Building positive relationships with civilian employers enhances
    Soldier readiness and positively impacts retention. In fiscal year
    2006, the Army Reserve began to focus on enhancing employer support
    through a systemic blending of four major objectives: mitigation,
    mediation, employer outreach and awareness, and Soldier-employer
    relations.
        In fiscal year 2007, the ARER will implement, monitor, and
    participate in the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard
    and Reserve's (ESGR) ``Pinnacle Advance'' campaign. Additionally, the
    ARER will promote and sponsor the ``Patriot Partner,'' ``Freedom Team
    Salute,'' and other ESGR recognition awards. The ``Patriot Partner''
    program is the first official Army Reserve-specific recognition for
    employers--acknowledging employer sacrifices and support of Army
    Reserve Soldiers. The ARER will coordinate and sponsor ``Meeting with
    the Boss'' and ``Boss Lift'' for 5-Star employers and Army Reserve
    senior leaders. The Chief of the Army Reserve will engage employers in
    various forums to explore better ways for both the Army Reserve and
    businesses to work together to support Warrior Citizens. In fiscal year
    2007, the ARER will build organizational structure, identify funding
    resources, and develop and implement an AKO e-mail account for the
    program.
    Compelling Needs for Sustaining the All-Volunteer Force
        Support initiatives in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget that
    fill FTS positions in priority ARFORGEN units and provide the support
    necessary for an operational force.
        Support the President's proposal to strengthen the military with an
    increase in Army Reserve end strength to 206,000 in fiscal year 2013.
        Support full funding for requests in the President's fiscal year
    2008 budget to provide incentives to recruit and retain Army Reserve
    Soldiers. These incentives allow the Army Reserve to fulfill the
    manning requirements of ARFORGEN and to promote retention and stability
    for ARFORGEN units targeted for deployment.
        Continued support for educational assistance benefits for Soldiers
    and families.
        Fully fund initiatives designed to sustain the propensity for Army
    Reserve Soldiers to serve, and employers to support, hire and retain
    Warrior Citizens.
        Fully fund the Command Responsibility Pay (CRP) program to increase
    retention of officers serving in positions of responsibility.
        Support ARER program initiatives for the ``Patriot Partner''
    program.
        Support incentives to retain Soldiers who want to extend their AGR
    active duty commitment beyond 20 years of Active Federal Service.
                                 managing risk
        Ongoing operations at home and abroad have dramatically changed the
    way Army Reserve Soldiers think about and view themselves and the Army
    Reserve as an institution. The paradigm has changed. Mobilization is
    not merely a possibility; it is a likelihood that is identified and
    incorporated into a specified timeline.
        Concurrent with Army Reserve Warrior Citizens answering the call to
    serve, is the urgent need to accelerate the procedural and
    administrative changes needed to support training, equipping, manning,
    and mobilization. The Army Reserve strategy directly supports the Army
    Plan of transforming in response to the challenges and demands of this
    century, as detailed in previous chapters. Those profound structural
    changes, occurring while the Army Reserve is simultaneously providing
    Soldiers and units for operations throughout the world, create an
    environment with many risks. Much has been done to mitigate those
    risks, yet more needs to be done. The Army Reserve must balance demands
    with operational and organizational resources. To further mitigate risk
    while building the Army Reserve into a flexible, responsive and dynamic
    organization that is well-equipped to support the Future Force, the
    Army Reserve requires legislative support.
        The Army Reserve's fiscal year 2008 legislative priorities:
    Priority: Obtain Full Funding to Sustain the Army Reserve's Global
            Commitments
        Support for full, timely, and predictable funding of the
    President's fiscal year 2008 budget request is essential for the Army
    Reserve to provide Soldiers and units to combat traditional, irregular,
    catastrophic and disruptive threats; provide adequately for Soldiers,
    families and Army Civilians; accelerate key aspects of Army Reserve
    transformation and maintain the momentum of vital modernization
    programs and stationing initiatives. Failure to provide sustained
    resources jeopardizes the ability of the Army Reserve to respond when
    the Nation calls.
    Priority: Recruit and Retain Warrior Citizens to Sustain the Long War
        Invest in the Army Reserve. Support the Army Reserve's goals for
    attracting and retaining high-quality, skill-rich Warrior Citizens.
    Sustained funding will enable the expansion of the Army Reserve's
    operational, deployable force pool. Failure to invest in recruitment
    could jeopardize the All-Volunteer Force.
    Priority: Transform the Army Reserve to Sustain the Army Force
            Generation Model
        By increasing the depth and breadth of its overall capacity, Army
    Reserve transformation is improving the Army Reserve's ability to
    execute and support protracted operational requirements. Sustained
    resources to continue this transformation will improve the readiness of
    non-deployed Army Reserve forces, reduce stress on Army Reserve
    Soldiers, their families and employers and improve the readiness of
    Army Reserve equipment and facilities. Failure to support Army Reserve
    transformation puts the ARFORGEN model at risk and compromises the
    Army's ability to develop relevant capabilities, in sufficient
    quantities to respond to current and future operations.
    Priority: Reset the Total Force
        Today's Army Reserve must be prepared and available to optimize all
    its capabilities--both human and materiel--whenever the Nation calls.
    The requirement to reset Army Reserve units requires a sustained,
    predictable commitment of funds for several years beyond major
    deployments in support of the Global War on Terror. Failure to provide
    full resources would jeopardize the Army Reserve's ability to operate
    in a steady state of readiness and to execute projected operational
    deployments.
    Priority: Improve Wartime Authorities and Resources
        Earlier this year, the Secretary of Defense initiated actions to
    change policies and authorities on how reserve and active units are
    managed and deployed. While these actions will improve the Army
    Reserve's ability to execute ARFORGEN, changes will take time. Although
    the policies will facilitate the deployment of assured, predictable
    access to whole cohesive Army Reserve units, the effectiveness of the
    Army Reserve depends on a national commitment to Army Reserve Soldiers.
    The Army Reserve must ensure the readiness of our current force and our
    future force with resources that are full, timely, and predictable.
    Expanded authorities are needed to meet operational requirements for
    commanders currently fighting the long war. Additionally, failure to
    sufficiently fund the Army Reserve jeopardizes the current pace of
    operations and the implementation of changes necessary to prepare and
    protect Army Reserve Soldiers. Failure to fully fund Army Reserve
    readiness, in manpower and equipment, puts America at risk in the
    future.
                              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.

        Senator Inouye. I'll now recognize Admiral Cotton.
    STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JOHN G. COTTON, CHIEF, NAVY
                RESERVE
        Admiral Cotton. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
    distinguished members. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. I'll keep my remarks brief because I know you have
    some questions.
        I would say that since we were here, the operability has
    remained steady. It has not steadily increased, especially if--
    we need for the current threats. The Navy Reserve is slightly
    under strength but slightly above the requested end strength
    for next year.
        We have three challenges or priorities this year. It's
    manpower, readiness, and operational support. We are more ready
    than we've ever been, 84 percent fully or partially medically
    ready. We've never been more integrated providing operational
    support to the fleet and the combatant commanders. I am
    concerned about where we're going to find the people to man the
    force in the future. I think some of your questions will be
    part of that.
        The Army has been very successful with their finders fees.
    Like I asked last year, I think we're going to have to go
    something like that, too. You also asked about a steady state
    of bonuses and incentives. I think we're all competing with
    each other for the same individuals. In previous testimony, our
    Chief of Naval Personnel has used a number--that of the target
    recruitment operation of 17 to 24 years old, 72 percent are
    ineligible for military service. They don't have the
    qualifications or don't have the preponderancy to serve and
    we're finding this is increasingly tough with higher retention
    for the active. It's tougher to find the folks that will come
    with the Reserve, with the Reserve component.
        Now, the Army Reserve is on the ground--with over 4,000,
    with over 6,000 mobilized today and over 24,000 at some type of
    borders at their support commands.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So we're doing a great job. I look forward to your
    questions. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Vice Admiral John G. Cotton
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, distinguished members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about
    the readiness of the Navy's Reserve component.
        After several years of emphasis on Active Reserve Integration
    (ARI), our Navy Reserve Force is more ready, responsive and relevant,
    and is a full partner in the Total Navy. Alongside Active Component
    (AC) sailors, Reserve Component (RC) sailors provide integrated
    Operational Support (OS) to the fleet, Combatant Commands (COCOMs), and
    other Department of Defense (DOD) agencies. With critical military and
    civilian skill sets and capabilities, mission-ready RC sailors and
    units surge to provide predictable and periodic work across the full
    range of operations from peace to war.
        Since 9/11/2001, over 42,000 Navy reservists have been mobilized in
    support of the global war on terror (GWOT), representing over 80
    percent of the sailors deployed on the ground in theater. On any given
    day, over 20,000 RC sailors are on some type of active duty (AD) or
    inactive duty (ID) orders at their supported commands meeting global
    COCOM requirements. This number includes about 6,000 RC sailors
    mobilized in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, and with
    this steady state requirement, we maintain the capacity to rapidly
    increase contingency support with more than 28,000 additional ready RC
    sailors that have yet to be mobilized.
        Whether supporting combat operations in Iraq or Afghanistan,
    providing Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HA/DR) at home
    or abroad, supporting daily Navy missions at every fleet and Combatant
    Command, or providing for Homeland Defense (HD), Navy reservists are
    providing unprecedented levels of OS while continuing to maintain a
    Strategic Reserve capability. We are very proud of their daily
    contributions to the security of our Nation, and are inspired by the
    honor, courage, and commitment with which they serve each and every
    day.
        The Navy Reserve continues to transform to increase effectiveness
    and efficiency at every command, while meeting all GWOT requirements.
    As we respond to emergent asymmetric threats with joint and coalition
    forces, the readiness of RC sailors and units remains most critical. To
    provide sustained combat readiness, the Navy has moved away from rigid
    deployment cycles to a more Flexible Fleet Response Plan (FRP), under
    which a ``Surge Navy'' is able to provide a requirement-based and
    continually ready posture that offers greater warfighting capability at
    reduced cost. As part of the FRP, a fully integrated and ready Navy
    Reserve Force provides an enhanced surge capacity to meet requirements
    with Individual Augmentees (IA) and units. To maintain this posture,
    the Navy Reserve continues to emphasize current readiness as a more
    fully integrated supporting domain of the Navy, capable of engaging
    future geo-political challenges as an effective element of the Total
    Force. This task requires that we address both force readiness and
    family readiness, and recognize the inherent links between the two.
        The Navy Reserve has the capacity to meet current and future
    requirements, and to continue to transform into the right force for
    tomorrow. We will strengthen our culture of continual readiness while
    balancing predictable and periodic mobilizations of individuals and
    units for contingencies, integrated daily OS and a strategic HD surge
    force, all while answering the call to ``be ready.''
                                    manpower
        Navy continues its Total Force approach to the workforce of the
    21st century by establishing an enterprise framework and providing
    readiness at an affordable cost. We are improving all processes to
    deliver increased readiness and combat capabilities, provide better
    organizational alignment, refine requirements, and reinvest savings to
    recapitalize our Navy. The Navy Reserve is a full partner of the
    Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education (MPT&E) enabling domain
    and is working closely with the Chief of Naval Personnel to best
    leverage all Navy resources.
        The mission of the MPT&E is to anticipate Navy warfighting needs,
    identify associated personnel capabilities and recruit, develop, manage
    and deploy those capabilities in an agile, cost-effective manner.
    Through this partnership, we are delivering a more mission-adaptable,
    responsive, cost effective workforce with new skill sets and improved,
    integrated training. We are establishing a ``Sailor for Life''
    continuum of service that provides for flexibility of service in the
    Total Force, and allows every RC sailor to remain competitive for
    advancement along with their AC counterparts.
        Recruiting.--Commander Navy Recruiting Command (CNRC) is
    responsible for both AC and RC accessions, and in the past 2 years, has
    focused primarily on transitioning Navy veterans (NAVET) to the RC, due
    to their valuable experience and skill sets. With the high cost of
    accessing, training, equipping, and maintaining the workforce, it makes
    good fiscal sense to retain qualified veterans instead of accessing
    many new recruits. Recent DOD data indicates that more than two-thirds
    of the 17-24 year old American youth cohort does not fully meet Navy
    standards, primarily due to medical and physical disqualifications, and
    has an increasing propensity to avoid military service. Thus, every
    veteran becomes more valuable, and must be encouraged to remain in
    service in the Total Force.
        By providing veterans off-ramps to continue their service in the
    RC, we preserve the ability to surge their talents, and realize a much
    higher return on investment for their initial training investment.
    Previous force shaping efforts have been designed to achieve a specific
    end strength or ``fill,'' but our focus has shifted to building a
    competency-based workforce with the right skill sets, or the right
    ``fit,'' to more rapidly and effectively meet emergent GWOT
    requirements.
        New programs and incentives have greatly enhanced our ability to
    recruit NAVETs and other highly qualified individuals. The very
    successful National Call to Service (NCS) and New Accession Training
    (NAT) programs have brought many junior sailors with high demand skill
    sets into the Navy Reserve. In addition, the Recruiting Selective
    Conversion and Reenlistment-Reserve program (RESCORE-R) provides
    bonuses to NAVETs who agree to train in high demand GWOT skill sets,
    enabling their extended service and availability for future
    deployments. These programs have been producing very positive results,
    but a larger range of tools are still necessary, including referral
    bonuses and expanded educational incentives.
        A ``Sailor for Life'' Continuum of Service.--An essential element
    of providing this dynamic and capable work force is establishing a
    ``continuum of service'' by which a sailor may serve and Reserve over
    the course of a lifetime. This ``sailor for life'' philosophy removes
    administrative and policy impediments, allowing flexibility to move
    between statuses, manage a civilian career, pursue advanced education,
    and account for unique life-circumstances. In other words, we will
    enable sailors to take ``off ramps'' to the RC and ``on ramps'' back to
    the AC with seamless transitions. This framework also provides the
    taxpayer a better return on investment by extending the ability of the
    sailor to serve, thereby taking advantage of military and civilian
    training and experience. Simply stated, a well developed continuum of
    service will create a sailor for life, always ready to surge in support
    of our national interests and defense.
        This concept is critical to developing and maintaining RC sailors
    who are ready to deliver the right capability at the right place at the
    right time. Americans are living longer lives and are more capable to
    serve later in life. In fact, we have had many Total Force personnel
    over the age of 50 or even 60 from all Services continuing to serve in
    the GWOT. The Navy's 21st century workforce demands sailors with more
    highly specialized and less readily available skill sets. Future
    strategies must incentivize a more senior, highly qualified workforce,
    and will be designed to create flexibility for future growth by way of
    discretion in statutory ceilings.
        Navy reservists often serve as trainers for their AC counterparts
    based on their past service, recent GWOT experience, and civilian skill
    sets. Our new reality is that in an environment where the available
    pool of qualified recruits continues to shrink, Navy must recognize the
    value of the experience of more senior sailors, both active and
    reserve. We must provide opportunities and incentives for them to
    continue to serve, and maximize our investment in all essential
    capabilities and skill sets.
                                force readiness
        Force readiness is comprised of two largely interdependent
    categories, both sailor and family readiness. Sailor readiness is
    defined by the medical, physical and administrative preparedness of the
    sailor, and in many cases, family readiness leads to sailor readiness.
    We must continue to provide better and more responsive service that
    allows families to be prepared for their sailor to serve while
    recognizing the fundamental contribution of the Navy family to overall
    readiness.
        Sailor Readiness.--Measures to increase the medical, physical, and
    administrative readiness of the individual sailor have proven
    successful and we continue to improve upon them as we foster a culture
    of fitness and a willingness to answer the call to serve. Equally
    important is our ability to accurately measure that readiness, and
    expanded efforts in this arena are already delivering more accurate
    metrics.
        Medical Readiness.--Navy Reserve continues to be a leader in
    medical readiness. Full implementation of the Medical Readiness
    Reporting System (MRRS) as a comprehensive tracking system for
    Individual Medical Readiness (IMR) has provided decision-makers an
    accurate and comprehensive web based system to track IMR. The MRRS has
    enabled leaders to identify deficiencies and promptly address them, as
    well as accurately predict medical readiness requirements. This process
    has yielded tremendous success, and the most recent data shows that the
    Navy Reserve IMR rate is 83 percent fully or partially medically ready
    for mobilization.
        The success of MRRS as both a readiness tool and innovative
    Information Technology (IT) solution, able to provide commanders with a
    real-time view of force IMR, was recognized by the DON CIO IM/IT
    Excellence Award for Innovation in 2005. After force-wide fielding of
    MRRS was completed in 2006, Navy adopted it as a Total Force solution
    and is currently implementing it for all sailors.
        In order to provide for even higher levels of medical readiness
    across the Reserve components, we continue to standardize medical
    requirements. Current RC IMR standards do not always meet the
    requirements of the theater to which the reservist is being mobilized.
    As a result, some IAs have been put through multiple medical screenings
    in the mobilization process, only to be informed that their current
    state of medical readiness does not meet the standard of the forward
    deployed unit. Leadership is aware of these challenges and is working
    on solutions. As we become a more integrated Joint Force, standardizing
    medical readiness requirements across DOD will further that progress.
        Navy Reserve is also working within the MPT&E domain to provide
    flexibility of service options for RC medical professionals, who
    continue to be in high demand for the GWOT. Medical personnel are
    critical to our overall readiness, but are often unable to mobilize for
    extended periods due to the requirements of their civilian practices.
    Therefore, we are working to establish a continuum of service that
    provides for shorter but more frequent mobilizations. Feedback from RC
    medical professionals and potential recruits indicates that 90 days is
    optimum, but up to 6 months can be performed with adequate
    notification.
        Physical Readiness.--Navy Reserve continues to participate in Total
    Force solutions to ensure the highest levels of physical readiness
    within the force. We have established a culture of fitness throughout
    the force by emphasizing both individual and command accountability for
    physical readiness. Every Navy unit has a Command Fitness Leader (CFL)
    who is responsible to the Commanding Officer to administer the unit's
    Fitness Enhancement Program (FEP), which emphasizes individual medical
    and physical readiness to every RC sailor. Navy Reserve leadership is
    also held accountable in their annual fitness reports for the readiness
    of their sailors. Commanders have visibility into the physical
    readiness of both individual sailors and larger units via the web based
    Physical Readiness Information Management System (PRIMS), which enables
    each CFL to enter data from Physical Readiness Tests (PRT) for each
    member of their command. Commanders then have the ability to accurately
    assess the unit physical readiness and adjust the FEP as necessary.
    Sailor readiness is also a primary discussion topic during weekly
    Reserve force communications, placing further command emphasis on the
    importance of medical and physical requirements.
        Administrative Readiness.--Essential to sailor readiness is the
    ability to accurately and efficiently measure that readiness. The
    administrative inefficiencies created by multiple electronic pay and
    manpower systems create unnecessary burdens on the sailor and limits
    force readiness. The Navy Reserve has increased administrative
    readiness through the employment of the Type Commander (TYCOM)
    Readiness Management System--Navy Reserve Readiness Module (TRMS-NRRM),
    which provides a scalable view of readiness for the entire Force.
    Commanders can quickly determine readiness information for individuals,
    units, activities, regions, and any other desired capability breakouts.
    This Navy Reserve developed system has served as a prototype for the
    Defense Readiness Reporting System--Navy (DRRS-N), which is currently
    under development by Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (CFFC) for
    use by the Total Force. It will provide a database to collect and
    display readiness data across the force enabling commanders to make
    real-time capability-based assessments and decisions.
        Navy is considering additional options for Total Force systems that
    will reduce administrative burdens and increase readiness. A common AC/
    RC pay system is crucial to the success of our sailor for life and
    continuum of service programs. Ideally, manpower transactions will
    someday be accomplished on a laptop with a mouse click, and data will
    be shared through a common data repository with all DOD enterprises.
    Navy fully supports the vision of an integrated set of processes and
    tools to manage all pay and personnel needs for the individual, and
    provide necessary levels of personnel visibility to support joint
    warfighter requirements. These processes and tools should provide the
    ability for a clean financial audit of personnel costs and support
    accurate, agile decision-making at all levels of DOD through a common
    system and standardized data structure. One constraint to these
    initiatives is the RC order writing process. The current system has
    multiple types of orders, including Inactive Duty for Training (IDT),
    Inactive Duty for Training-Travel (IDTT), Annual Training (AT), Active
    Duty for Training (ADT), and Active Duty for Special Work (ADSW). In
    addition to multiple types of orders, the disparate funding processes
    can be equally complex. Navy is currently evaluating options that will
    streamline the system and make support to the fleet more seamless. The
    conversion of ADSW order writing to the Navy Reserve Order Writing
    System (NROWS) has yielded improvements for sailors and the fleet by
    allowing the same order writing system to be used for both AT, ADT and
    ADSW. The consolidation of all RC order writing to NROWS has also been
    a significant evolution in Navy's effort to integrate its Total Force
    capabilities by aligning funding sources and accurately resourcing
    operational support accounts.
        Family Readiness.--Family readiness is a key enabler of sailor
    readiness, and Navy Reserve Force family programs are continually
    improving with the assistance of command ombudsmen and the family
    support program manager. One of our biggest challenges is the wide
    dispersion of RC families throughout all States and territories, often
    without convenient access to the services provided by Navy Fleet and
    family support centers. To extend services to those deserving families,
    the Navy Reserve hired a full-time family support program manager on
    the Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command (CNRFC) headquarters staff,
    and specific emphasis has been placed on partnering with National Guard
    family assistance centers. This liaison and improved cooperation with
    other Reserve components has greatly increased the availability and
    level of support for all service personnel and their families. Future
    consolidation of separate service facilities, especially in
    geographically isolated areas within CONUS, would yield great cost
    savings and administrative efficiencies. For example, a Navy
    Operational Support Center (NOSC) could easily become a Joint
    Operational Support Center (JOSC), providing support for all service
    personnel with a common pay and benefits system.
        Family days are a vital link in assisting families to be ready.
    NOSCs hold family days to provide ``one stop shopping'' of services and
    support for sailors to get family issues in order, including
    administrative support to update dependency data, SGLI, family member
    ID card processing, legal assistance (simple wills and powers of
    attorney), and presentations on Military OneSource, Tricare and
    American Red Cross representation. Family days give family members a
    much better understanding of the benefits and entitlements available to
    them.
        We have received outstanding feedback from another important
    initiative, returning warrior weekends. Developed in cooperation with
    multiple resources in a Navy region, NOSCs welcome our demobilizing
    sailors and families to provide vital services to enable a smooth
    return to their civilian lives and careers. Specific combat related
    issues such as the identification and treatment of Post Traumatic
    Stress Disorder (PTSD) are addressed with counseling services made
    available to families. Navy is committed to assisting our sailors and
    providing necessary services that enable their families to achieve a
    quality of service second to none. This comprehensive continuum of
    service for our reservists includes the transitions between active and
    inactive service, demobilization, and remobilization, because we are
    all sailors for life.
        Navy Reserve ombudsmen are a vital link between the sailors'
    commands and their families. Ombudsmen attend annual training to
    understand new Navy programs and the importance of confidentiality when
    assisting families. They provide information and referral services on
    various topics, and most importantly act as a command representative
    focusing on effective communication. The web based Military OneSource
    also provides a significant level of assistance, including counseling
    services when requested. In addition, a Navy Reserve family information
    webpage at http://navyreserve.navy.mil provides useful information and
    interactive communications for questions.
                              operational support
        The vision of the Navy Reserve is ``support to the fleet . . .
    ready and fully integrated.'' Our overall Navy Reserve Force
    effectiveness is measured by the level of integrated operational
    support it provides to the fleet, COCOMs and other agencies. When RC
    sailors surge predictably and periodically to support Navy missions,
    they are performing integrated OS. While some RC sailors are only able
    to perform the minimum contract of 2 drill days a month and 2 weeks
    active duty each year, over two-thirds of the force are far exceeding
    the minimums, performing valuable OS. Navy has recognized this
    capability and now relies on the RC to surge to many varied
    requirements in their regions or at supported commands. When the work
    is periodic or requires special skill sets, a reservist is often the
    most cost efficient and capable solution. Through a well developed web
    based notification and order writing systems, RC sailors can rapidly
    surge daily to validated OS requirements.
        Fully Integrated.--Active Reserve Integration (ARI) aligns AC and
    RC units to achieve unity of command. It leverages both budgetary and
    administrative efficiencies and ensures that the full weight of Navy
    resources and capabilities are under the authority of a single
    commander. Navy reservists are aligned and fully integrated into their
    AC supported commands, and are often ``flex-drilling,'' putting
    multiple drill periods together to provide longer periods of
    availability when requested. RC sailors enjoy this flexibility as it
    enables them to better balance the schedules and demands of their
    civilian employers and families. The longer periods of Navy training
    and work at the supported commands achieves greater technical
    proficiency, more cohesive units and increased readiness.
        Two very successful examples of ARI are Fleet Response Units (FRU)
    and Squadron Augmentation Units (SAU). These units are directly
    integrated into AC aviation commands, leveraging RC skill sets and
    capabilities to meet Navy mission requirements, and realizing greater
    ROI for taxpayers. FRUs provide fully qualified and experienced
    personnel to rapidly surge to deployed fleet units, and reduce training
    costs by enabling AC and RC sailors to train on, maintain and operate
    the same equipment. SAUs provide experienced maintenance personnel and
    highly qualified flight instructors to work at training command and
    fleet replacement squadrons. These fleet experienced technicians and
    aviators instruct both AC and RC sailors to maintain and fly fleet
    aircraft, providing better instruction, improved training completion
    rates and significant ROI.
        Navy has aligned AC and RC regions under the five CONUS Navy region
    commanders and Naval District Washington. This alignment provides for
    central authority of shore-based infrastructure and significant
    administrative and training efficiencies. Region commanders have
    realized increased Total Force readiness and expanded capacity to
    provide OS, as well as disaster relief and consequence management under
    U.S. Fleet Forces Command as the Maritime Component Commander for
    Northern Command (NORTHCOM). Formerly known as Navy Reserve Readiness
    Commanders (REDCOM), Reserve Component Commanders (RCC) are responsible
    to the region commanders for facilities readiness and RC regional
    support issues. RCCs are integrating into region commanders' staffs,
    merging Total Force resources within their respective regions to better
    capitalize on the RC presence in every State. Navy is now more
    regionally ready to surge as first responders in the event of natural
    or other disasters. Of note, RC Rear Admiral Jon Bayless is recalled to
    active duty as Commander, Navy Region Midwest, further exemplifying the
    Total Navy integration and alignment.
        To facilitate this alignment and clearly delineate the mission of
    the Navy Reserve, we have also renamed Navy Reserve Centers as Navy
    Operational Support Centers (NOSCs). Far beyond a mere name change,
    this transformational shift sends a clear message to each reservist
    that our mission is to meet the requirements of the fleet and COCOMs by
    providing integrated OS to supported commands and in their Navy region.
    The goal of every NOSC commanding officer is to enable RC sailors to
    serve at their supported commands performing Navy work when requested,
    2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, or longer. We have made significant strides
    toward changing the culture through continuing education and
    commitment, and will continue these efforts by further aligning
    organizations and processes to Chief of Naval Operations strategic
    goals and guidance.
        Fleet Trained and Equipped.--ARI has aligned the Total Force so
    that AC supported commands determine requirements and capabilities for
    their RC personnel and units. We only have Navy requirements that in
    many cases can be met predictably and periodically with RC assets that
    rapidly surge when needed. By combining these roles, Navy achieves
    greater efficiency and ROI from both equipment and manpower by taking a
    comprehensive assessment of the requirements and capabilities resident
    in the Total Force. Both AC and RC sailors maintain, operate and train
    on the same equipment and for the same mission. RC sailors are trained
    to the same standards and at the same facilities as their AC
    counterparts, and their prior experience, skill sets and qualifications
    are equally valued.
        Another excellent example of effective ARI is the newly established
    Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), which serves as the single
    functional command for Navy's expeditionary forces and as central
    management for their readiness, resources, manning, training and
    equipping. NECC brings Naval Construction Force (NCF) Seabees, Naval
    Coastal Warfare (NCW), Navy Expeditionary Logistics Support Group
    (NAVELSG), Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Civil Affairs (CA), and
    the new Riverine Force capabilities under one commander, integrating
    all warfighting requirements for expeditionary combat and combat
    support elements. This transformation allows for standardized training,
    manning and equipping of sailors who will participate in global joint
    maritime security operations. It aligns expeditionary warfighting
    capabilities and enables future adaptable force packages comprised of
    sailors and equipment that are rapidly deployable, self-sustainable,
    scalable and agile, to meet the requirements of the COCOMs. Designed to
    fully leverage the Total Force, NECC employs roughly 50 percent RC
    sailors and uses their extensive experience, skill sets and flexibility
    to accomplish its missions. This alignment realizes large economies of
    scale, common processes, and fully integrates RC sailors that flexibly
    serve in every NECC mission area, providing tailored OS for the GWOT
    and HD.
        Surge to requirements.--Current GWOT examples of surge support
    capabilities, whether on Inactive Duty (ID) drills, Annual Training
    (AT), Active Duty for Training (ADT), Active Duty for Special Work
    (ADSW) or mobilization include:
      --Seabees
      --Engineers
      --EOD
      --Supply Corps
      --Coastal Warfare
      --Cargo Handling
      --Customs Inspectors
      --Civil Affairs
      --Chaplains
      --Medicine/Corpsmen
      --Trainers/Instructors
      --JTF Staff Augmentation
      --Intelligence
      --Linguists
      --Public Affairs
      --IT/Network Support
      --Anti-Terrorism/Force-Protection (AT/FP)
      --Law Enforcement
      --Logistics & Logistical Transport/Airlift
        Navy Reserve Seabees comprise 60 percent of the Total Force NCF
    manpower and are organized into 12 RC battalions throughout the country
    that compliment the 9 AC battalions. Effective training at NOSCs and at
    Seabee Centers of Excellence in Gulfport, Mississippi, and Port
    Hueneme, California, ensures that their high demand capabilities are
    ready to surge to support forward deployed marines and regional
    reconstruction efforts. Every Seabee battalion has been mobilized and
    deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan for the GWOT, and they continue to be
    superb examples of effective phased readiness and full integration of
    Navy combat support forces into Joint Force packages.
        Other similar RC support can be found in Embarked Security
    Detachments (ESD) and Provisional Reconstruction Teams (PRT). ESDs
    rapidly surge to provide specialized mobile maritime security
    capabilities to ships especially in vulnerable domains, such as while
    transiting straits or entering foreign ports. Many RC sailors bring
    valuable skill sets gained from civilian careers in law enforcement and
    the shipping industry, and are often the subject matter experts,
    providing significant cost savings as they perform integrated OS while
    training AC sailors. Since their inception, RC sailors have led the way
    in forming and deploying GWOT PRTs. Full-Time Support (FTS) CDR Kim
    Evans was assigned as Officer in Charge (OIC) of one of the original
    teams and her experiences were used to train future PRT OICs, improving
    the training processes, greatly increasing team safety and
    effectiveness.
        Navy medicine greatly values its talented RC doctors, nurses and
    corpsmen, serving on hospital ships performing humanitarian assistance
    and disaster relief, and ashore with the fighting Fleet Marine Forces
    (FMF). RC chaplains are also serving with the marines in forward areas,
    providing much needed spiritual services and support. Navy Reserve
    Intelligence professionals are at work 24/7/365 forward deployed, and
    especially in the 27 CONUS based Joint Reserve Intelligence Centers
    (JRIC) providing real-time imagery analysis and other services to every
    COCOM.
                                    summary
        Our Navy Reserve Force continues to transform to meet all GWOT
    requirements. We are constantly improving our medical, physical, family
    and administrative readiness, while we also evolve as a total Navy
    workforce to provide the necessary joint capabilities to meet emergent
    fleet and COCOM requirements. Navy is better leveraging its Reserve
    Component to provide more effective Operational Support, and has fully
    integrated the Total Force in all warfighting enterprises and enabling
    domains. Experienced reservists continue to volunteer their valuable
    military and civilian skill sets when called to serve and reserve,
    especially in support of humanitarian assistance, disaster response,
    peacekeeping and nation building initiatives.
        I sincerely appreciate the Congress' support for the one Budget
    Authority Navy Reserve Military Personnel budget structure. It
    significantly improves our ability to effectively execute our tight
    manpower budgets in the new operational Reserve environment. I thank
    this committee for its generous and always responsive support as our
    Navy Reserve continues to answer the call to ``be ready.''

        Senator Inoye. May I call on General Bergman?
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN W. BERGMAN,
                COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE, UNITED
                STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE
        General Bergman. Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, thank
    you for your continued leadership. We need it. The 204 Command
    Corp continues to work. Today, it had 5,500 plus Reserve
    marines deployed worldwide. Right now, we've got two battalions
    getting ready to come home after their tour, the 1st Battalion,
    24th Marines, headquartered in Detroit, the 3rd Battalion, 14th
    Marines headquartered in Philadelphia. They'll be back in the
    States within the month. They've done spectacular.
        The New Force Federation model that has been created has
    given us a key essential element for sustainable onboard. Call
    it predictability. This predictability drives everything from
    recruiting to training to equipment to literally development of
    a force structure over a long term, so that you can support,
    whether it's a deployed fight or humanitarian assistance
    disaster relief at home. That is a key driver that is a new
    development within the last 6 months.
        The Marine Corps buys equipment as a title force. The Army
    Reserve component work hand in hand with the active component
    on a daily basis to optimize the flow and the apportionment of
    that equipment. It will always have its challenges but the
    bottom line is, there's a mentality that seeks to balance,
    putting the right equipment in the right hands at the right
    time.
        Speaking of that, we thank you for your very aggressive
    support of MRAP. We need it and we're looking forward to having
    our marines in the MRAP vehicles whatever Guard, as soon as
    possible.
        The MRAP success is all about people. Our deployed marines
    are first in line when it comes to being prepared for the
    fight, for the deployment. They are followed closely by their
    families as we support them and prepare them for the
    separation. And support is just that support--complete, total,
    creative support for our marines and our sailors, their
    families and their employers. I thank you for your continuing
    support and your leadership and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Jack W. Bergman
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and distinguished members of the
    committee, it is my honor to report to you on the state of your Marine
    Corps Reserve as a major contributor to the Total Force Marine Corps.
    Your Marine Corps Reserve today is firmly committed to and capable of
    warfighting excellence. On behalf of all our marines and their
    families, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee
    for your continuing support. The support of Congress and the American
    people reveal both a commitment to ensure the common defense and a
    genuine concern for the welfare of our marines and their families.
                          today's marine corps reserve
        Recruiting, retaining, responding; your Marine Corps Reserve is
    steadfast in our commitment to provide Reserve Marines who can stand
    shoulder to shoulder with their active duty counterpart and perform
    equally in all contingencies, from combat on foreign soil to local
    humanitarian needs. As our Nation pushes on in the longest mobilization
    period in our history, we have maintained the pace and will continue to
    sustain that pace for the foreseeable future.
        During this past year, over 3,800 marines from Fourth Marine
    Division have served in Iraq. Included are two infantry battalions, as
    well as armor, reconnaissance, combat engineer, and truck units. Our
    marines have demonstrated dynamic flexibility by performing in non-
    traditional roles, including military police, riverine operations, and
    advisory duty with Iraqi security forces. An additional 500 marines
    from Fourth Marine Division have deployed to Djibouti as security
    forces for Joint Task Force Horn of Africa.
        As deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have reduced the ability of
    the active component to participate in theater engagement exercises,
    Fourth Marine Division has filled the gap. During this past year,
    marines of Fourth Marine Division have conducted exercises in Morocco,
    Kenya, Australia, the Netherlands Antilles, and Brazil. During the
    upcoming year, they will visit Senegal, Mongolia, the Ukraine, Belize,
    Peru, Chile, Ecuador, and Argentina; and will return to Morocco,
    Australia, and the Netherlands Antilles.
        Fourth Marine Aircraft Wing has provided necessary exercise support
    and pre-deployment training as the active component squadrons continued
    supporting deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Pre-deployment training
    events such as Mojave Viper and Hawaii Combined Arms Exercise, along
    with bi-lateral exercises Cope Tiger, Foal Eagle, Cobra Gold, Talisman
    Saber and Southern Frontier, have been the foundation upon which our
    Corps prepares for combat. Currently, units from Fourth Marine Aircraft
    Wing are supporting numerous deployments and individual augments for
    the long war. A civil affairs group detachment, provisional security
    detachment and a provisional security company from Marine Air Control
    Group 48 have been mobilized in support of operations in the Horn of
    Africa. Additionally, Marine Wing Support Group 47 has provided an
    engineering detachment and a motor transport detachment in support of
    OIF. Lastly, Marine Transport Squadron Detachment Belle Chasse has
    provided a UC-35 Citation Encore detachment which brings a time-
    critical lift capability to the Central Command's area of
    responsibilities.
        From the spring of 2006, the Fourth Marine Logistics Group has
    endeavored to build upon its established history of providing the
    active component with highly skilled, dedicated personnel capable of
    delivering sustained tactical logistics support. During this time
    frame, Fourth Marine Logistics Group contributed over 600 marines and
    sailors from across the spectrum of combat service support for its
    ongoing support of OIF. Included in this population was a large
    dichotomy of occupational specialties to include motor transport,
    landing support, communications, and personnel recovery/processing. In
    addition, Fourth Marine Logistics Group deployed selected individuals
    to serve the commanding officer and nucleus staff for Combat Logistics
    Battalion 5, and to be Chiefs of Staff for the 1st Marine Logistics
    Group, (forward) and (rear). Throughout this period, the marines and
    sailors of the Fourth Marine Logistics Group demonstrated
    responsiveness, flexibility, and an extremely high level of
    professionalism in their seamless integration with the active
    component.
        In addition to ground, aviation, and logistic elements, Marine
    Forces Reserve has provided civil affairs capabilities since the start
    of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Air-Naval Gunfire Liaison Detachments
    (ANGLICO) from Marine Forces Reserve have augmented the supported
    Marine Air Ground Task Forces and adjacent commands with air/ground
    fires liaison elements. Marine Forces Reserve also continues to provide
    intelligence augmentation for Operation Iraqi Freedom, to include human
    exploitation teams, sensor employment teams, and intelligence
    production teams.
        Mobilization command, during the past year, conducted 14 Individual
    Ready Reserve (IRR) administrative musters, screening 6,118 IRR
    marines. Musters were conducted in Phoenix, San Antonio, Marietta,
    Richmond, Baltimore, Brooklyn, Elk Grove, Bellevue, Burlingame,
    Waltham, Newark, Pittsburgh, Miami, and Charlotte. Overall,
    mobilization command updated contact information on over 40,000 IRR
    marines. The Customer Service Center at Mobilization Command answered
    67,300 calls from all marine components, including retirees, dealing
    with disparate issues, while maintaining an average wait time of 28
    seconds per call. The Mobilization Command Maintenance Section performs
    all administrative maintenance on the service records of more than
    60,000 IRR marines with a monthly turnover of approximately 2,100 IRR
    marines. In addition, mobilization command processed 2,643 sets of IRR
    orders that enabled marines to perform missions under active duty
    operational support, Reserve counterpart training, mobilization,
    appropriate and associate duty, and notice of eligibility status.
        Five years into the long war, the Marine Corps Reserve continues to
    serve along side our active component counterparts. Operations Enduring
    Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have required continuous activations of
    Reserve Forces. Moreover, with much of the active component Marine
    Corps below the stated goal of 1:2 dwell ratio, active forces have been
    unavailable to fully support joint and bilateral exercises that are key
    to all regional Combatant Commanders' Theater Security Cooperation
    plans. Consequently, the Marine Corps Reserve has significantly
    increased the level of participation of non-activated units to ensure
    continued Marine Corps support to all regional Combatant Commanders.
        While we continue to support the long war, it is not without a
    cost. Continuing activations and high Reserve operational tempo
    highlights the fact that we have personnel challenges in some areas and
    we are putting additional strain on Reserve equipment. While we remain
    close to achieving our overall end strength goals, we are facing
    critical shortages in high demand/low density military occupational
    specialties as well as in our company grade officers. Equipment
    requirements to support the long war have reduced ``on hand'' equipment
    for training as well as war reserve stocks. As the Marine Corps
    continues to provide warfighting excellence in prosecuting the long
    war, resetting the force is an essential element in sustaining the
    effort.
                                equipment status
        The Marine Corps Reserve, like the active component, faces two
    primary equipping challenges: supporting and sustaining our forward
    deployed forces in the long war while simultaneously resetting and
    modernizing the force to prepare for future challenges. Our priorities
    for supporting and sustaining our deployed forces are: First, to
    provide every marine and sailor in a deploying Reserve unit with the
    latest generation of individual combat and protective equipment;
    second, to procure simulation training devices that challenge our
    marines to perform at higher levels and maintain an adaptive training
    environment in preparation for conflict; and third, to provide adequate
    funding to operation and maintenance accounts to sustain training and
    pre-deployment operations. Our priorities in support of resetting and
    modernizing the force include the following: First, to procure
    principal end items necessary to reestablish on hand equipment to the
    level dictated by our training allowance (T/A), which is the amount of
    equipment needed by each unit to conduct home station training; and,
    second, to procure the equipment necessary to maintain our capability
    to augment and reinforce the active component. Modernization efforts
    include the equipping of two new Light Armored Reconnaissance
    Companies, procuring communications equipment shortfalls, and
    adequately funding upgrades to our legacy aircraft.
        As with all we do, our focus is on the individual marine and
    sailor. Our efforts to equip and train this most valued resource have
    resulted in obtaining the latest generation individual combat and
    protective equipment: M4 rifles, Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) scopes,
    helmet pad systems, enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI)
    plates, and night vision goggles, to name a few. I am pleased to report
    that every member of Marine Forces Reserve deployed in support of the
    long war is fully equipped with the most current authorized individual
    combat clothing and equipment, and individual protective equipment.
        Deployed unit equipment readiness rates remain high (95 percent).
    Ground equipment readiness (mission capable) rates for non-deployed
    Marine Forces Reserve units average 85 percent based upon training
    allowance. This reduced readiness condition primarily results from
    shortages in home station training allowance equipment due to equipment
    demands in support of the long war. Reserve Force equipment that has
    been sourced to OIF includes communications equipment, crew-served
    weapons, optics, and one Reserve infantry battalion's equipment set.
    These shortages represent an approximate 10 percent readiness shortfall
    across the force for most equipment--more so for certain high demand/
    low-density, ``big-box'' type (satellite/long-haul) communication
    equipment sets.
        Reduced supply availability continues to necessitate innovative
    approaches to ensure Reserve Marines can adequately train in
    preparation for deployment, until supplemental funding addresses the
    above issues. Despite ongoing efforts to mitigate shortfalls, delays in
    the procurement timelines and competing priorities for resources will
    continue to challenge the training and equipping of Reserve Forces for
    the long war.
        Your continued support of current budget and procurement-related
    initiatives, such as the President's Budget Submissions, Supplemental
    Requests, and National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriations
    (NGREA), will guarantee our ability to properly equip our individual
    marines and sailors. Marine Forces Reserve equipment requirements are
    registered in each Marine Corps President's Budget Request and each
    Supplemental Request as part of the Marine Corps Total Force. In
    addition, we appreciate Congress' continued support of the Marine Corps
    Reserve through NGRE appropriations. Since 2002, NGREA has provided
    $156 million to Marine Forces Reserve. Fiscal year 2007 NGREA
    procurements include tactical command and control communications
    equipment; training simulation systems and devices; and various weapons
    support systems. NGREA has funded almost the entire Marine Forces
    Reserve Simulation Master Plan, enabling the force to obtain Virtual
    Combat Convoy Systems, Indirect Fire Forward Air Control Trainer
    Systems, Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement Systems, and Deployable
    Virtual Training Environment Systems. Fiscal year 2007 NGREA has also
    funded the following procurements: Logistics Support Wide Area Network
    Packages, Defense Advanced GPS Receivers, Sensor Mobile Monitoring
    Systems, Litening II Targeting Pods and associated modification/
    installation kits, KC-130 AN/ARC-210 (V) Multi-Mode Radio Systems, and
    one UC-12 aircraft.
                                   facilities
        Marine Forces Reserve is comprised of 184 sites spread across 48
    States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Of these sites 32
    are owned, 101 are joint, 47 are tenant, 3 are stand-alone, and 1 is
    leased. Management of these sites requires constant vigilance and
    flexibility in all aspects of facilities operations. Marine Forces
    Reserve remains committed to environmental, natural, and cultural
    resource stewardship. These programs maintain, restore, and improve our
    natural and constructed infrastructure, while preserving the
    environment and historic properties, and protect the health and quality
    of life of our people and nearby communities. We are continually
    reviewing and updating our facilities master plan to ensure all Reserve
    sites are accurately accounted for as to condition and accuracy of
    their readiness status. In accordance with the Marine Corps
    Installation 2020 plan, in order to ensure optimal compliance with
    anti-terrorism and force protection standards and to maximize the
    efficiencies inherent in the sharing of resources between Department of
    Defense (DOD) organizations, we are striving to transition to joint
    sites and locations aboard established military bases by 2020.
        Unlike DOD active component installations, which are often hidden
    from public view behind fences in outlying areas, Reserve facilities
    are often located in the heart of our civilian communities. This
    intimate and dynamic arrangement requires close partnering with State
    and local entities nationwide. As such, the condition and appearance of
    our facilities have a direct effect on the American people's perception
    of the Marine Corps and the Armed Forces in general. In addition to
    impacts on the safety, security and operational capability of the Total
    Force, the condition of Marine Forces Reserve facilities have a direct
    effect on recruitment and retention efforts, especially in attracting
    and retaining highly qualified, loyal Americans. Perception is
    everything. Quality facilities attract quality people.
        Marine Forces Reserve Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and
    Modernization (FSRM) program funding levels continue to address
    immediate maintenance requirements and longer term improvements to our
    older facilities. Sustainment funding has allowed us to maintain our
    current level of facility readiness without further facility
    degradation. Restoration and Modernization (R&M) funding continues to
    be a challenge, due to its current $16.5 million backlog across the
    Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) and an overall backlog of $52.6
    million. Currently, 12 of our 32 owned sites are rated C-3 or C-4 under
    the Commanding Officer's Readiness Reporting System (CORRS) for
    facilities. The fiscal year 2008 budget, if approved, will provide
    programmed upgrades for eight sites to C-2 or better, with all sites
    meeting C-2 or better by fiscal year 2010. However, it should be noted
    that POM 2008 does not address the reported backlog created by prior
    years funding shortfalls. To mitigate, we continue to apply internal
    savings to address R&M projects at the end of each fiscal year.
        The movement of FSRM funding into a new ``fenced'' appropriation
    would prevent Marine Forces Reserve's ability to ``buy back'' the
    significant sustainment and R&M backlog from internal savings. This
    would result in an additional increase to the FSRM backlog over the
    Future Years Defense Plan and jeopardize our ability to meet the C-2 or
    better CORRS rating for quality by 2010 as mandated by OSD.
    Additionally, the pending sale of the former Marine Corps Reserve
    Center in San Juan, Puerto Rico will potentially provide funding to
    address nearly 50 percent of the R&M shortfall. As a result of this
    sale, a significant improvement in overall facilities readiness is
    anticipated. Use of Real Property Exchanges (RPX), and other similar
    laws, will be invaluable tools toward addressing shortfalls and
    emerging requirements. Continued support for the FSRM program is
    essential. Funding shortfalls will rapidly result in degradation of
    facilities readiness, jeopardizing the safety and health of our
    marines.
        The Military Construction, Navy Reserve (MCNR) program, including
    Marine Corps exclusive and Navy led projects, is addressing critical
    needs for new facilities to replace older buildings and accommodate
    changes in Marine Corps Reserve force structure. The President's
    proposed fiscal year 2008 budget contains $28.8 million for military
    construction and $829,000 in planning and design funding. Congressional
    approval of this budget provides a new Marine Corps Reserve Center in
    Dayton, Ohio; the Marine Corps share of a new Armed Forces Reserve
    Center in Austin, Texas; Reserve Center additions in Miramar,
    California and Quantico, Virginia; and a new vehicle maintenance
    facility in Selfridge, Michigan. The MCNR program, combined with a
    strong FSRM program, is essential to addressing the aging
    infrastructure of the Marine Corps Reserve. With more than 50 percent
    of our Reserve Centers over 40 years old and 35 percent over 50 years
    old, support for both MCNR and FSRM cannot be overstated.
        The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 is an area of
    increasing concern due to the reduction in fiscal year 2007 funding for
    BRAC military construction projects. The impacts of this reduction (50
    plus percent of the requested Department of the Navy appropriations)
    are still being analyzed. Another concern to the Marine Corps Reserve
    is the secondary impact to our Reserve Centers that are part of Army
    and Navy BRAC actions. Of the 25 BRAC actions for the Marine Corps
    Reserve, 21 are in conjunction with Army and Navy military construction
    projects, reflecting Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) policies
    toward shared Joint Reserve Centers. As a result, any funding
    shortfalls experienced by these two services will also negatively
    impact the Marine Corps Reserve. If we continue to operate under the
    Continuing Resolution Authority at fiscal year 2006 funding levels,
    there will not be sufficient funding for fiscal year 2007 and shifted
    impact for fiscal year 2008 military construction projects. The
    ramification is that Marine Forces Reserve will be forced to shift
    projects further into the out years, thus affecting the FSRM budget and
    possibly the MCNR program as well. Though the 2007 Joint Funding
    Resolution may address some of these shortfalls, restoration of funding
    for the entire BRAC program is essential to meeting the statutory
    requirements of the 2005 BRAC Law, within the designated timeframe.
                                    training
        Thus far during the long war, several Marine Corps Reserve units
    have been activated to perform ``in lieu of'' missions. Employment of
    units for missions ``in lieu of'' their primary mission has degraded
    their capability to perform their primary mission. For example, as of
    the summer 2007, all of our artillery batteries will have been
    activated at least once, however, most will have performed Military
    Police duties. A unit will not train to primary mission standards
    during assignment as an ``in lieu of'' force. While ``every marine is a
    rifleman'' and many of the individual combat skills are common to all,
    primary mission occupational specialty and unit training are also
    required. Consequently, employing units as ``in lieu of'' forces
    degrades unit readiness to perform primary missions.
        We continue to capitalize on advances in technology to enhance our
    training and mitigate the downside of performing ``in lieu of''
    missions. Marine Forces Reserve's ambitious simulation program provides
    realistic training to increase effectiveness of our units and
    survivability of our marines. Simulation capabilities include the
    Virtual Combat Convoy Trainers and Combat Vehicle Training Systems that
    provide training for the M1A1 Main Battle Tank, Assault Amphibian
    Vehicle, and the Light Armored Vehicle. The Virtual Combat Convoy
    Trainer (VCCT) provides tactical training in simulated up-armored High
    Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) armed with .50 caliber
    machineguns. The Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer has been vital to the
    pre-deployment training of tactical drivers, who will be operating on
    the most dangerous roads in the world. The VCCT allows the most
    effective training to occur for both drivers and teams. A byproduct of
    utilizing the VCCT is a requirement for a reduced number of CONUS-based
    vehicles designated for training. The Virtual Combat Convoy Trainer
    also allows us to reach our current relatively-high equipment readiness
    rates by reducing maintenance man-hours and parts costs in one area and
    using the resources in other areas. The same holds true for the
    simulators for our family of armored vehicles; quality, realistic
    training is provided while allowing the reallocation of both the time
    for training and maintenance money to other units. In the next year, we
    will be procuring the Indirect Fire--Forward Air Control Trainer to
    provide realistic call-for-fire training at a reduced cost, allowing
    the reallocation of both ammunition and flight hours to increase
    training levels. With your continued support, we will expand our
    simulation programs to also include additional individual weapons and
    vehicle operator trainers, and begin procurement of combined arms
    trainers.
                              personnel readiness
        Like the active component, Marine Corps Reserve units primarily
    rely upon a first term enlisted force. Currently, the Marine Corps
    Reserve continues to recruit and retain quality men and women willing
    to manage commitments to their families, their communities, their
    civilian careers, and their Corps. Despite high operational tempo, the
    morale and patriotic spirit of Reserve Marines, their families, and
    employers remain extraordinarily high.
        In fiscal year 2006, the Marine Corps Reserve achieved 100 percent
    of its recruiting goal for non-prior service recruiting (5,880) and
    exceeded its goal for prior service recruiting (3,165). Our Selected
    Reserve population is comprised of Reserve Unit Marines, Active Reserve
    Marines, Individual Mobilization Augmentees, and Reserve Marines in the
    training pipeline. An additional 60,000 marines are included in our
    Individual Ready Reserve, representing a significant pool of trained
    and experienced prior service manpower. Currently, the forecasted
    Selected Reserve end strength for fiscal year 2007 is 39,362, within
    the plus/minus 2 percent limit authorized by Congress. Realizing that
    deployments take a toll on active component marines, causing some to
    transition from active duty because of high personnel tempo, in June
    2006 we instituted the Selected Marine Corps Reserve Affiliation
    Involuntary Activation Deferment policy. This program allows a marine
    who has recently deployed an option for a 2-year deferment from
    involuntary activation if they join a Selected Marine Corps Reserve
    unit. The intent of the 2-year involuntary deferment is to encourage
    good marines to participate and still maintain breathing room to build
    a new civilian career.
        I do anticipate greater numbers of marines from the Reserve
    component will volunteer for full-time active duty with the active
    component throughout fiscal year 2007, as they take advantage of new
    incentives aimed at encouraging marines to return to active duty. These
    incentives support our plan to bolster active component end strength.
    The fact is we need good marines to serve longer, either active or
    Reserve. Our focus is to provide an environment that attracts and
    retains dedicated, high performing individuals. We are developing
    several incentives for enlisted marines to stay in the Selected Marine
    Corps Reserve. A first step will be increasing the initial 3 year re-
    enlistment bonus from the current $2,500 level to the maximum allowed
    $7,500. The subsequent re-enlistment bonus will increase from the
    current $2,000 to the maximum allowed $6,000.
        Junior officer recruiting remains the most challenging area. At the
    beginning of fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps modified an existing
    program and implemented two new Reserve officer commissioning programs
    in order to increase the number of company grade officers within
    deploying Reserve units and address our overall shortage of junior
    officers in our Reserve units. Eligibility for the Reserve Enlisted
    Commissioning Program was expanded to qualified active duty enlisted
    marines. The Meritorious Commissioning Program--Reserve was established
    for qualified enlisted marines, Reserve and active, who possess an
    Associates Degree or equivalent number of semester hours. We are
    expanding Reserve commissioning opportunities for our prior-enlisted
    marines in order to grow some of our own officers from Marine Forces
    Reserve units and are exploring other methods to increase the accession
    and participation of company grade officers in the Selective Marine
    Corps Reserve. Through these initiatives, we estimate that we will fill
    90 percent of our company grade officer billets by the end of fiscal
    year 2011. When coupled with the continued use of the Selected Reserve
    officer affiliation bonus authorized in the fiscal year 2007 National
    Defense Authorization Act, we believe we have the tools necessary to
    sustain robust, ready Selected Marine Corps Reserve units for the long
    war.
                         predictability for the future
        As we position ourselves for the long war, we recognize the
    challenges facing the individual Reserve Marine who is striving to
    strike a balance between family, civilian career, and service to
    community as well as country and Corps. The most difficult challenge
    thus far has been to provide our individual Marine Reservists with the
    predictability needed to incorporate activations and deployments into
    their long-term life planning. To provide predictability, we have
    developed an integrated Total Force Generation Model that lays out a
    future activation and deployment schedule for marine units. The model
    is based on 1-year activation and includes a 7-month deployment
    (standard for battalion-sized marine units and smaller), followed by at
    least 4 years in a normal drill status. The model provides for
    approximately 6,000 Reserve Marines on active duty at any one time
    (3,000 deployed and 3,000 preparing to deploy or returning from
    deployment). The Total Force Generation Model provides the individual
    marine with the confidence to plan for the future; whether going to
    school, building a civilian career, or making major family decisions.
    Furthermore, the predictability of the model serves as a tool to assist
    in recruiting and retaining quality marines. This is particularly true
    in recruiting company grade officers and junior staff non-commissioned
    officers who are transitioning from active duty and are attempting to
    establish civilian careers, but still have a strong desire to serve
    Corps and country.
        The Force Generation Model also assists Service and Joint Force
    planners. It ensures a consistent flow of manned, equipped, trained,
    and ready Selected Marine Corps Reserve units to support future
    operations in the long war. Providing a predictable Reserve force
    package will also help our active component come closer to achieving
    their stated goal of 1:2 dwell time. The 1 year activation to 4 plus
    years in a non-activated status is both supportable and sustainable. We
    will begin implementing the model during the summer of 2007. As force
    structure increases we will be able to move toward a 1:5 dwell time for
    the Reserve component.
                                quality of life
        Our future success will continue to rely on your Marine Corps' most
    valuable asset--our marines and their families. We believe that it is
    our obligation to prepare our marines and their families with as much
    information as possible on family readiness and support programs and
    resources available to them.
        Marine Forces Reserve Lifelong Learning Program (MFR LLL) is
    responsible for providing educational information to service members,
    families, retirees, and civilian employees. The majority of the
    educational programs offered are for active duty service members and
    these include United Services Military Apprenticeship Program (USMAP),
    Military Academic Skills Program (MASP), Defense Activity for Non-
    Traditional Education Support (DANTES), and Tuition Assistance (TA).
        More than 1,800 Marine Forces Reserve Active Duty (AD), Active
    Reserve (AR), Active Duty Special Work (ADSW), and Mobilized Reserve
    Marines chose to use tuition assistance in fiscal year 2006 in order to
    help finance their education. Tuition assistance paid out in fiscal
    year 2006 totaled more than $4.5 million, funding more than 4,500
    courses. Many of the marines using tuition assistance were deployed to
    Iraq, and took their courses via distance learning. In this way,
    tuition assistance helped to mitigate the financial burden of education
    and marines were able to maintain progress toward their education
    goals.
        Marines and their families are often forced to make difficult
    choices in selecting child care, before, during, and after a marines'
    deployment in support of the long war. The Marine Corps has partnered
    with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) and the National
    Association for Child Care Resources and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) to
    assist service members and their families. BGCA provides outstanding
    programs for our Reserve Marines' children between the ages of 6 and 18
    after school and on the weekends. Under our agreement with BGCA,
    Reserve families can participate in more than 40 programs at no cost.
    With NACCRRA, we help families of our Reserve Marines locate affordable
    child care that is comparable to high-quality, on-base, military-
    operated programs. NACCRRA provides child care subsidies at quality
    child care providers for Reserve Marines deployed in support of the
    long war and for those active duty marines who are stationed in regions
    that are geographically separated from military installations that have
    child care support. We have also partnered with the Early Head Start
    National Resource Center Zero to Three to expand services in support of
    family members of Reservists in isolated and geographically separated
    areas.
        We fully recognize the strategic role our families have in mission
    readiness, particularly mobilization preparedness. We prepare our
    families 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 briefs, 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.). Every Marine Corps
    Reserve unit throughout the country has a KVN program. The KVN is a
    volunteer-based program that serves as the link between the command and
    family members, providing official communication, information, and
    referrals. The KVN provides a means of proactively educating families
    on the military lifestyle and benefits, provides answers for individual
    questions and areas of concerns, and enhances the sense of community
    and camaraderie within the unit.
        These programs play fundamental roles in supporting marine spouses
    and families. L.I.N.K.S. is a training and mentoring program designed
    by marine spouses to help new spouses thrive in the military lifestyle
    and adapt to challenges--including those brought about by deployments.
    Online and CD-ROM versions of L.I.N.K.S make this valuable tool more
    readily accessible to families of Reserve Marines not located near
    Marine Corps installations. We have recently updated and streamlined
    our L.I.N.K.S and KVN training guides to more appropriately address the
    challenges of remote access.
        To better prepare our marines and their families for activation,
    Marine Forces Reserve has developed a proactive approach to provide
    numerous resources and services throughout the deployment cycle.
    Available resources include, but are not limited to, family-related
    publications, on-line volunteer training opportunities, and a family
    readiness/mobilization support toll free number. Services such as
    pastoral care, MCCS One Source, and various mental health services are
    readily available to our Reserve Marines' families.
        Managed Health Network (MHN) is an OSD-contracted support resource
    that provides surge augmentation counselors for our base counseling
    centers and primary support at sites around the country to address
    catastrophic requirements. 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 and
    reunion briefs. Follow-up services are scheduled after marines return
    from combat at various intervals to facilitate on-site individual and
    group counseling.
        The Peacetime/Wartime Support Team and the support structure within
    the Inspector-Instructor staffs provide families of activated and
    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. During their homecoming, our marines who
    have deployed consistently cite the positive importance of family
    support programs.
        To strengthen family support programs, we will continue to enhance,
    market, and sustain outreach capabilities. We believe current OSD-level
    oversight, sponsorship, and funding of family support programs properly
    correspond to current requirements. We are particularly supportive of
    Military One Source. Military One Source provides marines and their
    families with an around-the-clock information and referral service via
    toll-free telephone and Internet access for a variety of subjects such
    as parenting, childcare, education, finances, legal issues, elder care,
    health, wellness, deployment, crisis support, and relocation.
        The mission readiness of our Marine Corps Reserve is directly
    impacted by the preparedness of our families--a 24/7 requirement. It is
    imperative that we continue to provide our families robust educational
    opportunities and support services.
                   employer support of the guard and reserve
        Marine Forces Reserve is acutely aware of the importance of a good
    relationship with the employers of our Reserve Marines. We fully
    support all the initiatives of the ESGR and have been proactive in
    providing the information to our Reserve Marines on the Secretary of
    Defense Employer Support Freedom Awards. This is an excellent way to
    praise the employers that give that extra support to our men and women
    who go into harm's way.
                                   conclusion
        As our Commandant has said, ``Our marines and sailors in combat are
    our number one priority.'' Our outstanding young men and women in
    uniform are our greatest asset. Your Marine Corps Reserve has
    consistently met every challenge placed before it. We fight side by
    side with our active counterparts. Your consistent and steadfast
    support of our marines and their families has directly contributed to
    our successes.
        As I've said in past testimony, appearing before congressional
    committees and subcommittees is a great pleasure, as it allows me the
    opportunity to let the American people know what an outstanding
    patriotic group of citizens we have in the Marine Corps Reserve. Thank
    you for your continued support. Semper Fidelis!

        Senator Inouye. May I call upon General Bradley?
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN A. BRADLEY, CHIEF,
                AIR FORCE RESERVE
        General Bradley. Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, thank
    you very much for having this hearing today. Thank you for the
    many years of continued support you've given us. Our 76,000 Air
    Force Reserve airmen, who are a vital part of our Air Force are
    proud to serve. They continue to stay with us. Our recruiting
    and retention has been strong. We will face some challenges in
    the future. They continue to serve as our Air Force has
    conducted combat operations for over 16 years.
        Our Air Force Chief of Staff General Moseley and our
    Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary Wynne, both very much
    believe in our efforts, the Air Force Reserve and our Air
    National Guard and they want us involved in every part of every
    mission our Air Force conducts. So we're proud to work for
    leaders who believe in us and want to use us and our airmen are
    proud to be part of an operational Reserve.
        The support that you've given us through your normal
    appropriations and the National Guard and Reserve equipment
    account have helped us immeasurably improve combat capability
    and take care of our airmen as they are employed in combat
    operations. Every dollar you give us in that very important
    account, I can tell you in great detail, if you want, how those
    funds contributed to greater combat capability that helped
    soldiers and marines on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan
    every day and I thank you for that support and I ask that you
    continue to help us in that regard because we need to continue
    to modernize our fleet of aircraft so that we can continue to
    provide the right kind of close air support for those soldiers
    and marines.
        Thank you very much again for all the support you've given
    us over the years and I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of General John A. Bradley
        Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and I certainly
    want to thank you for your continued support of the Air Force Reserve.
    Today our country depends on the Reserve components to an extent
    unprecedented in history. The men and women of the Air Force Reserve
    are making a significant impact to the joint warfighting capability of
    our Nation's defense. The Air Force Reserve is proud to say we stand
    shoulder-to-shoulder with our Total Force partners as we jointly
    execute the global war on terror (GWOT).
        For over 16 years the Air Force has been engaged in combat and the
    Air Force Reserve has been an integral part of our Nation's combat
    efforts. Our participation has demanded sacrifices on the part of our
    families, employers and reservists themselves yet we remain dedicated
    and committed to the same priorities as the Regular Air Force: winning
    the GWOT; developing and caring for our airmen; and recapitalizing and
    modernizing our aging aircraft and equipment.
        As we fight the war on terrorism and implement our transformation
    initiatives we are faced with challenges that could adversely impact
    our overall combat capability. While we are ready today, I stress to
    you the urgent need to ensure we continue to be so. Readiness is the
    strong suit of the total Air Force and it is critical to ensure our
    combat capability is preserved during our transformational efforts and
    recapitalization of our fleets.
                           gwot mission contributions
        I am proud to say your Air Force Reserve is playing a vital role in
    the GWOT. We have flown over 104,850 sorties logging more than 448,202
    hours of flying time all in support of the GWOT. The command supported
    the GWOT in most weapons systems, with crews both mobilized and
    performing volunteer tours. Our C-130 units maximized their
    mobilization authority, with the final units demobilizing at the end of
    fiscal year 2006. They continue to support the war effort in volunteer
    status, having already participated in the area of responsibility (AOR)
    a year longer than originally requested or envisioned. Our strategic
    airlift community stepped up with large numbers of volunteers providing
    essential support to the Combatant Commanders. In August 2006, we had
    100 C-17 and C-S crews on long term active duty orders in support of
    the GWOT. Twenty-two Reserve KC-10 crews have been on active duty
    orders supporting the airbridge and other aerial refueling
    requirements. Our Reserve A-10s have also been very heavily involved in
    AOR deployments. Although Base Realignment and Closure Commission
    (BRAC) and Total Force Integration changes across the command disrupt
    our reservists' daily lives, the Air Force Reserve remains a strong
    partner in the Total Force, and will be until the job is done.
                      developing and caring for our airmen
        The backbone of the Air Force Reserve is our people because they
    enable our mission accomplishment. These citizen airmen comprised of
    traditional unit reservists, individual mobilization augmentees (IMAs),
    air reserve technicians (ARTs), active guard and reserve (AGRs) and
    civilians continue to dedicate themselves to protecting the freedoms
    and security of the American people. The operations tempo to meet the
    requirements of the Combatant Commanders remains high and is not
    expected to decline significantly in the near future. The coming years
    bring increased opportunities and greater challenges for our dedicated
    airmen. The implementation of BRAC, Total Force Integration, and
    personnel cuts directed in the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan,
    may all have a negative impact on our recruiting and retention. Finding
    airmen to fill our ranks may become increasingly challenging as we
    implement these initiatives. Similarly, retaining our highly trained
    citizen airmen will become more critical than ever.
                  our people: mobilization versus volunteerism
        Our reservists participate in the full spectrum of operations
    around the world at unprecedented rates. A key metric that reflects the
    operations tempo is the number of days our Reserve aircrew members
    perform military duty. The average number of duty days our aircrew
    members serve has increased three-fold since the beginning of the GWOT.
        Having maximized the use of the President's Partial Mobilization
    Authority in some mission areas, the Air Force Reserve relies more
    heavily on volunteerism versus significant additional mobilization to
    meet the continuing Air Force requirements. Several critical
    operational units and military functional areas must have volunteers to
    meet ongoing mission requirements because they have completed their 24-
    month mobilization authority. These include C-130, MC-130, B-52, HH-60,
    HC-130, E-3 AWACS, and Security Forces. During calendar year (CY) 2006,
    the Air Force Reserve had 2,702 mobilizations and another 9,866
    volunteer tours. As calendar year 2006 closed, the Air Force Reserve
    had 388 reservists mobilized and 2,308 volunteers supporting the GWOT.
    We expect this mix to become increasingly volunteer-based as combat
    operations continue.
        The key to increasing volunteerism and enabling us to bring more to
    the fight is flexibility. To eliminate barriers to volunteerism, the
    Air Force Reserve has several ongoing initiatives to better match
    volunteers' desires and skill sets to the Combatant Commanders mission
    requirements. We must have the core capability to always match the
    right person to the right job at the right time. Reservists must
    balance the needs of their civilian employers, their families, and
    their obligation to the military. We are incredibly fortunate to have
    reservists who continue to volunteer and who put on the uniform for
    months at a time. Facilitating the reservists' ability to volunteer
    provides more control for the military member, their family, employer
    and commander. In turn, this predictability allows more advanced
    planning, lessens disruptions, and ultimately, enables more volunteer
    opportunities.
                          base realignment and closure
        The 2005 BRAC had a significant impact to the Air Force Reserve.
    BRAC directed the realignment of seven wings and the closure of one
    wing, General Billy Mitchell Field, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. To our
    Reserve airmen, a base realignment, in many cases, is essentially a
    closure. When BRAC recommended the realignment of our wing at Naval Air
    Station New Orleans, our airplanes were distributed to Barksdale AFB,
    Louisiana and Whiteman AFB, Missouri, while the Expeditionary Combat
    Support was sent to Buckley AFB, Colorado. In another example, BRAC
    recommended realigning our wing at Selfridge ANGB, Michigan and directs
    the manpower be moved to MacDill AFB, Florida to associate with the
    Regular Air Force. The commute from New Orleans to Denver and Selfridge
    to Tampa are challenging for even the most dedicated reservist,
    considering we do not have the authority to PCS (permanent change of
    station) personnel or pay for IDT (inactive duty training) travel.
    These are just a few examples of how base realignments impact our
    reservists. In the post-BRAC environment, we continually strive to
    retain the experience of our highly trained personnel. We are working
    closely with the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    on initiatives which encourage those impacted by BRAC decisions to
    continue serving their Nation.
                  new mission areas (total force integration)
        Sharing the tip of the total force integration spear, our focus is
    on maximizing warfighter effects by taking on new and emerging missions
    that are consistent with Reserve participation. Reachback capabilities
    enable Reserve forces to train for and execute operational missions
    supporting the Combatant Commander from home station. In many cases,
    this eliminates the need for deployments. The associate unit construct
    will see growth in emerging operational missions such as: Unmanned
    Aerial Systems, Space and Information Operations, Air Operations
    Centers, Battlefield Airmen and Contingency Response Groups. The
    Active/Air Reserve components mix must keep pace with emerging missions
    to allow the Air Force to continue operating seamlessly as a Total
    Force. This concurrent development will provide greater efficiency in
    peacetime and increased capability in wartime.
        The Air Force Reserve continues to transform into a full spectrum
    force for the 21st century by integrating across all roles and missions
    throughout the Air, Space and Cyberspace domains. Our roles and
    missions are mirror images of the regular component. These new mission
    areas provide additional opportunities for our reservists to bring
    their expertise to the warfighting effort. Bringing Air Force front
    line weapon systems to the Reserve allows force unification at both the
    strategic and tactical levels and builds flexibility for a more vibrant
    and viable Air Force team--we train together, work together, and fight
    together; and that's the way it should be.
                           shaping the reserve force
        As an equal partner developing the Air Force Transformation Flight
    Plan, the Air Force Reserve plans to realign resources to transform to
    a more lethal, more agile, streamlined force with increased emphasis on
    the warfighter. In this process, we are eliminating redundancies and
    streamlining organizations, creating a more capable force of military,
    civilians, and contractors while freeing up resources for Total Force
    recapitalization.
        The Air Force Reserve programmed a reduction of nearly 7,700
    manpower authorizations beginning in fiscal year 2008. These actions
    affect all categories of Air Force Reservists; IMAs, TRs, ARTs, AGRs
    and civilians. Over the fiscal year defense program the Air Force
    Reserve is planning a reduction from 74,900 authorized personnel in
    fiscal year 2007 to an end strength of 67,800 personnel at the end of
    fiscal year 2011.
        While the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan directed manpower
    reductions, the Air Force Reserve was given latitude to take these
    reductions in a way that minimizes the impact to our wartime mission.
    Where mission requirements still exist, the experience of our
    reservists will be maintained by transitioning members from the
    Selected Reserve into the Participating Individual Ready Reserve.
                            recruiting and retention
        The Air Force Reserve met its recruiting, retention, and end-
    strength goals in fiscal year 2006 and is on track to meet all these
    same goals in fiscal year 2007. I am proud of the fact our reservists
    contribute directly to the warfighting effort every day. When our
    Reserve airmen engage in operations that employ their skills and
    training, there is a sense of reward and satisfaction that is not
    quantifiable. I attribute much of the success of our recruiting and
    retention to the meaningful participation of our airmen.
        That being said, the 10-percent reduction in personnel planned over
    the future years defense program (FYDP), coupled with the impact of
    BRAC initiatives, may present significant future recruiting and
    retention challenges for the Air Force Reserve. With personnel
    reductions beginning in fiscal year 2008 and the realignment and
    closure of Reserve installations due to BRAC and Total Force
    Integration, approximately 20 percent of our force will be directly
    impacted through new and emerging missions, and mission adjustments to
    satisfy Air Force requirements. With the Regular Air Force personnel
    reductions already underway, there is an even smaller active force from
    which to draw qualified recruits. In light of all these changes, we
    expect the recruiting and retention environment will be turbulent,
    dynamic and challenging.
        Unlike the Regular Air Force, the Air Force Reserve does not have
    an assignment capability with command-leveling mechanisms that assist
    in the smooth transition of forces from drawdown organizations into
    expanding organizations. In drawdown organizations, our focus is on
    maintaining mission capability until the last day of operations, while
    also retaining as much of the force as possible and placing them in
    other Air Force Reserve organizations. To accomplish this, we need to
    employ force management initiatives that provide our affected units
    with options to retain our highly trained personnel.
        This contrasts greatly with organizations gaining new missions and/
    or authorizations. It's important to remember, absent a pipeline
    assignment system, our citizen airmen are primarily a local force,
    living and working in the local community. Air Force Reserve Command
    must now recruit in new locations and for new missions, effectively
    increasing our recruiting requirements. We may face recruiting
    challenges, particularly when considering the availability of
    adequately qualified and trained personnel. As has always been the
    case, we will focus on maximizing prior service accessions. Regular Air
    Force reductions over the fiscal year defense program may provide some
    benefit to our recruiting efforts, but will not be the complete answer,
    since the Regular Air Force critical skills shortages closely match
    those in the Reserve. ``Other prior service'' individuals accessed by
    the Reserve will inevitably require extensive retraining which is
    costly. The bottom line is retaining highly trained individuals is
    paramount. Since 1993, Air Force prior service accessions have
    decreased 32 percent across the board. Only 9.5 percent of the officers
    departing the Regular Air Force join the Air Force Reserve, and of
    those, only 2.7 percent continue service to retirement. Retention must
    be considered from a total force perspective, and any force drawdown
    incentives should include Selected Reserve participation as a viable
    option. It is imperative legislation does not include any language that
    provides a disincentive to Reserve component affiliation. Likewise, any
    legislation regarding separation should encourage or incentivize
    continued active participation in the Reserve components. Experience is
    the strength of the Air Force Reserve, and recruiting and retaining our
    experienced members is the best investment the country can make because
    it ensures a force that is ready, and able to go to war at any time.
        recapitalizing and modernizing our aging aircraft and equipment
        The Air Force Reserve stands in total support of Secretary Wynne
    and General Moseley in their efforts to recapitalize and modernize our
    fleet. Weapon systems such as the KC-X, CSAR-X, Space Based Early
    Warning and Communications Satellites and Spacecraft, F-35 Lightning
    II, and the Next Generation Long Range Strike are critical to secure
    the advantage essential to combating future threats. The Air Force
    Reserve will directly benefit from this modernization since in many
    cases we fly the same equipment.
        The Air Force Reserve is assuming risk in Depot Programmed
    Equipment Maintenance (DPEM). Funding for DPEM in fiscal year 2008 is
    81 percent of total requirements, a level determined in coordination
    with the Air Force to be an acceptable level of risk. At this funding
    level, the anticipated impact is in the deferral of Programmed Depot
    Maintenance (PDM) for 9 aircraft and 14 engines.
                             one tier of readiness
        We in the Air Force Reserve pride ourselves on our ability to
    respond to any global crisis within 72 hours. In many cases, including
    our response to natural disasters, we respond within 24 hours. We train
    our Selected Reserve to the same standards as the active duty for a
    reason; we are one Air Force in the same fight. A single level of
    readiness in the Selected Reserve enables us to seamlessly operate
    side-by-side with the Regular Air Force and Air National Guard in the
    full spectrum of combat operations. As an equal partner in day-to-day
    combat operations, it is critical we remain ready, resourced, and
    relevant.
             fiscal year 2007 national guard and reserve equipment
        For the Air Force Reserve, the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Account (NGREA) is the lifeblood of our Reserve modernization. I
    appreciate the support provided in the 2007 NGREA. The money you
    provide makes a difference; increasing the capability and safety of our
    airmen, and ultimately the security of our Nation. The fact is Air
    Force Reserve NGREA procurement strategy fulfills shortfall equipment
    requirements. The items we purchase with NGREA are prioritized from the
    airmen in the field up to the Air Force Reserve Command Headquarters
    and vetted through the Air Staff. The cornerstone is innovation and the
    foundation is capabilities-based and has been for many years.
        I am grateful for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account
    because it enables us to remain relevant to the fight. It is absolutely
    essential to the modernization of our weapon systems. In fiscal year
    2007, we received a total of $35 million in NGREA appropriations. A
    portion of those dollars is being used to modify all of our A-10
    aircraft, enabling smart weapons employment and dramatically improving
    the precision with which we provide close air support to our joint and
    coalition partners. Another portion of NGREA is being used to procure
    defensive systems for nine of our C-5A aircraft, providing much needed
    protection from infrared threats and increasing the safety and security
    of our strategic airlift crews. These are just a few examples of how
    NGREA is helping us modernize our weapon systems during fiscal year
    2007.
        While NGREA dollars enable us to modernize our critical warfighting
    equipment, the challenge is the $35 million in NGREA in 2007 only
    allows for 4.8 percent of our planned modernization. I genuinely
    appreciate the appropriation because we put every dollar received
    toward combat capability. Continued congressional support is critical
    to ensure we can modernize our force with the necessary upgrades and
    retain the technological edge we've enjoyed in the past.
               transforming and modernizing the air force reserve
        Equipment modernization is our key to readiness. The Air Force is
    transitioning to a capabilities-based force structure and the
    combination of aging and heavily used equipment requires across-the-
    board recapitalization. The United States military is increasingly
    dependent on the Reserve to conduct operational and support missions
    around the globe. Effective modernization of Reserve assets is vital to
    remaining a relevant and capable combat ready force. The Air Force
    recognizes this fact and has made significant improvement in
    modernizing and equipping the Reserve, yet the reality of fiscal
    constraints still results in accepting risk in our modernization and
    equipage programs. Funding our modernization enhances availability,
    reliability, maintainability, and sustainability of aircraft weapon
    systems and strengthens our ability to ensure the success of our
    warfighting commanders while laying the foundation for tomorrow's
    readiness.
                                 reconstitution
        With a much higher operations tempo over the past 5 years, our
    equipment is aging and wearing out at much faster than projected rates.
    Reconstitution planning is a process to restore units to their full
    combat capability in a short period of time. The GWOT is having a
    significant and long-term impact on the readiness of our Air Force
    Reserve units to train personnel and conduct missions. The goal must be
    to bring our people and equipment back up to full warfighting
    capability.
        The rotational nature of our units precludes shipping equipment and
    vehicles back and forth due to cost and time-constraints, therefore,
    equipment is left in the AOR to allow quick transition of personnel and
    mission effectiveness. However, this impacts the readiness of our
    forces, which return to the United States without the same equipment
    they deployed with. We continue to address these equipment shortfalls
    with the help of the Air Force, the administration, and Congress, but
    challenges remain.
        Investments in new missions and other higher priorities continue to
    impact our ability to recapitalize our built infrastructure. Our
    recapitalization rate over the fiscal year defense program averages 151
    years, falling far short of the 67-year goal. Our $194 million MILCON
    fiscal year defense program includes $22 million in recapitalization
    projects, the remaining dedicated to new missions or correcting
    existing deficiencies. Further challenging our ability to meet mission
    needs are potential shortfalls in BRAC funding; further delays in BRAC
    facility funding may jeopardize our ability to meet statutory deadlines
    for BRAC execution.
                                    closing
        On behalf of all Air Force reservists, I thank you for your
    continued interest and strong support of our readiness and combat
    capability. The Air Force Reserve is facing the challenges of the GWOT,
    BRAC, the Air Force Transformation Flight Plan, recapitalization, and
    modernization head on. While we maintain our heritage of providing a
    strategic reserve capability, today and into the future we are your
    operational warfighting Reserve, bringing a lethal, agile, combat
    hardened and ready force to the Combatant Commanders in the daily
    execution of the long war. We are immensely proud of the fact we
    provide the world's best mutual support to the United States Air Force
    and our joint warfighting partners.

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. I have a few general
    questions. The record will be kept open. If we may, we'd like
    to submit questions to you. We realize you have some other
    commitments this afternoon.
        I know you cannot answer this but I hope you are clear
    about your support for psychologists or psychiatrists. During
    World War II and thereafter, I don't recall seeing any one of
    my comrades in World War II suffer from symptoms of post-
    traumatic stress syndrome. In fact, I don't think the word
    was--that phrase was conjured at that time. Would you ask them
    if there is some significance in that? Because I can't think of
    a single person who had that in World War II.
        I am certain you're having problems with recruiting and
    retention. I'd like to have you submit a paper to us advising
    us what the nature of your problem is and what, if anything, we
    can do legislatively or funding wise to be of assistance.
        And third, I look at this as a subjective question that--
    how would you characterize the morale of your troops? Let's go
    down the line.
        General Bradley. Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you, I get out a
    lot. I try to visit all of my units and I'm going tomorrow on a
    trip to visit units. I'm going on another one Saturday to visit
    two other units, two of which are closing, both of whom have
    had significant mobilization. I go to Iraq. I go to
    Afghanistan. I'm headed over again in June and I get out and I
    don't just talk to colonels, I just don't talk to wing
    commanders and I don't just talk to generals. I try to get out
    and talk to airmen. I go out and I hold commanders calls and I
    try to talk to as many people at all levels as I can and I'll
    tell you, sir, our morale is good and I think I can reflect
    that in our retention figures.
        Our retention is about as good as it's ever been in our
    history. Eighty-seven percent of our people are staying with us
    in the enlisted force and 93 percent of our officers are
    staying with us.
        I'm not going to tell you that every single person is happy
    all the time. They are not. But they continue to volunteer for
    us. We try, in the Air Force, to support these combat
    operations through volunteers and not mobilization. We use
    mobilization as a last resort. Let's use volunteers.
        I have F-16 units going next month. My F-16s are going to
    redeploy for the third time to Iraq. My A-10s have been over
    there three times. My C-130s have all been mobilized for 2
    years and people are not leaving us in droves, even though in
    some cases, we're going to shut down some flying in some units
    because of base closure and some other Air Force personnel
    reductions.
        Our people like being in our units. They believe we treat
    them fairly. We tell them thank you for what they've done. We
    tell them--we're going to ask you to continue to do a lot more
    and they're staying with us and they tell us--what they tell me
    is they believe they're doing something important. They're
    contributing to our Air Force and to our Nation.
        So it is not all doom and gloom. I think there are many
    positive things and our people like to serve and will continue
    to serve.
        Senator Inouye. Did you say 87 in this group?
        General Bradley. Yes, sir, 87 percent enlisted and 93
    percent for our officers.
        Senator Inouye. Oh. General Bergman?
        General Bergman. Yes, sir. Retention has been, for the last
    4 years, at all time highs ranging in the 83 to 87 percent
    range. We don't see anything to indicate that that is changing
    because primarily our marines are young and in some cases, not
    so young men and women who joined a Reserve component, joined
    the marines to go to the fight.
        We've been providing them that opportunity. So what I hear
    when I travel is, I'm getting to do what I signed up to do.
    Where we are today, 5\1/2\ years into the global war on terror,
    that predictability piece that has now been added so that those
    who have a preponderancy to continue to serve and are seeking
    more ways to utilize the experiences they've got, can look at a
    year of activation and then plan for 4 or 5 plus years of, if
    you will, training time between the mobilizations, between the
    activations, to allow them to keep their civilian careers and
    aspirations alive and well.
        So what we didn't know at the beginning was how long this
    war was going to last. Now that we have a pretty good idea that
    there is an extended period in sight, we will be utilizing our
    folks. We owe them the idea to plan their lives and they're
    responding to that by staying.
        As far as morale goes, the combatant just returned from
    Iraq yesterday morning and he was talking to us this morning,
    talking about the morale. The marines, as long as they've got
    plenty of what they need to prosecute their mission and they
    see the goodness that comes in very little bits and sometimes
    with one step back when they're going two steps forward, they
    see it. What they're concerned about is the American people and
    all they see is what is coming out of the tube. But their
    morale is high and again, it reflects on our retention rates.
        Senator Inouye. Admiral Cotton.

                               MORALE OF SOLDIERS

        Admiral Cotton. Sir, I'd like to echo what all the generals
    have said and especially General Blum, in that we've never had
    a more experienced and reliable force. The current conflict has
    forced the Navy to come ashore, if you would and we have now
    12,000 sailors ashore, one-half active, one-half Reserve. It's
    forced us to change all our processes, how we get them there
    and how we demobilize them whether they are active or Reserve.
    That's all been very good for us.
        Our morale is very good. Our retention statistics are just
    the same. Again, just funding the--to replace the ones that are
    timing out or losing their service. So I think it is two thumbs
    up. It's good news what we're doing right now and it is
    sustainable. Our requirement each year is about 9,000
    mobilizations. We have 28,000 that have not been to war yet so
    we have the capacity to serve, if you would, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you. General Stultz.
        General Stultz. Senator, I'll start with the question of
    the morale and I echo the comments that have already been made
    here. I think the morale of our Army Reserve soldiers has never
    been higher. I think they are proud of what they are doing. I
    think they feel good about their service to their country. I
    think we've got a lot of great young people in this country
    that are stepping up.
        I had the opportunity to be in Iraq last November to
    promote two electronic maintenance soldiers to E-5. Now, one of
    them was a young man that has a Master's in Public
    Administration. He is a city planner back in North Carolina.
    The other was a young lady who's got a Bachelor's in Molecular
    Biology, working on a Masters. And I asked both of them, I
    said, why are you here? And they said, sir, we're here to serve
    our country. And we plan on staying.
        So the morale is good. And the second item, we are meeting
    our retention goals. Traditionally, we put our retention goals
    on the backs of our career soldiers. They've got 12 to 15
    years. They're going to stay with us to get that 20 year
    retirement. Recently we've made it on the backs of our first-
    term soldiers. So they--at about 65 percent of our goals.
        Last year, we re-enlisted over 110 percent of our first-
    term goal. This year, we're already at 130 percent. And what
    that tells me is our young soldiers are sticking with us. They
    feel good about what they're doing. They know what they signed
    up for.
        The challenge we've got is what was echoed--or what was
    already said by General Bergman--what our soldiers tell me they
    need is predictability in their lives. They know that they're
    going to have to go back on future deployments but they want to
    be able to set their lifestyle or their employer or their
    family, if they're going to college, to be able to predict
    what's going to happen. So they're telling us, give us some
    predictability. Give us some stability and the other thing
    we've got to give them is continuity.
        What I'm talking about continuity is traditionally you have
    strategic levels of force--2 weeks in the summer and we won't
    have to go to war unless world war III breaks out, when the
    Russians come across the Fulda Gap back in those days. But now
    we're in a different war. It's the war on terror. This is not
    an easy war and with the amount of service support that resides
    in the Army Reserve, this nation cannot go to war without us.
    If we have an option to deploy the Army Reserve, we have to.
    Because we possess all the medical, the transportation, the
    logistics, the military police, and engineer forces. I don't
    have the combat brigades. I have the support brigades.
        So they are never going to be used on a regular basis. So
    that soldier says, okay, I want to serve my country. I feel
    good about what I'm doing. But every time I get called up,
    there is a disruption in my life because one, in some cases, a
    loss of income, when I switch from one job to the other. But
    also a disruption in the life of my family because I have to
    switch from my employers healthcare plan to the military
    healthcare plan and the doctors don't match. So now I've got to
    go tell my spouse, we better go find a different family doctor
    or a different pediatrician. I think one of the things that we
    owe to our forces, we have to figure out how to provide
    continuity so that we can call upon our forces on a regular
    basis without disrupting their lives.
        So that their healthcare system stays in place, their
    income level stays in place and they can go serve their country
    and feel good about what they're doing.
        The biggest challenge I've got right now in maintaining my
    force structure is competing with the Active Army. And the
    Active Army is out trying to gather their own strength and
    they're trying to recruit the same soldiers that we're trying
    to recruit in the Reserves. So we are competing with others.
        The National Guard has got a different model, which is
    working for them, a community base model. We're going to adopt
    that same model. We're going to start doing the same thing
    where we've got our soldiers going out and recruiting their
    buddies to come back and join their unit instead of having the
    recruiting command trying to find a pool and sort out who wants
    to be on active and who wants to be on reserve status. That's
    going to be one of the keys of success of making our end
    strength.
        But the other thing is, we're basically trained and Senator
    Stevens alluded to this early on, when soldiers are trying to
    determine, where am I? Am I in the Reserve or am I in the
    Active Army because it seems like I'm always on active duty.
    And we're seeing more and more Reserve component soldiers going
    back to the active component. I've got a chart, if it's
    available, that illustrates just that.
        This shows starting with fiscal year 2002, if you see the
    green, that's the number of soldiers going from the active to
    the Reserve versus the number going from the Reserve to the
    active and you can see where we're gaining about 2,000 soldiers
    more going into the Reserve components than we are losing from
    the Reserve to the active. You can see where it is now. It's
    going the other direction.
        I'm losing many more soldiers that are going into the
    Reserves and going back to active duty because they're saying,
    that's my continuity. If I stay on active duty, I know I've got
    continuity in healthcare and all of that continuity. In fiscal
    year 2005, I had over 3,500 soldiers going from Reserve status
    back to active duty. This past year, I had 6,000 or more leave
    Reserve. So maintaining my end strength is competing with the
    active Army and that's a good news story for the active Army.
    I'm going to the active Army because I'm pulling soldiers back.
        But I'm doing it because soldiers are sent out and they can
    have that stability and predictability in the Army Reserve.
    That's my challenge. That's why this Army Force Generation
    model that we're building is so critical. Just as Jack Bergman
    said, go and tell a soldier, you're going to deploy for 1 year
    and then I'm going to give you 4 years of stability to come
    back and go back and get your college degree or start your
    civilian career.
        We're not doing that because we've got to rebalance the
    force. We don't have enough CS/CSS (combatant support/combatant
    service support) in the Army. That's part of that peace
    dividend that we're all reaping right now, where we took down a
    lot of that capability and we said that if we ever had to go
    war, it would be a short war. We wouldn't need to sustain that
    for a long period of time. It's a different world now.
        So morale is good. Recruiting is a challenge. We're about
    13 minutes shy of where we should be right now. We're going to
    make that up. We're going to start this community based program
    as soon as I can get a contract in place. I feel confident we
    will make our year end recruiting goals. But there's going to
    be that competition of how do we keep that support at a
    sustained level to that soldier and his family that they
    deserve? Because just as the two of them that I introduced,
    there are 200,000 more of them out there who are sacrificing
    every day and we owe it to them.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll submit my
    questions, too. I do have just one or two short questions. Are
    you still accessing the equipment of the regular services for
    your training? That was what it was in the days gone by. Are
    you asking now for a component of equipment for the Reserve
    like we have for the National Guard?
        General Stultz. Sir, we're really using our own equipment.
    Let me just answer that in a couple of different dimensions. I
    was in Iraq and Kuwait for 2 years.
        Senator Stevens. I'm talking about here at home in
    training.

                                   EQUIPMENT

        General Stultz. Yes, sir. But we left a lot of our own
    equipment just as the Guard did in that country because we did
    not want to transport it back and forth. So that created
    shortages back home. When it comes to training, we're providing
    our own equipment for our training of our forces for the
    Reserve components. What that forces me to do is, just as
    General Blum and General Vaughn alluded to, I've got to move
    equipment around. I've got to position it to get to the right
    units that need it to train on. I've got the same challenges
    they do. The equipment I've got back here that was left is not
    the modern equipment we need to train on.
        An example I use is the trucks. We have--tactical vehicles
    and we were authorized to have over 4,000 of those. I've only
    got about 1,000 that are the modern ones. I've got almost 3,500
    of the old, M-35 deuce and a halfs, the old trucks that we used
    back in Vietnam.
        Those are not the trucks we need to train on for our
    soldiers because that's not the truck they'll operate in
    theatre. So that--I've got back here, I've got to move around
    to get them to the right location for the unit that is going to
    be going to theatre that is going to operate that.
        Likewise with the Humvees. We're going to upgrade those
    when we get into theatre. Out of 1,000 authorized, right now,
    I've got 23 because all of them are over in theatre. So we try
    to train a soldier back here on how to operate the old one that
    has a different center gravity, that has a different
    visibility, that operates differently, it's very difficult.
    I've got to take what I've got and reposition it. So what is so
    critical for us, just as the Guard would say, to get that
    equipment. It is short. We're short equipment but a lot of
    equipment we have is not the most modern. When I'm authorized
    12,000 radio systems for communication and I've only got about
    one-third of what I need, about--less than 8,000. But of those,
    only about 4,000 or less are the most modern. So I've got
    substitute radios but its not the ones they're going to operate
    in theatre.
        So I'm short equipment and what equipment I've got is not
    the modern equipment I need. That makes it difficult to train.
    But to get back to your initial question, no sir, I don't have
    access to the active Army equipment to train on. I have to
    provide my own equipment to train to them.
        Senator Stevens. Is that the same for all of you?
        Admiral Cotton. Yes, sir. Each one of us has a slightly
    different model. In the Navy, we have a wonderful spectrum of
    missions, all the way from the commissioning of units with
    equipment that we purchase through O&R funds as well as
    National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriations (NGREA), to
    manpower pools that train with their specific equipment to like
    CBs, where they are located and they will also have mini power
    pools that we mobilize to train a group to maybe do a combat
    service support mission in support of the forces ashore. So the
    Navy is really full spectrum. We have our own equipment. We use
    the Navy equipment and we have other people that go other
    places and use other services equipment. So it's really full
    spectrum, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. Are there any problems for the
    marines, sir? Or the Air Force?
        General Bergman. Sir, as Vice Admiral Cotton said, we all
    vary a little bit because of how we're structured and how we
    deploy our folks, whether they be as units or individuals. I
    would suggest to you that there are certain types of equipment,
    let's say, comm gear, that we need in the Reserve component, to
    have our own, which we do because our marines can deploy either
    individually or as detachments and expected to go right in to
    theatre and operate the gear right away. So they're falling in
    on equipment that they need to be ready to operate.
        Aviation--we're going to deploy a capability--duties,
    covers, C-130s. We take our own, by and large and in some
    cases, we're falling in on equipment that's in theatre. We
    don't need necessarily the most current. We need just to make
    sure that our air crew can operate the aircraft as it was
    designed, if you will, again with a nominal amount of, if you
    will, differences training.
        So as we look at our equipment needs, I would suggest to
    you and listening to everybody talk about equipment, I think
    we're missing potentially a very, very important step with
    technology being the way it is today and that is the simulation
    piece and the way that we can most importantly train all of our
    people on the most current--whether it's touch screens, whether
    it is virtual convoy, combat training, combat trainers, without
    necessarily having to buy all the hardware up front. Because
    the key is, not about the hardware at that point, it's about
    what's in the mind of that young marine or soldier or sailor or
    Coast Guardsman who is operating it.
        We need to put them in a state of mind so that when they
    get into that stressful environment, they do the right thing
    and simulation and increased use of it--there is a lot of work
    being done. I've spent a lot of time down and around looking at
    what is being done right now. That's where we need to focus an
    effort and dollars behind it to increase the mission capability
    and survivability of our youngsters.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        General Bradley. Senator Stevens, for the most part, our
    Air Force Reserve units have their own equipment to train to
    prepare for deployment. When our flying units deploy to Iraq
    and Afghanistan, they take their own equipment, their own
    aircraft and they redeploy them after their tour is up.
        There is a segment of the Air Force, about 5,000 airmen are
    today doing things for the Army. In lieu of Army people, they
    are driving trucks, guarding convoys and performing as prison
    guards. And we retrain for those missions that are not a normal
    Air Force job or mission. We use active equipment to train on
    that mission and the Army provides some training in some cases
    for some of those jobs. So that small bit, in lieu of forces
    where we send airmen over to do some traditional Army jobs,
    then we use active equipment.
        We are standing up an F-22 squadron in Alaska. We already
    have people there and we'll start flying along with the active
    duty in August. But that's the way the organization was set up
    to operate, to share the equipment. It's more cost effective
    and brings a capability. So there are cases in which we do
    share equipment. But we also have our own as well.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. My second question is
    just--answer me if you disagree. We've heard testimony that
    convinced me no one is being deployed unless they are trained
    and properly equipped to go into combat service. Is that true
    for the Reserves, too?
        [Chorus of yes, sir.]
        General Stultz. I brought with me today my senior NCO, a
    Commander Sergeant Major Leon Caffie. We have served together
    in combat and he is the one that I hold ultimately responsible
    as the NCO Chief of Command so I want to make sure every one of
    our soldiers is properly trained, properly equipped before they
    go into combat.
        He and I go out together to go visit those soldiers and
    visit the training, just as told you by some of the other
    commanders before me here. And I can assure you, from my
    Reserve's perspective, we do not deploy any soldier into combat
    without the proper equipment, both individual and unit
    equipment and without the proper training.
        Senator Stevens. Do you back that up, Sergeant Major?
        Mr. Caffie. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General Stultz,
    Admiral Cotton, General Bergman, General Bradley. We thank you
    for your testimony. On behalf of the subcommittee, I thank you
    for your service to our Nation.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Bureau for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
            Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                               recruiting mission
        Question. General Stultz, the Army Reserve fell short of its fiscal
    year 2006 recruiting goal and is struggling to fulfill this year's
    recruiting mission. Difficulty in recruiting prior-service members is a
    significant reason for the shortfall. What is the Army Reserve doing to
    attract soldiers with prior service experience?
        Answer. Although the Army Reserve is responsible for maintaining a
    congressionally mandated end strength objective, it only controls a
    small portion of the recruiting mission. U.S. Army Recruiting Command
    (USAREC) operates a national based recruiting program and is
    responsible for 100 percent of the non-prior service mission. On the
    other hand, USAREC is responsible for 75 percent of the prior service
    mission, the Human Resources Command has 8 percent of the mission, and
    the Army Reserve has the remaining 17 percent. Additionally, USAREC
    maintains control of all Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Recruiters and
    within the last two years, their numbers increased by 734, for a total
    of 1,774 authorized. Despite this increase in recruiter strength, as of
    March 2007, USAREC achieved only 92 percent of the Army Reserve mission
    compared to 108 percent of the Active Component mission. In contrast,
    the Army Reserve's Retention and Transition Division (RTD) overachieved
    its portion of the prior service mission.
        As a long range solution, the Army Reserve is developing a
    community-based recruiting program whereby recruiters will report
    directly to Army Reserve leadership instead of the Active Component.
    The Army National Guard has operated under this concept for some time
    with great success. This will eliminate the competition between Active
    Component and the Army Reserve within the same recruiting activity,
    allowing tailored and targeted applicant prospecting efforts on behalf
    of both components. The Army Reserve's recruiting program will be unit
    based with focus on the local community.
        As a near term solution, USAREC recruiters will work closely with
    Soldiers from local Army Reserve units to generate leads and referrals
    using the newly established Army Reserve Recruiter Assistance Program
    (AR RAP). This program will improve the Army Reserve's recruiting
    success for both non-prior and prior service applicants by embedding
    recruiters within units to develop unit ownership of recruiting
    programs, supported by local communities. Additionally, the Army
    Reserve Retention and Transition Division (RTD) has reorganized its
    retention force to focus solely on strength-producing missions,
    reenlistments and transitioning Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)
    individuals into Selected Reserve (SELRES) units. As a result, RTD has
    achieved 107 percent of its annual enlisted prior-service mission and
    assumed a new officer mission from Human Resources Command--St. Louis
    (HRC-STL).
        The Army Reserve offers a variety of prior-service enlistment
    bonuses to reinforce a Soldier's decision to serve in a TPU unit, i.e.,
    a unit with regular drilling Army Reserve Soldiers. The following
    incentives are currently offered:
        Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--This bonus is available for
    individuals with up to 16 years of prior service and pays out $15,000
    for a 6 year commitment and $7,500 for a 3 year commitment. This bonus
    was implemented on February 24, 2006 and Soldiers who sign up for this
    bonus have the opportunity to reclassify (change their MOS, or job
    specialty).
        AC to RC Affiliation Bonus.--For prior-service Soldiers who
    transfer from the Active Component or IRR to the Army Reserve, $20,000
    is available for a 6 year commitment and $10,000 is paid out for 3
    years. This incentive was also implemented on February, 24, 2006.
        Question. General Stultz, are you concerned that the decrease in
    prior-service recruits is hurting the overall experience level of Army
    Reservists?
        Answer. The experience level of Army Reservists is at the highest
    level since World War II. As of April 30, 2007, 119,371 Army Reserve
    Soldiers have mobilized in support of the Global War on Terror. This is
    63.9 percent of the current end strength of 186,828. As of April 18th,
    13 percent of the Army Reserve (24,056 Soldiers) was deployed. The Army
    Reserve will continue to provide a key contribution to ongoing wartime
    operations and Army Reserve units will gain from the mission-related
    experience of their Soldiers when they return home.
        We have not seen a reduction in prior service accessions. Since
    2004, yearly missions in sequence were 16,075, 10,310, 16,032, 16,505.
    Bottom line, the Army Reserve is currently at 99.8 percent of our
    mission and expecting to achieve our mission.
                                   equipment
        Question. General Stultz, we have heard that the Army Reserve is
    faced with a tremendous equipment reset problem--and that almost $1
    billion is needed this year to address the shortfalls due to equipment
    lost in combat and equipment left behind in theater or transferred to
    the active component. How is the Army doing on paying back the Army
    Reserve for equipment? How much has been paid back so far?
        Answer. The Army has budgeted $1.2 billion in the fiscal year 2007
    Supplemental to address Army Reserve equipment retained in theater and
    used in Theater Provided Equipment sets. Funding from the bridge
    supplemental has been released to program managers for procurement of
    systems. Our concern continues to be the long lead time needed by
    industry to produce the equipment. This becomes a training and
    readiness issue. If the right equipment is unavailable when needed,
    mission accomplishment and the survivability and safety of our Soldiers
    are jeopardized.
        The Army Reserve is developing a 1225.6 tracking tool to track
    replacement equipment returning to the Army Reserve for that which was
    retained in theater. To date, the Army Reserve has received a very
    small percentage of the total payback.
        Question. General Stultz, how do you measure equipment shortfalls
    and the impact on unit training and readiness. What systems do you have
    in place to keep track of this situation?
        Answer. The system for accounting and tracking equipment is the
    Army's standard supply system, the Property Book Unit Supply-Enhanced
    (PBUSE). It is a web-based system that has been fielded to all Army
    Reserve units. Additionally, the Army Reserve uses the Reserve End Item
    Management System (REIMS) which provides management tools not available
    in the Army system to manipulate PBUSE data. This system is being
    replaced by a module in the Army Reserve's Logistics Data Warehouse, an
    integrated, multi-functional logistics data warehouse. The Logistics
    Data Warehouse and REIMS allow us to move and account for equipment to
    support training and readiness. Information derived from these systems
    is compared to other Army force structure management systems to
    determine current and projected shortages and older equipment requiring
    replacement. These requirements are used at the Department of the Army
    G8 sponsored Army Equipment Reuse Conferences.
        Question. General, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the
    replacement of missing or obsolete equipment is considered and funded
    in the annual programming and budgeting cycle?
        Answer. The Army Reserve aggressively participates in the Army
    Equipment Reuse Conferences (AERC) to validate requirements, both for
    shortages, current and projected, and for replacing older, less capable
    and compatible items. While the Army Reserve requirements may be
    validated for the Planning Program Budget and Execution System (PPBES),
    our concern continues to be the diversion of funds and equipment to
    competing Army priorities.
                          combat operation activities
        Question. Generals Stultz, Bergman, Bradley, and Admiral Cotton:
    Other than the recently proposed troop level increases, what plans are
    you aware of in the active components of your respective services to
    address the issues requiring such heavy reliance on the Reserves to
    perform routine combat operation activities?
        Answer. Since the Army Reserve retains its core competency as a
    provider of combat support and combat service support, we expect that
    the heavy reliance on the Army Reserve to support the Global War on
    Terrorism and other strategic missions will continue for the
    foreseeable future. Beyond the proposed troop level increases, which
    you note, and ongoing efforts to rebalance active and reserve forces,
    which endeavor to move high demand skills into the active duty forces,
    we are unaware of any other significant initiatives that might lessen
    the need to rely on the Reserve Components.
                                   equipment
        Question. Generals Stultz, Bergman, Bradley, and Admiral Cotton:
    Does your request to this Committee truly reflect all of the
    requirements necessary to accommodate your equipment needs and to
    adequately fund the programs necessary to provide quality support to
    those in the Reserve who are being called upon to serve their country?
    If not, where are the deficiencies and why are they not being
    addressed?
        Answer. The Army Reserve identified an equipment shortfall of
    $10.73 billion that was validated in the Army Equipment and Reuse
    Conferences (AERC). Since the last conference, the decision has been
    made to right size the Army Reserve and to convert non-deploying
    support and Generating Force structure to deployable units. This
    additional deployable force structure brings an additional requirement
    of approximately $3.5 billion. These new equipment shortages will be
    addressed by the Army in the Program Budget Review 09-13.
                            policy on mobilizations
        Question. Gen. Stultz, the Secretary of Defense has a new policy on
    the length of mobilizations for Reservists. What are the positives of
    this policy for the Army Reserves? What are the negatives?
        Answer. The new mobilization policy represents a significant event
    in the Army Reserve's transformation from a strategic reserve to an
    operational force. Positive impacts for the country include more robust
    military capabilities able to respond to crisis at home and worldwide.
    Army Reserve transformation will provide the best trained citizen
    soldiers in modern history. A negative impact is the Army Reserve will
    be unable to attain a 1:5 force planning objective under the new 12
    month policy, because of the high operation tempo and limited force
    structure for full implementation, the Army Reserves will require
    additional funding to sustain and support these initiatives. We believe
    an increase in the Army Reserve end strength should be considered.
        Among the positives within this new policy is the predictability it
    affords our Soldiers, their Families and their employers. Also, it
    limits the time a mobilization interrupts the civilian lives and
    careers of our Soldiers. This new policy supports our present planning
    on generating our forces for the Long War. The Army Reserve is well
    positioned to implement this policy and to meet current and upcoming
    planned deployments. Obviously multiple deployments place stress on
    Soldiers, their Families, and their employers and is reflected in the
    force as a whole. We will closely monitor this as it relates to our
    recruiting or retention and take necessary action as indicated.
        The new policy provides the Army Reserve a real opportunity to
    maintain unit cohesion, something we have had a real challenge doing
    over the past four years, ultimately we will have ready units to meet
    the requirements.
        The impact to our individual soldiers is significant, potentially
    requiring multiple high-risk deployments over the span of a military
    career. Safeguards and legislation that supports the Soldier, their
    Family, and provides some incentive for civilian employers to hire
    these fine Citizen-Soldier volunteers is paramount in recruiting and
    retaining the Reserves Soldier of the future.
        Our Citizen Soldiers must strike a balance between their civilian
    employment and the time they spend serving their country on active
    duty. Not an easy thing with the demands we place on them. By limiting
    mobilization to a 12 month period, we believe that the Soldier, their
    Families and their employers can plan for possible periods of
    deployment and anticipate the reintegration back in a predictable
    timeframe.
        Previous mobilization policies, Army Reserve Units and Soldiers
    performed a substantial amount of their mission training events after
    mobilization and prior to deployment. Unit post-mobilization/pre-
    deployment training periods normally ranged from 75 days to 125 days,
    depending mission requirements. We no longer can afford to retain the
    75-125 day unit post mobilization training periods under the new 12
    month mobilization policy. We are, therefore, working with FORSCOM and
    1st U.S. Army to shift some post-mobilization training tasks to pre-
    mobilization training periods. This shift will result in substantial
    requirements for additional training periods, equipment for training,
    and the need for additional training facilities. We will need to bring
    trainers on active duty to train to keep this momentum going. All this
    will require resources and we look to Congress to support these
    requirements.
                       army and marine corp end-strength
        Question. Gen. Stultz, can you please give me your assessment on
    how the surge and increase in the Army and the Marine Corps end-
    strength will affect your high operational tempo in supporting the
    global war on terror?
        Answer. Surge.--The Army Reserve was tasked to provide 21 combat
    support and combat service support units for the OIF 07-09 surge. 20 of
    the 21 units were previously mobilized for earlier OIF/OEF rotations.
    These units were originally projected to mobilize for OIF/OEF in fiscal
    year 2008 or later. All remobilizing units will mobilize with less than
    the 4 years of dwell time. We understand that there will be some
    Soldier hardship issues, and we are working to address these. We
    anticipate being fully able to provide all 21 units on time and to
    optimum readiness standards. We further expect many of these Soldiers
    will be eligible for a remobilization incentive as specified in the
    Secretary of Defense's January 19, 2007 memorandums to Service
    Secretaries.
        Increase in the Army and the Marine Corps end-strength.--Prior to
    September 11, 2001, our historical experience demonstrated that Active
    Duty Soldiers completed their initial tour and transferred into the
    Army Reserve, providing a significant source of trained and qualified
    Solders into the Army Reserve. Today we are seeing a reverse of this
    pattern; Army Reserve Soldier transferring into active duty side in
    much greater numbers. While good for the Army it requires the Army
    Reserve to recruit and retain greater numbers than before. As you are
    aware the Army Reserve is experiencing a personnel shortage--we are
    17,000 Soldiers short of meeting Authorized End Strength levels. This
    certainly impacts our readiness in our non-mobilized units. Currently
    less than 10 percent of our non-mobilized units meet minimum Defense
    Planning Guidance readiness standards. To address this issue we have
    asked the Army Recruiting Command to increase our recruiting goals. The
    Army Reserve plans to supplement recruiting efforts by implementing the
    U.S. Army Recruiter Assistance Program. We will continue to need
    Congressional support to resource this successful program now and in
    the future. Although we continue to have challenges; our Army Reserve
    continues to exceed its retention goals. Continued funding of our
    retention initiatives (pay, bonuses and benefits) ensures the continued
    success of this program.
        Over the years there has been much discussion surrounding
    retirement reform for reserve component Soldiers. I believe this
    concept need to be looked at closely and placed on the table for
    discussion.
                                recruiting goals
        Question. Gen. Stultz, the active Army and the Army National Guard
    have exceeded recruiting goals, while the Army Reserve falls just
    short. What strategy do you employ to meet recruiting goals when
    competing with the active Army and the Army National Guard?
        Answer. Although the Army Reserve is responsible for maintaining a
    congressionally mandated end strength objective, it only controls a
    small portion of the recruiting mission. U.S. Army Recruiting Command
    (USAREC) operates a national based recruiting program and is
    responsible for 100 percent of the non-prior service mission. On the
    other hand, USAREC is responsible for 75 percent of the prior service
    mission, the Human Resources Command has 8 percent of the mission, and
    the Army Reserve has the remaining 17 percent. Additionally, USAREC
    maintains control of all Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Recruiters and
    within the last two years, their numbers increased by 734, for a total
    of 1,774 authorized. Despite this increase in recruiter strength, as of
    March 2007, USAREC achieved only 92 percent of the Army Reserve mission
    compared to 108 percent of the Active Component mission. In contrast,
    the Army Reserve's Retention and Transition Division (RTD) surpassed
    its goals for its portion of the prior service mission.
        Despite recruiting challenges, there are positive trends regarding
    Army Reserve retention and attrition. Army Reserve retention was 103
    percent for fiscal year 2006 and Initial Military Training (IMT)
    attrition was reduced from 18 percent (May 2005) to 6.3 percent (August
    2006).
        As a long range solution, the Army Reserve is developing a
    community-based recruiting program whereby recruiters will report
    directly to Army Reserve leadership instead of the Active Component.
    The Army National Guard has operated under this concept for some time
    with great success. This will eliminate the competition between Active
    Component and the Army Reserve within the same recruiting activity,
    allowing tailored and targeted applicant prospecting efforts on behalf
    of both components.
        As a near term solution, USAREC recruiters will work closely with
    Soldiers from local Army Reserve units to generate leads and referrals
    using the newly established Army Reserve Recruiter Assistance Program
    (AR RAP). This program will improve the Army Reserve's recruiting
    success for both non-prior and prior service applicants by embedding
    recruiters within units to develop unit ownership of recruiting
    programs, supported by local communities.
        There are a number of incentives and bonuses designed to improve
    recruiting and retention and help the Army Reserve meet its end
    strength objective (ESO):
        AR-Recruiter Assistance Program (AR-RAP).--The AR-RAP is a
    community based Recruiting initiative that employs and trains
    volunteers from the AR to recruit for local units. This program is
    expected to positively affect AR end strength by at least 3,000 this
    year with much greater increases in future years. Implementation
    initiatives include a strategic communication plan and mandatory
    training and information for AR leadership.
        Delayed Entry Program (DEP) to Delayed Training Program (DTP).--The
    AR changed the method of tracking and managing initial entry Soldiers
    prior to attendance at initial entry training (IET). Under the previous
    DEP, initial entry Soldiers were not counted in the AR end strength and
    were managed by USAREC recruiters until shipment to IET. The DTP
    assigns initial entry Soldiers to AR units immediately which enhances
    Soldier involvement and increases unit cohesion. Additionally, IET
    Soldiers will be accounted for in the AR end strength.
        Critical Skills and High Priority Unit Assignment Retention Bonus
    (CSARB).--The purpose of the CSARB is to retain experienced Soldiers in
    a high priority Troop Program Unit (TPU) in order for the AR to meet
    critical manpower shortages and unit readiness requirements. The CSARB
    is authorized for Soldiers who agree to continue to serve in a high
    priority unit designated on the Army Reserve Selected Reserve
    Incentives Program (SRIP) list for not less than 3 years from the date
    of agreement.
        Reserve-Assignment Incentive Pay.--This program could pay up to $50
    per four-hour unit training assembly ($200/month) to Soldiers in high
    priority ARFORGEN units (those units which are likely to be sourced for
    deployment to man the wartime mission).
        Command Responsibility Pay (CRP).--This program has DOD
    authorization and AR will request required funding through the POM
    process. Based on grade, it pays officers in key leadership positions
    from $50-$150 per month. Although not currently authorized, the AR will
    be pursuing an initiative to pay CRP to NCOs in key leadership
    positions.
        Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--This bonus is available for
    individuals with up to 16 years of prior service and pays out $15,000
    for a 6 year commitment and $7,500 for a 3 year commitment. This bonus
    was implemented on February 24, 2006 and Soldiers who sign up for this
    bonus have the opportunity to reclassify (change their MOS, or job
    specialty).
        AC to RC Affiliation Bonus.--For prior-service Soldiers, who
    transfer from the Active Component or IRR to the Army Reserve, $20,000
    is available for a 6 year commitment and $10,000 is paid out for 3
    years. This incentive was also implemented on February, 24, 2006.
                              equipment shortfalls
        Question. Gen. Stultz, in fiscal year 2007, the Congress
    appropriated $35 million to you to address ongoing equipment
    shortfalls. How have you utilized that money to meet your service's
    needs?
        Answer. The Army Reserve used the funding to fill critical
    shortages to support the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and to enhance
    readiness. Examples of equipment we are procuring are: Family of Medium
    Tactical Vehicles (FMTVs), Truck Tractors, Line haul (M915/M916), Small
    Arms Weapons (M4), Night Vision Goggles, Movement Tracking Systems
    (MTS), Maintenance Support Devices (MSD) and LCU 2000 Command and
    Control systems.
                                   equipment
        Question. Gen. Stultz, have your units encountered a shortage of
    equipment in the United States for training? What sort of equipment are
    you lacking most?
        Answer. The Army Reserve requires 100 percent of its authorized
    equipment, both on-hand and Modular Force compatible, to meet training,
    mobilization and maintenance requirements. Our top shortages are:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            NOMENCLATURE                            SHORT
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FMTV:
        LMTV, (2.5 TON TRK)....................................        5,281
        MTV, (5 TON TRK).......................................        9,141
    Truck Tractor Line Haul (M915A3)...........................        2,127
    Armored Security Vehicle...................................          256
    Multi-band SHF Terminal (Phoenix)..........................           48
    HEMTT Load Handling System (LHS)...........................           39
    High Frequency Radio.......................................        1,856
    Joint Svc Trans Decon System (JSTDSS)......................          842
    Movement Tracking System (MTS).............................        5,894
    Light Type 1 Yard Loader (2.5 Yard)........................           30
    TSEC-Army Key MGT Sys (AKMS)...............................       11,922
    Log Automation (SAMS E)....................................        2,586
    Log Automation (CAISI).....................................          257
    Log Automation (VSAT)......................................           71
    Battle Command Sustainment Support System..................          456
    Rough Terrain Container Handler 53K........................          198
    HEMTT Based Water Tender...................................           42
    Trailer Cargo: FMTV W/Dropsides............................        3,540
    Light Tactical Trailers: \3/4\ TON.........................        2,476
    PLS Trailers...............................................          577
    Truck Cargo PLS 1010 (M1075)..............................          283
    Truck Dump 20 TON (M917)...................................           90
    M4 Carbine (Rifle).........................................       10,005
    Small Arms.................................................       13,764
    Night Vision Devices.......................................       27,447
    Thermal Weapon Sight.......................................           81
    High Mobility Engineer Excavator...........................          158
    HMMWV......................................................        6,565
    Up-Armored HMMWV...........................................        1,584
    Tactical Electrical Power (5-60 KW)........................        3,680
    Tactical Electrical Power (3 KW) TQG.......................        2,907
    Power Dist & Illum System, Electrical......................        4,050
    Semi-Trailer 5,000K Gal Fuel Bulk Haul.....................        1,201
    Defense Advanced GPS Receiver..............................       10,697
    Detecting Set Mine (AN-PSS-14).............................           98
    Joint Network Node (JNN)...................................            3
    NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle.................................          120
    SINCGARS...................................................        8,022
    Alarm: Chemical Agent Automatic............................        5,778
    Monitoring Chemical Agent..................................        1,492
    Decontaminating Apparatus..................................          464
    Semi-Trailer Low Bed: 40 TON...............................          422
    Central Communications: AN/TSQ-190(3)......................           12
    All-Terrain Crane (ATEC) 25 TON............................            9
    Truck Transporter Common Bridge (CBT)......................          189
    Test Set Radio: AN/USM-626(v)1.............................           22
    Detecting System: Countermeasures..........................           24
    Central Office: Telephone Automatic........................            8
    Radio Set: AN/PSC-5........................................          196
    Small Arms Simulation Devices..............................          200
    Deployable Medical Systems (DEPMEDS).......................          121
    Distributor Water Self-Propelled 2,500 Gal.................            5
    Dry Support Bridge (DSB)...................................           12
    Tent Expandable Modular (SURGICAL).........................           63
    Shelter Tactical Expandable................................          113
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This equipment shortage list does not include new Army Reserve
    growth in force structure for fiscal year 2009-13 that will produce
    further equipment requirements.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted to Vice Admiral John G. Cotton
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                     reserve recruiting and retention goals
        Question. Admiral Cotton, in fiscal year 2006, the Naval Reserve
    fell 13 percent short of its recruiting goal for enlisted personnel and
    48 percent short for officers. Attrition rates were also 10 percent
    above targeted levels. Again this year the Reserve is struggling to
    meet recruiting and retention goals. What are you doing to address this
    problem?
        Answer. One factor that played an important role in Navy Reserve
    missing recruiting goal is that the skill sets of Sailors leaving the
    Active Component (AC) do not always match the prior service accession
    requirements for Navy Reserve. This is clearly evident in the limited
    number of AC personnel transitioning to RC career fields that are most
    needed for support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Navy is
    analyzing the dynamics of Reserve recruiting and has implemented
    several initiatives to improve recruiting performance:
      --A Fleet-to-NOSC (Navy Operational Support Center) program that
            streamlines the process for enlisting a Sailor who is leaving
            the AC into Navy Reserve.
      --Additional flexibility in New Accession Training (NAT) and Prior
            Service mission to meet critical skill requirements and
            accelerate Navy Reserve personnel through the training
            pipeline.
      --Implementation of a pilot to retrain prior service Sailors
            currently in the AC to obtain skill sets required for Navy
            Reserve GWOT support.
      --Revitalized the direct procurement enlistment program to take
            advantage of acquired civilian skills when recruiting Reserve
            Sailors. This program also offers these individuals entry into
            the Navy Reserve at an advanced pay grade commensurate with
            their level of experience.
      --Expanded Reserve enlistment incentives for both officer and
            enlisted programs.
      --Increased the number of officer recruiters by 22 personnel.
      --Increased recruiting advertising resourcing
        These actions provide increased flexibility and are expected to
    yield higher recruiting numbers in the future. Based on current
    projections, we are cautiously optimistic that these initiatives will
    result in achieving the recruiting goals for enlisted personnel this
    year. Navy Reserve does not expect to reach the officer recruiting
    goals for fiscal year 2007.
        Navy Reserve attrition (loss from pay status) rates have decreased
    over 2 percent for Enlisted personnel and nearly 5 percent for Officers
    compared to the historical average. The latest attrition rates
    (calculated as a 12-month rolling average) reflect an improving trend
    and Navy Reserve is expected to meet its planned attrition level for
    fiscal year 2007. The most recent attrition data is below:

                  ATTRITION (LOSS FROM PAY AS OF 1 APRIL, 2007)
                                  [In percent]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Historical      Goal       Achieved
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enlisted.........................         30.4         22.0         28.2
    Officer..........................         19.2         16.0         14.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      funding request for officer bonuses
        Question. Admiral Cotton, in fiscal year 2006, the Naval Reserve
    fell 48 percent short of its officer recruiting goal and this year has
    only achieved 16 percent to date. The fiscal year 2008 request includes
    $4.8 million for officer bonuses which is the same amount as was
    provided in fiscal year 2007. Considering the ongoing officer shortage,
    why was more funding not requested?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2007, the Navy Reserve has more than doubled
    the number of skill sets eligible for the officer $10,000 affiliation
    bonus, from 5 to 14, to attract a broader spectrum of officers. In
    addition, the Navy Reserve has increased the incentive level for
    bonuses in the Critical Wartime Specialties within the medical
    community from $10,000 to $20,000 for authorized physicians, dentists
    and nurse anesthetists; and from $5,000 to $10,000 for nurses.
        As you know, we are under significant budget pressure across all
    Navy appropriations. Without fiscal constraints, we would have
    increased funding for Officer bonuses and additional operational
    support. But given the current fiscal constraints and prior/predicted
    Recruiting Command success for officer accessions, we believe that this
    will fund our basic requirements.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
                         heavy reliance on the reserves
        Question. Generals Stultz, Bergman, Bradley, and Admiral Cotton:
    Other than the recently proposed troop level increases, what plans are
    you aware of in the active components of your respective services to
    address the issues requiring such heavy reliance on the Reserves to
    perform routine combat operation activities?
        Answer. After several years of emphasis on Active Reserve
    Integration (ARI), our Navy Reserve Force is responsive, relevant, and
    a full partner in the Total Navy. Alongside Active Component (AC)
    Sailors, Reserve Component (RC) Sailors provide integrated Operational
    Support (OS) to the Fleet, Combatant Commands (COCOM), and other
    Department of Defense agencies. With critical military and civilian
    skill sets and capabilities, mission-ready RC Sailors and units surge
    to provide predictable and periodic work across the full range of
    operations from peace to war.
        Since 9/11/2001, over 42,000 Navy Reservists have been mobilized in
    support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), representing over 80
    percent of the total number of Sailors deployed on the ground in
    theater. On any given day, over 20,000 RC Sailors are on some type of
    Active Duty (AD) or Inactive Duty (ID) orders at their supported
    commands meeting global COCOM requirements. This number includes about
    6,000 RC Sailors mobilized in support of Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and
    ENDURING FREEDOM, and with this steady state requirement, we maintain
    the capacity to rapidly increase contingency support with more than
    28,000 additional RC Sailors that have yet to be mobilized.
        Current operational support provided by the Navy Reserve is at a
    sustainable level due to recent initiatives and changes made to the
    mobilization and deployment policies. Rotations are more periodic and
    predictable, providing our Sailors with the stability and necessary
    dwell time to support the Navy mission while balancing commitments to
    their employers and families. Additionally, the Navy Reserve provides a
    two-year deferment from involuntary mobilization for any Sailor who
    enters the Navy Reserve from the Active Component. These initiatives
    have resulted in improved quality of service for our Sailors as we
    continue to support the Fleet as a fully integrated and relevant Force.
                  naval reserve equipment and program funding
        Question. Generals Stultz, Bergman, Bradley, and Admiral Cotton:
    Does your request to this Committee truly reflect all of the
    requirements necessary to accommodate your equipment needs and to
    adequately fund the programs necessary to provide quality support to
    those in the Reserve who are being called upon to serve their country?
    If not, where are the deficiencies and why are they not being
    addressed?
        Answer. To support hardware procurement, each Navy Warfare
    Enterprise (Air, Surface, Subsurface, Expeditionary, and Networks)
    identifies Reserve Component (RC) requirements for new equipment as
    part of the Navy's resource allocation process. Funding for equipping
    the RC is provided through the Department of the Navy's President's
    Budget request, Congressional Adds, and National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Appropriation funding. All known deficiencies have been
    addressed through the Navy Warfare Enterprise process. Deficiencies
    have been prioritized and presented to Congress in the form of the
    Chief of Naval Operations Navy Reserve Unfunded Priority List (UPL),
    submitted March 2007 (Table 1, below). This UPL was derived from the
    annual National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report UPL, table 8,
    developed October 2006 and submitted February 2007.
        As of fiscal year 2007, RC major hardware is valued at
    approximately $11.5 billion. More than $485 million has been provided
    in fiscal year 2005-fiscal year 2007 for RC hardware procurement
    through the budget process. This is $50 million more in RC procurement
    than the three previous years fiscal year 2002-fiscal year 2004. The
    Navy is committed to keeping the RC properly equipped.

                             TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2008 NAVY RESERVE UNFUNDED PRIORITY LIST
                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         FISCAL YEAR
     APPN         TITLE (Program)            2008                                COMMENTS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       APN C-40A                            $332.0  Funds 4 additional C-40 aircraft in fiscal year 2008. Legacy C-
                                                     9 aircraft cannot meet operational requirement for range/
                                                     payload without significant modernization investment.
       OPN Naval Coastal Warfare              11.0  Funds procurement of new Table of Allowance equipment.
            Equipment                                Equipment replacement required due to accelerated wear in OIF/
                                                     OEF. Includes individual support equipment, C4ISR and
                                                     maintenance of all equipment.
       OPN Explosive Ordnance                  4.9  Funds replacement of worn/outdated tactical vehicles and Civil
            Disposal Table of                        Engineering Support Equipment (CESE).
            Allowance Equipment
       OPN Naval Construction Force           16.1  Funds replacement of tactical vehicles, CESE, and
            Equip-  ment                             communications equipment improving operational support of OEF
                                                     and OIF.
       OPN Navy Expeditionary                  6.0  Funds Navy Reserve tactical vehicles, CESE, communications
            Logistics Support Group                  equipment, material handling equipment, and rough-terrain
            Equipment (NAVELSG)                      cargo handling simulators/small arms simulators--all improve
                                                     operational support of OEF and OIF, not covered in
                                                     Supplemental request.
       APN C-130 Upgrades                     33.3  Supports Navy Reserve squadrons. Upgrade required to comply
                                                     with Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS)/Air
                                                     Traffic Management (ATM) International Civil Aviation
                                                     Organization (ICAO) requirements.
       APN C-9 Upgrades                       32.0  Supports Navy Reserve Squadrons. Required to meet
                                                     International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards
                                                     due to 2009, 2012, and 2014. Includes procurement of kits and
                                                     installation.
       APN C-40A spare parts                   4.2  Supports Navy Reserve squadrons. Funds spare components and
                                                     repair parts to support the deliveries of new production
                                                     aircraft as well as contractor spares and required support
                                                     equipment.
                                      -------------
                 Total                       439.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
            dod policy on the length of mobilizations for reservists
        Question. VADM Cotton, the Secretary of Defense has a new policy on
    the length of mobilizations for Reservists. What are the positives of
    this policy for the Navy Reserves? What are the negatives?
        Answer. The mobilization policy issued by the Secretary of Defense
    stipulates that an involuntary mobilization period may not exceed 12
    months, excluding time for individual skill training and post-
    mobilization leave. Mobilizations should also not occur more frequently
    than a 1:5 ratio (one year mobilized: five years demobilized). Navy
    Reserve Sailors mobilized to support Navy or Marine Corps missions have
    historically been mobilized for one year or less. The involuntary
    mobilization periods for Reserve Sailors who support the Army have
    matched the Army's requirement, and in some cases these periods have
    exceeded 12 months. The new Secretary of Defense policy ensures that
    the quality of service for our Sailors remains high as it ensures they
    will have a predictable and periodic deployment schedule. The Secretary
    of Defense's mobilization policy does not have any negative
    consequences for Navy Reserve.
               army and usmc end-strength affect on navy reserves
        Question. VADM Cotton, can you please give me your assessment on
    how the surge and increase in the Army and the Marine Corps end-
    strength will affect your operational tempo in supporting the global
    war on terror?
        Answer. Since 9/11/2001, over 42,000 Navy Reservists have been
    mobilized in support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), representing
    over 80 percent of the total number of Sailors deployed on the ground
    in theater. This number includes about 6,000 RC Sailors currently
    mobilized in support of Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM,
    and with this steady state requirement Navy Reserve maintains the
    capacity to rapidly increase contingency support with more than 28,000
    additional RC Sailors that have yet to be mobilized. With the increase
    in Army and Marine Corps end-strength, operational support provided by
    the Navy Reserve will remain at a sustainable level.
        Recent initiatives and changes made to the mobilization and
    deployment policies will improve the quality of service for Navy
    Reserve Sailors. Deployment rotations are more periodic and
    predictable, providing our Sailors with the stability and necessary
    dwell time to support the Navy mission while balancing commitments to
    their employers and families.
                         navy reserve recruiting goals
        Question. VADM Cotton, the Navy Reserve was the only Reserve
    component to not meet their recruiting goal in fiscal year 2006. What
    incentives are you implementing to meet your goals in fiscal year 2007?
    Do you anticipate meeting your goals in fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. One factor that played an important role in Navy Reserve
    missing recruiting goal is that the skill sets of Sailors leaving the
    Active Component (AC) do not always match the prior service accession
    requirements for Navy Reserve. This is clearly evident in the limited
    number of AC personnel transitioning to RC career fields that are most
    needed for support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Navy is
    analyzing the dynamics of Reserve recruiting and has implemented
    several initiatives to improve recruiting performance:
      --A Fleet-to-NOSC (Navy Operational Support Center) program that
            streamlines the process for enlisting a Sailor who is leaving
            the AC into Navy Reserve.
      --Additional flexibility in New Accession Training (NAT) and Prior
            Service mission to meet critical skill requirements and
            accelerate Navy Reserve personnel through the training
            pipeline.
      --Implementation of a pilot to retrain prior service Sailors
            currently in the AC to obtain skill sets required for Navy
            Reserve GWOT support.
      --Revitalized the direct procurement enlistment program to take
            advantage of acquired civilian skills when recruiting Reserve
            Sailors. This program also offers these individuals entry into
            the Navy Reserve at an advanced pay grade commensurate with
            their level of experience.
      --Expanded Reserve enlistment incentives for both officer and
            enlisted programs.
      --Increased the number of officer recruiters by 22 personnel.
      --Increased recruiting advertising resourcing.
        These actions provide increased flexibility and are expected to
    yield higher recruiting numbers in the future. Based on current
    projections, we are cautiously optimistic that these initiatives will
    result in achieving the recruiting goals for enlisted personnel this
    year. Navy Reserve does not expect to reach the officer recruiting
    goals for fiscal year 2007.
        Navy Reserve is unable to comment on the potential to attain the
    recruiting goals for fiscal year 2008 since these goals have not been
    determined to date.
                       navy reserve equipment shortfalls
        Question. VADM Cotton, in fiscal year 2007, the Congress
    appropriated $35 million to you to address ongoing equipment
    shortfalls. How have you utilized that money to meet your service's
    needs?
        Answer. To support hardware procurement, each Navy Warfare
    Enterprise (Air, Surface, Subsurface, Expeditionary, and Networks)
    identifies Reserve Component (RC) requirements for new equipment as
    part of the Navy's resource allocation process. All known deficiencies
    have been addressed through the Navy Warfare Enterprise process.
    Deficiencies have been prioritized and presented to Congress in the
    form of the Chief of Naval Operations Navy Reserve Unfunded Equipment
    Program Requirements List (UPL), submitted March 2007. Please see Table
    1 for the UPL list.
        The Navy is committed to keeping the RC properly equipped. The $35
    million National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) is
    being used to address the following RC equipment requirements:

                                                 FISCAL YEAR 2007 NGREA
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        # Units      Cost per
                                       Needed in      Unit in      Cumulative
                Program               Fiscal Year   Fiscal Year       Cost                  Justification
                                         2007          2007
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Naval Coastal Warfare..........  Various.....  Various.....      $5,946,000  Replacement of over-aged tactical
                                                                                  vehicles, CESE, and communications
                                                                                  equipment are needed to improve
                                                                                  operational support of OEF, OIF
                                                                                  and Homeland Defense.
    Explosive Ordnance Disposal....  Various.....  Various.....      $2,315,000  EOD reserve personnel require dive
                                                                                  and protective gear, up armored
                                                                                  vehicles, boats and communications
                                                                                  gear to improve operational
                                                                                  support of OEF, OIF and Homeland
                                                                                  Defense.
    Naval Construction Force.......  Various.....  Various.....     $12,258,000  Tactical vehicles, CESE and
                                                                                  communications equipment are
                                                                                  needed to improve operational
                                                                                  support to OEF, OIF and Homeland
                                                                                  Defense.
    Naval Expeditionary Logistics    Various.....  Various.....      $3,223,000  Tactical vehicles and CESE are
     Support Group.                                                               needed to improve operational
                                                                                  support to OEF, OIF and Homeland
                                                                                  Defense.
    C-130/C-9 Upgrades.............  Various.....  Various.....     $11,258,000  Upgrade C-130 and C-9 aircraft to
                                                                                  enhance air logistics capability.
                                                                ----------------
          Total....................  ............  ............     $35,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      navy reserve equipment shortfalls in the united states for training
        Question. VADM Cotton, have your units encountered a shortage of
    equipment in the United States for training? What sort of equipment are
    you lacking most?
        Answer. The Navy manages Total Force equipment inventories to
    provide the most capable systems to meet mission requirements and
    minimize the effects of equipment shortfalls and incompatibility. Navy
    stresses interoperability as part of the Total Force concept and makes
    no distinction between the Active Component (AC) and the Reserve
    Component (RC). Equipment acquisition, upgrade programs and equipment
    redistribution from the AC to the RC has reduced problems in reserve
    equipment compatibility and capability with both active and joint
    forces.
        The Navy Warfare Enterprises are establishing requirements and
    funding for RC readiness and training in accordance with the Chief of
    Naval Operations (CNO) Strategic Guidance and consolidating AC and RC
    equipment where feasible, enhancing RC equipment training throughout
    the Navy.
        Deficiencies have been prioritized and presented to Congress in the
    form of the CNO's Navy Reserve Unfunded Equipment Program Requirements
    List (UPL), submitted March 2007 (See Table 1), which includes training
    equipment required to meet the Navy's RC mission.
                                     ______

           Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Jack W. Bergman
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
                   reliance on reserves for combat operations
        Question. Generals Stultz, Bergman, Bradley, and Admiral Cotton:
    Other than the recently proposed troop level increases, what plans are
    you aware of in the active components of your respective services to
    address the issues requiring such heavy reliance on the Reserves to
    perform routine combat operation activities?
        Answer. The USMC considers both Active Component and Reserve
    Component units as part of the Total Force. Under the Total Force
    Concept, there is very little difference in the capabilities or
    deployability of Active and Reserve units. The Marine Corps understands
    there are significant differences in the make-up of both the Active and
    Reserve components. For this reason the Marine Corps has instituted a
    Reserve Force Generation Plan to effectively train and utilize our
    reserve forces while maintaining their readiness for subsequent tasking
    and providing predictability to our Reserve Marines. Under the Reserve
    Force Generation Plan, our Selected Marine Corps Reserve units maintain
    a 1:4 deployment-to-dwell ratio. By comparison the Active component is
    currently experiencing a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio.
        In order to relieve the pressure on both the Active and Reserve
    components, the Marine Corps is seeking to increase our Active
    Component end strength to 202,000 Marines. This will allow the Active
    Component to move towards a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio and the
    Reserve Component to move towards a 1:5 deployment-to-dwell ratio.
                                   equipment
        Question. Generals Stultz, Bergman, Bradley, and Admiral Cotton:
    Does your request to this Committee truly reflect all of the
    requirements necessary to accommodate your equipment needs and to
    adequately fund the programs necessary to provide quality support to
    those in the Reserve who are being called upon to serve their country?
    If not, where are the deficiencies and why are they not being
    addressed?
        Answer. We believe that all of our Training Allowance deficiencies
    have been identified in our Program Objective Memorandum, fiscal year
    2007 Supplemental request, fiscal year 2007 National Guard & Reserve
    Equipment Appropriations, fiscal year 2007 Unfunded Priorities List,
    and fiscal year 2008 Supplemental request. If funding is both received
    and executed as currently planned for all of these, we believe that all
    of our current Training Allowance deficiencies will be filled. However,
    if new equipment is not fully procured for our reserve component, if
    requirements increase for current equipment and additional equipment is
    not procured for our reserve component, if additional equipment is
    cross-leveled from our reserve component to our active component, or if
    the identified funding is not received or--for whatever reason--is not
    executed the way they are currently planned, then we will still have
    shortfalls in Training Allowance equipment. We will continue to pursue
    procurement of our full Training Allowances within our Total Force
    effort to equip our Total Force Marine Corps. For non-Table of
    Equipment training systems and simulators, we continue to work with our
    active component to define the requirement and identify additional
    funding needs. As of this date, our training systems and simulator
    requirements have been identified and, in conjunction with our active
    component, we are currently pursuing funding.
               pace of continuing operations and strain on force
        Question. General Bergman, the Marine Forces Reserve recently
    called up 1,800 Individual Ready Reserve Marines. In addition, many
    Marines in the selected reserve have already been deployed more than
    once. Are you concerned that the pace of continuing operations is
    straining your force and could hurt retention levels?
        Answer. Our Marine Reserve is an operational force, and our Reserve
    Marines know, and in fact expect, that they will be called upon in time
    of war. That having been said, every leader, from the fire team on up,
    understands that an important part of sustaining and conserving a unit
    is to include time for rest and resupply in operational planning. We
    have done so within Marine Forces Reserve by creating a Force
    Generation Model that will allow our reserve Marines appropriate dwell
    time between activation periods, along with the ability to predict the
    timeframe when their respective units will be activated. This Force
    Generation Model will enhance our ability to continue to sustain the
    current pace of operations, and prevent excessive strain upon our
    force. As of yet, we have not discerned any significant negative trends
    with respect to retention. We remain vigilant and are continually
    monitoring that important benchmark.
                               strain on families
        Question. General Bergman, what is being done to ease the strain on
    families as Marine Reservists are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan,
    often for the second time?
        Answer. Marine and Family Services Programs are available at all
    Marine Corps Installations and also serve Independent Duty and Reserve
    units within a 100-mile radius surrounding the installation. These
    programs, which include prevention and counseling services and mobility
    support, can be tailored to meet the needs and desires of Marines and
    families at a specific location and have been appropriately updated to
    support Global War on Terror and other deployment requirements. State
    of the art on-line and by telephone information and referral services
    are the cornerstone of Marine and Family Services Programs and the most
    easily accessed touch point for families of Marine Reservists. Military
    OneSource is a free support service with professionally trained
    consultants that can be reached on-line or by telephone 24/7 and
    provides wide-ranging information and referral services, program
    education materials and resources, and counseling services. Moreover,
    Marine Forces Reserve maintains an information and referral telephone
    contact line to facilitate requests for support.
        The Lifestyle Insights, Networking, Knowledge, and Skills
    (L.I.N.K.S.) and Key Volunteer Network (KVN) Programs also play
    fundamental roles in supporting Marine spouses, regardless of duty
    station or residence. L.I.N.K.S. is a training and mentoring program
    designed by Marine spouses to help new spouses adapt to challenges and
    thrive in the military lifestyle. The KVN, with the unit Family
    Readiness Officer, supports the spouses of the unit Marines by
    providing official communication from the Command and disseminating
    important referral information. Our L.I.N.K.S. and KVN training guides
    have been updated and streamlined to more appropriately address remote
    access and the special challenges of Reserve families. Training for
    these programs is available on-line. Reserve unit Key Volunteers can
    contact Military OneSource and request a ``Know Your Neighborhood''
    report on all available community support resources to be used as part
    of the ``Local Resources'' portion of their KVN education.
        The Marine Corps has also partnered with the Boys and Girls Clubs
    of America (BGCA) and the National Association for Child Care Resources
    and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). Under our agreement with BGCA, Reserve
    families can participate in programs at no cost. With NACCRRA, we help
    Reserve families locate affordable child care that is comparable to
    high quality on-base, military operated programs. We have also
    partnered with the Early Head Start National Resource Center Zero to
    Three to expand services in support of family members of Reservists in
    isolated and geographically separated areas.
           surge and end strength increase affect on optempo for gwot
        Question. Lt. Gen. Bergman, can you please give me your assessment
    on how the surge and increase in the Army and the Marine Corps end-
    strength will affect your high operational tempo in supporting the
    global war on terror?
        Answer. The surge presents no foreseen negative impact to MFR
    operational tempo because we are using the Force Generation Model for
    current and future sourcing of Marine Corps units in the global war on
    terror. Once the Marine Corps end-strength increase is realized, the
    operational tempo of MFR units should begin to taper off due to less
    need for augmentation/reinforcement of the active component.
                          reserve mobilization length
        Question. Lt. Gen. Bergman, the Secretary of Defense has a new
    policy on the length of mobilizations for Reservists. What are the
    positives of this policy for the Marine Corps Reserve? What are the
    negatives?
        Answer. The positive aspect of the new policy is that it provides a
    concrete timeline and level of predictability for our Marines, their
    families, and employers of what will be expected of their service in
    the Selected Reserve. It also fits in well with our service deployment
    policy/philosophy in relations to 7 months boots on the ground. As a
    service and for the majority of our Reserve units we were already
    activating them for the period of one year to account for pre-
    deployment training/prep (approx 3 months), 7 months boots on the
    ground, and then a month or so of deactivation/decompression.
        As for negatives, those remain to be seen. My primary concern was
    creating a policy written with a focus on predictability for Marines in
    war fighting units. The new policy very positively assists in
    recruiting, equipping, training and sustaining our Marine Reserve
    Force.
                               reserve equipment
        Question. LtGen Bergman, in fiscal year 2007, the Congress
    appropriated $35 million to you to address ongoing equipment
    shortfalls. How have you utilized that money to meet your service's
    needs?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps Reserve received $35
    million in National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriations (NGREA).
    For fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps Reserve was able to procure
    communication upgrades, a variety of simulators to enhance and sustain
    its individual/unit level readiness and survivability, and critical
    aviation equipment.
        A Communications Package [$4,901,050] was procured for those units
    within each of Marine Forces Reserve's Major Subordinate Commands: the
    4th Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW); 4th Marine Logistics Group (MLG); and,
    4th Marine Division (MARDIV). This procurement will ensure MFR units
    receive adequate and effective training on current communications
    technology before deploying for operations. The Communications Package
    includes:
      --Enhanced Communications Equipment [$1,436,050].--This package
            encompasses the communications requirements for several units
            within MFR's major subordinate commands (MAW, MLG and MARDIV).
            Over the past decade the requirements on communications systems
            have increased significantly. In order to meet these
            requirements, modernization of current communications equipment
            is needed. This package will ensure MFR units receive
            sufficient and valuable training before overseas deployments in
            support of the GWOT and improve data network storage,
            information restoration capability, and network speed for
            critical MLG data networks. Improved storage capabilities
            enhance hardware and information survivability in extreme
            environments.
      --Logistics SWAN (LSWAN) Package (MLG units) [$3,465,000].--The LSWAN
            provides an organic, long haul, over the horizon satellite
            system providing wideband C4 transmission paths to support
            internal communications requirements within the MLG's area of
            operations.
        In comparison with the Active Component, Reserve Component training
    is severely limited by time, geography, and training evolution
    availability.
        Furthermore, Reserve Training Centers are not equipped with the
    hardware assets to allow group and/or non-NMCI compliant computer-based
    training. Successful mitigation of these deficiencies has involved an
    increased investment in simulation. Broad advances in quality of
    simulation technologies combined with live training have proved to be a
    wise course of action. The Simulation Package [$11,895,000] includes:
      --Deployable Virtual Training Environment (DVTE)[$1,170,000].--The
            DVTE allows deploying units at their home station to take full
            advantage of the numerous Marine Corps program of record
            software that is currently non-NMCI compliant as their training
            schedule permits. The DVTE also provides Marines with access to
            electronic courseware while they are deployed aboard ship or
            from remote locations ashore.
      --Virtual Combat Convoy System (VCCS) [$4,900,000].--The VCCS trains
            Marines in basic and advanced convoy skills using variable
            terrain and roads in a variety of weather, visibility, and
            vehicle operational conditions. It incorporates small arms and
            crew served weapons response training, provides mission
            preview/mission rehearsal capability, provides training on fire
            coordination between vehicles, call for fire, close air support
            coordination, communication, and MedEvac.
      --Basic Indirect Fire and Forward Air Control Trainer (IFACT)
            [$1,875,000].--The IFACT reduces geographic and training time
            constraints at a significant cost savings when compared to live
            fire exercises. Using computer generated video simulation in
            conjunction with computer simulated aircraft control stations;
            IFACT provides the capability to train Forward Observers, Naval
            Gunfire Liaison Officers, Fire Support Planners, Joint Tactical
            Air Control Operators, and pilots.
      --Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement--Training System (MTVR-TS)
            [$3,950,000].--MTVR-TS is a vehicle simulator used for training
            Marines in the operation of the MTVR. Procurement of this
            mobile simulator will allow MTVR equipped Reserve units to
            receive essential training in a safe and controlled
            environment, regardless of training range availability or
            weather conditions, thereby better preparing Marines for
            operating a MTVR in combat conditions.
        Aviation equipment [$17,023,000] was procured to ensure aircraft
    component compatibility with our Active Duty counterparts as well as
    provide a critical upgrade to KC-130T communications systems. The
    Aviation Package includes:
      --Litening II Targeting Pod & modification/installation kits
            [$7,308,000].--The capability and functionality of the Litening
            AT/ISR generation Pod provides Air-to-Ground Electro-Optical
            (EO) and Infrared (IR) Targeting; Air-to-Ground Laser
            Designation, Ranging, and Marking; Laser Spot Tracker (LST)
            targeting in support of Forward Air Controller/Airborne (FAC/A)
            Missions and Laser Guided Weapon Delivery. This purchase will
            ensure Reserve F/A-18A+ aircraft can effectively and
            competently support the Litening II mission, when activated.
      --KC-130T AN/ARC-210(V) Multi-mode Radio System [$1,715,000].--The
            AN/ARC-210(V) multimode integrated communications system is
            designed to provide multimode voice and data communications in
            either normal or jam-resistant modes in line-of-sight or
            satellite communications modes. Procuring this radio system
            upgrades all 28 Reserve KC-130T assets to a common operational
            SATCOM configuration.
      --UC-12+ Aircraft [$8,000,000].--The current UC-12 aircraft's
            shortcomings, such as the inability to carry outsize cargo due
            to lack of a cargo door, insufficient self protection, and the
            lack of unprepared landing capability negatively impact short
            haul Operational Support Airlift (OSA) missions in theater. The
            purchase of the UC-12+ aircraft will alleviate these
            shortcomings and provide the required support for urgent intra-
            theater lift.
        Other equipment [$1,180,950] was procured to ensure systems
    compatibility with our Active Duty counterparts as well as provide
    critical systems for SMCR units. The other equipment includes:
      --Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR) [$280,950].--The DAGR provides
            real-time position, velocity, navigation, and timing
            information for the conduct and support of operations by SMCR
            units.
      --Sensor Mobile Monitoring Systems--2nd Generation (SMMS II)
            [$900,000].--SMMS II provides our Ground Sensor unit with
            improved communications capabilities, organic mobility to
            support maneuver elements, and the ability to monitor sensors
            while on the move. Procurement of this equipment ensures parity
            with active component counterpart units, commonality of
            training, and production of the full range of Ground Sensor
            unit capabilities.
        The continued appropriation of NGREA dollars allows us to react
    when certain essential equipment requirements fall below the priority
    funding line.
                               reserve recruiting
        Question. Lt. Gen. Bergman, it was noted that the Marine Corps
    Reserve had exceeded recruiting goals so far this year. What specific
    tools do you believe have been the most effective for recruiting?
        Answer. The Marine Corps sustains success through sound leadership,
    effective training and our most effective asset (``tool'')--THE MARINE
    RECRUITER. Your continued efforts to provide budget support for
    recruiting initiatives also help your Marines win on the recruiting
    battlefield.
                               training equipment
        Question. LtGen Bergman, have your units encountered a shortage of
    equipment in the United States for training? What sort of equipment are
    you lacking most?
        Answer. Due to equipment provided to OIF, we have incurred an
    approximate 10 percent degradation to our Training Allowance across all
    commodity areas. The most critical of these is in communications
    assets. However, some of this will be alleviated with the fielding of
    new communication equipment expected this fall. For aviation assets the
    F/A-18A+ LITENING Pods remain our main concern. fiscal year 2007 NGREA
    dollars have funded three of 10 required.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday,
    April 25 at 10:30 a.m. At that time, we will receive testimony
    for the fiscal year 2008 budget from the Missile Defense
    Agency. Until then, we stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., Wednesday, April 11, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
    April 25.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Dorgan, Feinstein, Mikulski,
    Stevens, Cochran, and Shelby.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                             Missile Defense Agency

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

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. I am pleased to welcome Lieutenant General
    Obering, Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and
    Lieutenant General Campbell, who wears three hats--Commanding
    General of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, the
    U.S. Army Strategic Forces Command and the Joint Functional
    Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense. They are here
    before the subcommittee today to discuss the fiscal year 2008
    budget request for missile defense.
        Gentlemen, it's been a banner year for missile defense.
    After nearly 25 years and over $90 billion spent, I believe we
    can finally say, with confidence, that we have turned the
    corner. The United States has a system in place that could be
    operational if needed. Indeed, when North Korea tested multiple
    missiles last January, parts of the missile defense system were
    on alert, tracking, and ready to respond.
        You should be proud of the agency's accomplishments. In the
    past year alone, the ground-based missile defense (GMD)
    interceptor, the aegis sea-based missile defense system and the
    terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD), the theatre high
    area altitude defense system all succeeded as designed at
    intercepting targets which simulated attacking missiles.
        Today we face a new challenge. It is time to get these
    missile defense capabilities operational and fielded. It's time
    to move from research and development to fielding a system that
    is fully tested and fully capable. We have the pillars in place
    to do this with GMD, aegis, and THAAD. These programs require
    our full attention.
        It is these programs that will serve as a basis for our
    missile defense capabilities for decades to come and I'm
    pleased to see that the fiscal year 2008 budget request goes a
    long way toward accomplishing this. However, there are many
    issues that I hope you will address today regarding the nearly
    $9 billion budget request before the subcommittee, including
    the need for the European Third Site, our progress and
    cooperation with the Japanese on missile defense and the
    introduction of a space test bed in the missile defense
    program.
        I thank both of you for appearing before the subcommittee
    and I look forward to hearing your remarks but before we do,
    may I call upon the vice chairman, Senator Stevens.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Generals. I apologize for being a little late. You've heard the
    chairman's statement and if there is anything that stands out
    about this program is that it's been totally supported on a
    bipartisan basis by this subcommittee and I stand by and
    endorse everything that the chairman has said. I look forward
    to some questions when we get to that point. But I too,
    congratulate you on the continued success of this program and I
    look forward to working with you on it. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I
    just want to welcome both General Campbell and General Obering
    and I agree with you, Chairman Inouye, that we have turned the
    corner after many years and I look forward to their testimony
    today. I think we will see more progress in this same area.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, Senator. General Obering.
        General Obering. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Stevens, Senator Shelby. I'm honored to have this opportunity.
    I ask that my written statement be entered into the record.
        This morning, I would like to emphasize very briefly, four
    key points. First, the ballistic missile threats are real and
    growing. Now is not the time to cut back America's efforts to
    defend our homeland, deployed forces, allies, and friends from
    these threats.
        Second, the integrated layered missile defense system that
    thousands of Americans have been developing, fielding and
    deploying, works and is having an impact. Third, we are
    developing and fielding missile defense capability at an
    unprecedented pace within our budget constraints, using the
    flexible acquisition authorities that you have given us.
        And fourth, we are gaining widespread international support
    and cooperation. In the last year, as you said, we have seen
    aggressive ballistic missile development and test efforts in
    North Korea and Iran as well as terrorist use of ballistic
    rockets in attacks against Israel.
        So far this year, the pace of foreign ballistic missile
    testing is roughly twice that of last year, reflecting a
    determination to acquire these valuable weapons, a value
    generated by the historical act of deployed defenses against
    them. Therefore, it is critical that we continue to develop,
    field, and deploy missile defenses to devalue these weapons.
        Last summer, when North Korea launched several missiles
    capable of striking our allies and deployed forces in the
    Pacific with an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
    believed capable of striking the United States, we were able to
    provide the President an option--an option to activate an
    integrated missile defense system, a system that I have
    confidence in. This confidence is borne in our test program,
    which accounts for almost $2 billion per year.
        We have taken on the challenge of realistically testing a
    complex system that covers more than 10 time zones and that
    intercepts warheads, both in the atmosphere and in space. The
    Director of Operations Test and Evaluation and I have approved
    an integrated master test plan, which includes criteria for
    operational realism.
        In particular, this past September, we conducted a long-
    range intercept flight test that involved the use of
    operational crews, operational fire control, and fielded
    software. We also used operational sensors and an operational
    interceptor launched from an operational missile field. Over
    the past year, the Missile Defense Agency has conducted more
    than 35 major tests and successfully met our primary test
    objectives in 15 of 16 flight tests and yesterday, we
    successfully launched the near field experimental satellite
    into low Earth orbit.
        Overall, since 2001, we have built a record of 26
    successful hit to kill engagements and 34 attempts. This does
    not mean that there may not be setbacks in the future, because
    our test schedule remains very aggressive. For the remainder of
    this year, we plan to conduct two more long-range intercept
    flight tests, four aegis flight tests, two terminal area
    defense flight tests, one Israeli arrow test, and dozens of
    ground tests.
        We have also been successful in the unprecedented fielding
    and deployment of capability to the warfighter, thanks to an
    underlying acquisition approach that gives us the flexibility
    to manage risk while continually upgrading the program.
        As a result, in just over 30 months, since June 2004, we
    have in place 17 long-range interceptors in Alaska and
    California, modified 16 aegis ships for missile tracking with 7
    of those ships able to launch the 20 sea-based interceptors
    that we have fielded. We have upgraded three land-based early
    warning radars, delivered two transportable radars and one
    massive sea-based X-band radar and we fielded command and
    control capabilities in Hawaii, Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska,
    Washington, and the United Kingdom. Using our approach, we have
    achieved in 2\1/2\ years what would have taken two or three
    times longer with the standard process.
        Our acquisition flexibility has also allowed us to
    implement numerous cost saving measures. We have reduced
    unneeded overhead by approximately $1.8 billion from 2006 to
    2011. More specifically, we saved enough money in the ground-
    based mid-course program alone to purchase four more
    interceptors. I believe that rolling back this flexibility
    would be a grave mistake for the warfighters and for the
    taxpayers.
        The inclusion of U.S. Strategic Command and the other
    combatant commands in our development, testing, training, and
    fielding activities has been another key to the success. We
    worked with them closely and the services from defining and
    prioritizing requirements to transition and transfer plans for
    operations and support.
        Based on this solid foundation, we are now requesting $8.9
    billion for 2008, with more than 75 percent of those funds or
    $7.1 billion going to near-term capabilities and the remainder
    of $1.8 billion allocated to develop defenses against the
    threats that may loom tomorrow.
        This budget reflects a three-part strategy. First, we seek
    $5.9 billion to maintain and sustain an initial capability that
    includes the fielding of up to 44 long-range interceptors in
    Alaska and California, deployment of up to 132 sea-based
    interceptors on 18 aegis ships, deployment of two mobile
    terminal air defense fire units with 48 interceptors and
    expanding our critical command, control, battle management and
    communications element. Sustaining its overall capability is
    approaching $1 billion per year.
        Second, we seek $1.6 billion to close the gaps and improve
    our capability to keep pace with growing threats. This
    objective does include the fielding of 10 long-range
    interceptors and a mid-course radar in Europe to defend our
    deployed forces and allies in that theatre as well as providing
    additional protection to the United States. We have entered
    into discussions with Poland and the Czech Republic to host
    these assets and we have been engaged with our North Atlantic
    Treaty Organization (NATO) partners and the Russians.
        In fact, just last week, I appeared before both the NATO
    Council and the NATO Russia Council to brief our proposals for
    missile defense. The Secretary General said it best afterward
    when he stated that the NATO Alliance is in absolute agreement
    that there is a shared perception of the threat, which must be
    addressed, and that NATO is committed to indivisible security.
    He went on to state that there were no objections voiced in the
    Alliance to the United States, Czech, and Polish proposal and
    that the proposal would not change the strategic balance
    between the United States and Russia.
        Finally, we request $1.4 billion for the third component of
    our strategy to develop options for future threats, options
    which include boost phase defenses and the ability to provide
    persistent space-based global detection and tracking. Missile
    defense is global in nature and we have an increasing number of
    allies and friends joining us in our efforts.
        Japan remains one of our closest partners in missile
    defense. Together, we have successfully flight-tested new nose
    cone technologies and agreed to co-develop a larger version of
    the standard missile 3. We are working closely with the United
    Kingdom and Denmark to upgrade existing early warning radars.
    We have also signed cooperative agreements with Australia and
    Italy and continue to work with Israel on both medium- and
    short-range missile defenses. And we have begun collaborating
    on missile defense with many, many other nations.
        In closing, I want to emphasize that the threat we are
    facing from ballistic missiles is real and growing. As we look
    to the gathering clouds of the threat on the horizon, I believe
    that we are reaching a critical point. Moving ahead strongly
    with our allies in building missile defenses, we can send a
    strong message to our enemies. Investing in ballistic missiles
    is just not worth it. We can and will destroy them if used
    against us or our allies. But if they continue to threaten us
    or our allies, I want to ensure that we have an answer for the
    people when they ask us, as they did last summer, can you
    defend us against these weapons?
        We have overcome setbacks and technical hurdles, as you
    said but thanks to the support from this subcommittee and
    Congress, we are succeeding in our mission and we have
    absolutely no reason to slow down. Thank you very much for the
    opportunity to appear before you and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, General Obering.
        [The statement follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Henry A. Obering III
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, distinguished members
    of the committee. It is an honor to present the Department of Defense's
    fiscal year 2008 Missile Defense program and budget.
        I am pleased to report that 2006 was a year of significant
    accomplishment for all aspects of our missile defense program. We made
    substantial progress in developing, testing and fielding an integrated,
    layered Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) to defend the United
    States, our deployed forces, and our allies and friends against
    ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of their flight.
        Of the $8.9 billion we are requesting in fiscal year 2008, we will
    allocate $7.1 billion for near-term efforts and $1.8 billion for
    longer-term programs. In the near-term, we seek to build on, and
    sustain, our current capability to defend the homeland against limited
    long-range ballistic missile threats and protect allies, friends and
    deployed forces against short- to medium-range threats. To achieve this
    goal, we intend to complete by the end of 2011 the fielding of up to 44
    Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) in Alaska and California; enhance our
    early warning radars in Alaska, California and the United Kingdom;
    integrate the Sea-based X-band (SBX) radar into the BMD system; deploy
    up to 132 sea-based Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors on 18 Aegis
    engagement ships; and expand our command, control and battle-management
    network by establishing three new command and control suites at U.S.
    Strategic Command, U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Northern Command.
        We also seek to close gaps and improve our capability to defend
    against a growing Iranian threat. We will continue the initiative we
    began this year to field 10 long-range interceptors and a midcourse
    radar in Europe beginning in 2011. This initiative is essential for a
    robust, layered defense of the homeland against long-range threats from
    the Middle East. It will also extend this defense to our deployed
    forces, allies and friends in the region who currently have no defense
    against longer-range ballistic missiles. To improve our capabilities to
    defeat more complex threat suites, our Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV)
    program will allow us to engage multiple warheads and countermeasures
    with a single interceptor launch. Delivering this volume kill
    capability is important to the warfighter and is one of our top
    priorities.
        For the longer-term, we are developing the Space Tracking and
    Surveillance System to provide a persistent, near-real-time global
    detection, tracking and fire control capability. This system will
    significantly increase the BMD system's agility and flexibility to
    respond to future worldwide emerging threats. We also continue to
    pursue boost-phase intercept capabilities in order to increase the
    ``depth'' of our integrated, layered system. Boost-phase defenses
    promise to increase our intercept opportunities and destroy enemy
    ballistic missiles when they are most vulnerable. The Airborne Laser
    (ABL) remains our primary boost-phase program. Based on the Defense
    Science Board's recommendation, we're continuing the high-acceleration
    Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) booster development effort as an
    option in the event ABL does not meet critical knowledge points in its
    test program. The United States-Japanese cooperative development of a
    follow-on SM-3 interceptor to give the Aegis system an intercontinental
    ballistic missile (ICBM) intercept capability, a robust sea-based
    terminal capability to defeat shorter-range threats, a modest
    experimental Space Test Bed, and our continuing advanced technology
    efforts all support the goal of closing capability gaps in the system.
                       the evolving security environment
        This past 4th of July, millions of Americans were made aware of
    just how real the threat from ballistic missiles is and how vital the
    missile defense program is to our national security. With the launches
    of the short-, medium- and long-range missiles by North Korea, missile
    defense became an urgent matter overnight. Because of the efforts of
    thousands of Americans dedicated to this program, we were able to
    activate a missile defense system to protect the United States had a
    threat emerged.
        In November 2006 and January 2007 Tehran conducted several short-
    and medium-range ballistic missile and rocket launches. In the November
    exercises Iran demonstrated for the world its offensive capabilities
    via televised broadcasts.
        North Korea and Iran dedicate significant resources to acquiring
    ballistic missiles, to include new medium- and intermediate-range
    systems capable of reaching forward-deployed U.S. forces and our allies
    and friends. North Korea continues to work on intercontinental-range
    systems capable of reaching the United States. In addition, our
    intelligence community assesses that Iran would be able to develop an
    ICBM before 2015 if it chose to do so.\1\ With the missile firings over
    the past year, they have also demonstrated the ability to conduct
    coordinated launch operations. But they are not alone.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, USN, Director, Defense
    Intelligence Agency, ``Current and Projected National Security Threats
    to the United States,'' Statement before the Senate Armed Services
    Committee, 17 March 2005, p. 11.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2006 there were about 100 foreign ballistic missile launches
    around the world. This year to date, the pace of testing is about twice
    that of last year--a trend reflecting the determination of many
    countries to acquire these capabilities.
        The actions of North Korea and Iran this past year demonstrate the
    determination of these rogue regimes to achieve this capability and
    potentially weapons of mass destruction to further aggressive ends.
    With the proliferation of ballistic missile technology, we expect to be
    surprised by unexpected and more robust threats. The missile defense
    development program recognizes that we must stay a step ahead of a
    dynamic threat.
                 u.s. ballistic missile defenses--a report card
        In January 2002, just a little more than 5 short years ago, the
    Secretary of Defense directed the agency to restructure the missile
    defense program to deal with the urgency, enormity and complexity of
    developing, testing and building a missile defense system. This bold
    initiative required the adoption of an evolutionary acquisition
    strategy to be executed by a single agency, a strategy that relies on
    continual assessments of the threat, available technology, and what can
    be built and fielded to provide a militarily useful capability in an
    urgent manner.
        Having capitalized on our steady progress since the 1980s, the
    dedicated men and women of the Missile Defense Agency and our
    industrial partners delivered to the Combatant Commanders in 2004 an
    initial missile defense capability to defeat the near-term long-range
    missile threat. Supported by an extensive command, control, battle
    management and communications (C2BMC) infrastructure, we connected
    additional system elements to the fire control system and put in place
    trained system operators, the logistics support infrastructure and
    support centers required for this limited operational system.
        To date, we have made significant, and in many ways, unprecedented
    strides to deliver a capability where none existed before. Since 2002
    we have fielded and completed the initial integration of land- and sea-
    based interceptors, mobile and fixed sensors and command, control,
    battle management, and communications suites to deliver one of the most
    complex and comprehensive defensive capabilities ever envisioned. And
    we did so while sustaining an aggressive development program that
    continues to feed new technologies into the system.
        Mr. Chairman, the missile defense investments of 4 administrations
    and 11 congresses are paying off. With the initial deployment of a
    limited missile defense capability, the era of absolute vulnerability
    of our country to a long-range missile attack came to a close. This is
    important, because I believe a capability against even a single reentry
    vehicle has significant military utility. The modest long-, medium-,
    and short-range defensive capabilities we have today can help reduce
    the more immediate threats to our security and enhance our ability to
    defend our interests abroad.
        Long-Range Defenses.--As part of our strategy to protect the United
    States from ballistic missiles launched from North Korea or Iran, we
    have emplaced high-performance interceptors in missile fields at two
    sites and integrated them into the system. The system's Ground-Based
    Interceptors use hit-to-kill technologies to destroy intermediate- and
    long-range ballistic missile warheads in space, in the midcourse phase
    of flight. These are the only weapons we have available today to defeat
    longer-range threats once they have been launched. With 18 interceptors
    emplaced today, we plan to increase interceptor inventories at Fort
    Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California up to 24 by
    the end of this year.
        The system today will receive a cue from Defense Support Program
    satellites or from one of 16 long-range surveillance and track Aegis
    destroyers that could be stationed near the threat region. These
    satellites and ships can pass detection or cueing data across
    communications lines into BMD system communication and battle manager
    nodes located in Fort Greely and Colorado Springs. Today we stand ready
    to locate and track threats coming out of East Asia using the Cobra
    Dane radar in the Aleutians and the upgraded early warning radar at
    Beale Air Force Base, California.
        Powerful X-band radars located on a mobile platform in the Pacific
    Ocean and at Shariki, Japan can provide precise tracking and
    discrimination to increase the probability we will destroy any lethal
    target. A 2006 independent assessment concluded that the Sea-Based X-
    band radar, which deployed to the Pacific at the end of 2005, is
    sufficiently rugged to operate in the rough seas of the northern
    Pacific. These conditions were validated this past winter when the SBX
    experienced extremely hazardous weather with negligible impact. Also in
    2006, we deployed the first forward-based X-band radar to Japan,
    accelerating its deployment and supporting C2BMC equipment to its
    operational location in Shariki Japan, achieving partial mission
    capability in October 2006.
        Short- to Medium-Range Defenses.--Since 2004 we have expanded and
    improved terminal and midcourse defenses to defeat short- and medium-
    range threats from land and sea. 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 began fielding
    Standard Missile-3 interceptors in 2004, evolving to a more capable
    interceptor. With our growing inventory of Standard Missile-3
    interceptors on Aegis ships, we can provide a flexible sea-mobile
    capability to defeat short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles in
    their midcourse phase. In 2005 we upgraded the first Aegis cruisers for
    the engagement mission. Today we have available three Aegis BMD
    engagement cruisers and four engagement destroyers.
        Having successfully transitioned the Patriot Advanced Capability-3
    (PAC-3) to the U.S. Army in March 2003, we continue to maintain
    configuration control and work with that service to improve and upgrade
    PAC-3 and Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) performance.
    Today, PAC-3 fire units are being integrated into the forces of our
    allies and friends, many of whom face immediate short- and medium-range
    threats.
        Integrating the System.--For the ballistic missile defense system
    to work effectively, all of its separate elements must be integrated
    across several Combatant Commands. This capability allows us to mix and
    match sensors, weapons and command centers to dramatically expand
    detection and engagement capabilities over what can be achieved by the
    system's elements operating individually. Combatant Commanders can use
    the C2BMC infrastructure to enhance planning, synchronize globally
    dispersed missile defense assets, and manage weapon inventories. These
    capabilities also can provide our senior government leadership
    situational awareness of ballistic missile launches and defense
    activities. Today we have in place a planning capability within U.S.
    Strategic, Northern, and Pacific Commands.
        Supporting the Warfighter.--This past year we continued work with
    U.S. Strategic Command and other Combatant Commands to train missile
    defense crews at all echelons, ensuring that they can operate the
    ballistic missile defense system if called upon to do so. We
    established a BMD operations watch officer to provide real-time BMD
    situational awareness, operational status, and coordinate the
    configuration of the system and have executed a series of exercises,
    which involve temporarily putting the system in a launch-ready state.
        We have set up a process to collaborate with the Combatant
    Commanders and the military services to define and prioritize
    requirements as the system evolves. For example, we did not have a sea-
    based terminal layer planned for the program until the Commander of
    U.S. Strategic Command identified this as a desired capability. Once
    this need was identified, we worked with the Navy to define and budget
    for near- and far-term programs for a sea-based terminal defense. We
    also have worked closely with the services and the Office of Secretary
    of Defense on transition and transfer activities to address operations
    and support of the system elements. The Deputy Secretary of Defense
    identified lead military departments for eight elements of the BMDS,
    and the Navy has just agreed to take on lead service responsibility for
    the Sea-Based X-Band Radar. We have developed transition and transfer
    plans with the services and the Combatant Commands. These plans capture
    both agreements and the roles and responsibilities associated with
    evolving operations and support activities. This collaboration with the
    warfighter includes training, testing, wargaming, and conducting
    exercises and simulations, all of which help demonstrate and improve
    the capability and reliability of the missile defense system.
        BMD System On Alert.--As I stated earlier, when the North Koreans
    conducted their launches last summer, for the first time in the history
    of the United States, we had the capability to defend our people
    against a long-range missile had it been necessary. Working closely
    with U.S. Strategic Command's Joint Functional Component Commander for
    Integrated Missile Defense, we successfully took the system out of the
    development mode and handed it over to the warfighter for operation.
    This activation of the system last June helped us to refine procedures
    and taught us invaluable lessons about system operations.
        Alert activities included activation of the ground-based midcourse
    defense and the deployment of a missile defense capability to the Sea
    of Japan. We had Aegis long-range surveillance and track ships
    stationed east and west of Japan during the missile firings. Data
    collected from these sensors would have helped identify whether the
    long-range launch was a ballistic missile or a space launch vehicle and
    would have provided tracking data to the system. The C2BMC situational
    awareness displays were operational and being monitored at the various
    commands.
        We also accelerated the capability of the forward-based X-band
    radar in Japan for data collection. The Sea-Based X-band radar was
    stationed off Hawaii and similarly standing by for data collection. At
    the time, the forward-based radar and the sea-based radar were not
    integrated into the system. Given these events from last summer and our
    ability to bring the system on line and prepare it for emergency use, I
    am very confident that the system would have operated as designed had
    the Taepo Dong-2 threatened the United States.
        We have an operational system today because of the capability-based
    acquisition approach we have followed since 2002. This approach
    leverages collaboration with the warfighter community throughout
    development and testing to the point where we transition or transfer
    capabilities to the operators. Some have asserted that our non-
    traditional approach lacks discipline, transparency, and/or
    accountability. I do not agree. I think the progress we have made to
    date in fielding a missile defense capability speaks for itself and
    justifies the continuation of this approach. Had we followed the
    traditional acquisition approach, we would not have had an operational
    capability to respond to the potential threat from North Korea. Had we
    followed the traditional approach, I believe we truly would have
    ``delivered less at a higher cost.''
        The missile defense program is highly scrutinized by the Department
    of Defense, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government
    Accountability Office, and the Congress. In 2004 Congress required the
    Missile Defense Agency to submit a cost, schedule and performance
    baseline for each block configuration of the BMDS being fielded. We
    have complied with this law every year, describing our baseline in
    terms of 2-year increments of capability called fielding blocks. From
    an acquisition process perspective, I understand that we are blazing
    new trails, and the information we provide is therefore different from
    what people are used to seeing. I understand the onus is on us to
    clearly convey to Congress that we are fielding ballistic missile
    defense capability in a responsible and transparent manner, and I am
    committed to doing that. I have therefore directed my staff to complete
    a review of our current approach and look at ways to better describe
    our baseline program.
        use of procurement funds would set back missile defense progress
        In 2002 the Department of Defense directed the Missile Defense
    Agency to use research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
    funding to develop and field a single integrated missile defense system
    outside the traditional acquisition process. This direction gave MDA
    the ability to make knowledge-based decisions and incrementally fund
    system element and component quantities, combinations, and upgrades to
    support accelerated fielding and keep pace with an evolving, uncertain
    threat.
        The use of RDT&E funds makes possible a development and fielding
    approach that: provides flexibility to pursue multiple development
    paths, reducing risk inherent in BMD system engineering by allowing MDA
    to scale back on less promising efforts; demonstrates what works and
    what does not; allows for flexible responses to changes in the evolving
    threat; and facilitates technology-based improvements during
    development and fielding phases.
        The flexibility in the current missile defense program was highly
    advantageous for the Nation this past summer when the North Koreans
    launched short-,
    medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles, making missile defense an
    urgent matter overnight. If we had used procurement funding at the
    start of the missile defense program in 2002, we arguably would not
    have had a system to activate to meet the possible threat to our
    security this past July. The average major defense acquisition program
    has a cycle-time of 6 years between Milestone B (program start) and
    Milestone C (authorization for production). Assuming the BMDS had
    received Milestone B approval in 2002, MDA would have been seeking
    Milestone C approval in 2008 before it could begin procurement and
    fielding of the long-range missile defense system. The traditional
    acquisition process simply does not accommodate the development and
    fielding of a complex and military useful ballistic missile defense
    capability on an urgent timeline.
        However, if we were told today to use procurement funds to field
    BMDS assets rather than incrementally fund them across the fiscal year
    defense program, as we have done for the last 4 years with
    congressional support, I think it is important to understand the
    impacts. Procurement funding would complicate the ability to respond
    with agility to the evolving threat and limit MDA's ability to
    implement efficiencies and improvements in the BMD system.
        The required use of procurement funding also would narrow
    significantly the content of program work (decreasing our development
    options for meeting future threats). For example, MDA would be forced
    to pay for all current on-going fielding programs in 1 fiscal year or
    stretch out the fielding of near-term assets over a longer period of
    time than currently planned. This requirement could add as much as $3.3
    billion in additional cost to our projected budget in fiscal year 2009
    alone. To pay for this shortfall in one fiscal year, MDA would have to
    terminate, for all practical purposes, most of its development efforts,
    eliminating options for future capabilities and compromising the
    current system engineering and testing processes. The alternative would
    be to delay current fielding activities of critical assets such as the
    Ground-Based Interceptors, the Standard Missile-3 and the Terminal High
    Altitude Area Defense System. And this would only be the start.
        Changing the funding approach also would restrict or eliminate the
    agency's ability to make responsive schedule and funding adjustments,
    as was done with the flight-test stand-down in early 2005. Another
    example was the adjustment we made to the Standard Missile-3 missile
    fielding as a result of design issues associated with the third stage
    rocket motor and the Divert and Attitude Control System. The ability to
    make these adjustments allowed the agency to implement key
    recommendations of the Mission Readiness Task Force that have since put
    the long-range test program back on track. The restrictions in program
    flexibility imposed by the use of procurement funding would have
    greatly limited the agency's ability to accelerate last year's
    deployment of the forward-based X-band radar to Japan and hindered the
    actions it took to recover Ground-Based Interceptor and THAAD
    interceptor production capabilities following the 2003 booster motor
    plant explosion at a key contractor facility.
        I remain committed to working with the Congress to develop a new
    approach allowing the continued use of RDT&E funding while providing
    Congress with the information it needs to ensure accountability and
    oversight.
                   building confidence through spiral testing
        Testing under operationally realistic conditions is an important
    part of maturing the system. We have been fielding test assets in
    operational configurations in order to conduct increasingly complex and
    end-to-end tests of the system. While the BMD system is a developmental
    system, it is available today to our leadership for activation to meet
    real world threats. Given this dual function of the test bed, the
    operational test agencies and the warfighting community are very active
    in all phases of our test planning, execution, and post-test analysis.
        Using criteria established by the agency's system engineers and our
    warfighters, all system ground and flight tests provide data that we
    and the operational test community use to verify the system's
    functionality and operational effectiveness. Our flight tests are
    increasing in operational realism, limited only by environmental and
    safety concerns. Each system test builds on the knowledge gained from
    previous tests and adds increasingly challenging objectives, with the
    downstream goal of devising scenarios that test elements of the system
    from end-to-end. This spiral test approach increases knowledge of, and
    confidence in, the system performance while maintaining safety and
    minimizing artificiality.
        Last year I explained that we had several concerns with quality
    control and reliability that led to two successive Ground-based
    Midcourse Defense test aborts, problems that we have since
    comprehensively addressed. The independent review team concluded that
    the deficiencies in systems engineering, ground qualification testing,
    flight test readiness certification, contractor process control and
    program scheduling were not systemic and did not compromise initial
    defensive capabilities. I testified last year that I did not view the
    failures as major technical setbacks.
        Coming off the very successful fly-out of the operational
    configuration long-range interceptor in December 2005, we conducted a
    long-range intercept flight test last September that exceeded our
    objectives. That complex test involved an operationally configured
    interceptor launched from an operationally configured silo at
    Vandenberg Air Force Base, operational sensors, and operationally
    trained crews manning the fire control consoles. The test demonstrated
    the functionality of the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle and the ability
    to engage a threat-representative target using the Upgraded Early
    Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base in California. After the kill
    vehicle acquired the target launched out of the Kodiak Launch Complex
    in Alaska nearly 3,000 km away from the engagement zone, it
    successfully intercepted it. While it was not hooked into the system,
    we also demonstrated the powerful contributions the Sea-Based X-band
    radar can make in the areas of tracking and discrimination. This was
    our most operationally realistic, end-to-end test of the system
    involving the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element to date.
        Over this past year the Missile Defense Agency conducted more than
    35 major tests and successfully met our primary test objectives in 14
    out of 15 flight tests. In fact, during a 90-day period last summer, we
    achieved successful hit-to-kill intercepts in the lower atmosphere with
    the Patriot Advanced Capability-3, in the upper reaches of the
    atmosphere with the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense element, and in
    space with the Aegis Standard Missile-3 and the Ground-Based Midcourse
    Defense elements. Including tests of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3,
    we achieved seven hit-to-kill intercepts of ballistic missile targets
    in eight attempts in 2006. Since 2001, we have built a record of 26
    successful hit-to-kill engagements in 34 attempts. Our test plans for
    2007 and 2008 will continue to use more complex and realistic scenarios
    for system-level flight tests.
        We plan three more long-range interceptor flight tests by the end
    of this year that continue to push the edge of the envelope in testing
    complexity. All tests will continue to use operationally trained crews
    and the operational launch site at Vandenberg. We plan to integrate the
    Sea-Based X-band radar into the system for the intercept test in late
    summer as we continue to expand the number of sensors available to us
    to cue the system and engage targets.
        On June 22 of last year, we successfully used a U.S. Navy Aegis
    cruiser to engage a separating target carried on a threat-
    representative medium-range ballistic missile. As we had done in the
    past three flight tests, we did not notify the operational ship's crew
    of the target launch time, and they were forced to react to a dynamic
    situation. The role of the crew is an important part of our ability to
    engage hostile missiles, and last December we increased test complexity
    by attempting a simultaneous engagement of aerial and ballistic targets
    and by using operator-selectable parameters to allow for automatic
    identification of targets. A crew member changed the ship's doctrine
    parameters just prior to target launch. This modification prevented the
    ship's fire control system from conducting the planned ballistic
    missile and aerial target engagements. The primary target was a very
    short-range ballistic missile, and thus there was insufficient time for
    manual engagement. When the Standard Missile-3 interceptor failed to
    launch, we aborted the launch of the Standard Missile-2 interceptor.
    This is another example of why we conduct tests--to expose flaws in the
    system and wring out operational procedures. We are working to resolve
    the problem we experienced in the test last December and expect to
    conduct it again this spring.
        We plan four more Aegis intercept flight tests in 2007. We will
    again demonstrate the integration of the Aegis BMD weapon system into
    the overall BMD system and evaluate the ship crew's performance in
    executing an operationally realistic BMD mission. Early this summer, we
    will attempt an intercept of a separating, medium-range target using
    the Standard Missile-3 Block IA interceptor. Later this year, we will
    demonstrate the ability to engage two near-simultaneous short-range
    unitary targets. Also late in 2007, as part of our growing partnership
    with Japan, a Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Kongo-class ship
    will attempt to engage a medium-range ballistic missile separating
    target using the Block IA Standard Missile-3 interceptor. This will be
    the first such firing by a maritime ally. In 2008 we will engage a
    separating intermediate-range ballistic missile target using off-board
    sensor information to launch the interceptor. We will also attempt a
    second sea-based intercept test with our Japanese partners.
        As I mentioned earlier, flight-testing involving the redesigned
    Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor continued last
    July with a successful engagement of a unitary target high in the
    atmosphere. In September we again sought to demonstrate the performance
    of the new missile and the ability to integrate it into the BMD system,
    but we were unable to do so following the failure of the target
    missile. This past January and earlier this month, we again
    successfully destroyed short-range targets. These endo-atmospheric
    engagements were the first such tests of the THAAD interceptor at the
    Pacific Missile Range Facility. To demonstrate the capability of the
    THAAD fire unit to intercept at different altitudes in the atmosphere
    and in low exo-atmosphere, we plan one more intercept test in space
    later this year against a unitary target. In 2008 we plan to
    demonstrate interceptor capabilities against more stressing targets. We
    will conduct two intercept tests involving the THAAD interceptor, one
    against a separating target in space, and the other against a
    separating target high in the atmosphere. Further, the first test in
    2008 will include the launch of two THAAD interceptors. The Missile
    Defense Agency will also participate in Patriot combined developmental/
    operational tests as well as Air Force Glory Trip flight tests.
        In 2007 we will continue with our successful ground testing, which
    involves warfighter personnel and test hardware and software in the
    integrated system configuration to demonstrate system connectivity and
    interoperability. Upcoming tests will verify integration of the sea-
    based, forward-based, and Fylingdales radars. The funds we are
    requesting will support additional capability demonstrations and
    readiness demonstrations led by the warfighting community. We currently
    cannot test and train on the system while it is in full operational
    mode. To address this problem, we are developing a capability to
    support continued research, development, test, evaluation, and
    maintenance while concurrently sustaining operational readiness.
        Based on the many tests we have conducted to date, we maintain our
    confidence in the BMD system's basic design, its hit-to-kill
    effectiveness, and its inherent operational capability. We continue to
    work closely with the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation,
    Operational Test Agencies, and Combatant Commanders to characterize the
    effectiveness and readiness of the system at every stage in its
    development and fielding. We are developing the capability to conduct
    concurrent test, training, and operations, which will allow Combatant
    Commanders to keep the system in operational mode while we test, train,
    and make improvements to the system.
                           bmd system fielding plans
        Maintaining and Sustaining the Capability.--The top priority of the
    Missile Defense Agency is to maintain and sustain the deployed initial
    capability to stay ahead of the North Korean and Iranian threats. This
    means improving long-range capabilities for homeland defense and moving
    forward with initial defenses to protect allies and U.S. interests
    abroad against shorter-range ballistic missiles.
        Our program strategy completes the fielding of ground-based
    interceptors in Alaska and California. We will begin construction in
    2007 of a third missile field at Fort Greely and accelerate delivery of
    interceptors. We also will begin increasing the number of interceptors
    available at Vandenberg Air Force Base from two to four. An additional
    fifth silo at Vandenberg will be dedicated to testing. We will have up
    to 30 long-range interceptors deployed by the end of 2008. For
    midcourse capability against the long-range threat, the Ground-based
    Midcourse Defense element budget request for fiscal year 2008 of about
    $2.5 billion will cover continued development, ground- and flight-
    testing, fielding and support.
        To address short- to intermediate-range threats, in 2006 we added
    one Aegis engagement cruiser, for a total of three, and three Aegis
    engagement destroyers. As we convert destroyers this year to add the
    engagement capability, the number of long-range surveillance and track
    (LRS&T) ships will fall from 10 at the end of 2006 to 7 and our total
    number of fully BMD-capable Aegis engagement ships (cruisers and
    destroyers) will climb to 10. By the end of 2008, we plan to have
    delivered 13 Aegis engagement destroyers and 3 engagement cruisers and
    40 interceptors to inventory. System tests will involve further
    demonstrations of the sea-based interceptor, and we will continue
    enhancing the system's discrimination capability. For fiscal year 2008,
    we are requesting approximately $1.044 billion to continue Aegis BMD
    development and testing.
        To supplement the Cobra Dane and Beale radars, we will finish the
    integration work on the Royal Air Force Fylingdales early warning radar
    in the United Kingdom. It will be fully operational by the end of this
    year. This radar will provide coverage against Middle East launches
    against the United States and our allies in Europe. Our fiscal year
    2008 budget request for BMD radars is $758 million. These funds will
    continue forward-based radar integration work and complete construction
    of a permanent basing site at Shariki Air Base. We will also have
    available for deployment a second forward-based X-band radar.
        With this year's budget request of $247 million for the C2BMC
    activity, we will continue to use spiral development to incrementally
    develop, test, and field hardware and software improvements leading to
    a robust, net-centric missile defense capability that fights as a
    system. We have made incredible progress in this area despite
    decrements in funding over the past couple of years. Our ability to
    defend against highly lethal threats or operate in a very complex,
    stressing battle environment spanning multiple theaters requires all
    missile defense elements, which may be spread over thousands of miles,
    to work together as a ``team.'' Today we can do that. I am very proud
    of what our national team for integration has achieved. We will press
    on with the development of the Global Engagement Manager at the Pacific
    Air Operations Center and integrate into the system the forward-based
    radar in Japan, the Sea-Based X-band radar, and the Fylingdales radar.
    We plan to install additional planning and situational awareness
    capabilities to facilitate executive decision-making in the European
    Command and the Central Command by 2009.
        Closing Capability Gaps.--Our long-term strategy is to make the
    system more robust, reliable and flexible in order to close gaps in our
    missile defense capabilities. In line with our multilayer approach, the
    missile defense program in fiscal year 2008 and beyond will expand
    terminal defense protection, upgrade and improve midcourse
    discrimination and firepower, strengthen the capability of the BMDS to
    defeat coordinated attacks, and place increasing emphasis on boost
    phase defenses.
        The missile defense program will improve coverage of the United
    States and, for the first time, extend coverage to Europe against
    longer-range ballistic missiles by forward-deploying BMD assets to
    Europe. Currently, our allies in Europe do not have defenses against
    Iranian medium- and long-range ballistic missiles, and the BMD system
    currently deployed to counter the North Korean long-range threat is not
    technically configured to protect cities in Europe. Therefore, a number
    of allied governments have expressed interest in deploying defenses
    against this threat. We have agreed with Poland and the Czech Republic
    to begin focused discussions on the deployment of long-range
    interceptors and a midcourse discrimination radar. If negotiations are
    successful, we plan to modify the X-band radar currently located on the
    Kwajalein Atoll and relocate it to a site in the Czech Republic.
        The deployment of this X-band radar in Europe will complement
    sensor assets deployed in the United Kingdom and Greenland. In addition
    to increasing the number of long-range interceptors emplaced at missile
    fields in Alaska and California, we are hopeful that successful
    completion of negotiations with the government of Poland will allow us
    to start emplacing 10 two-stage configurations of our flight-proven
    ground-based interceptors in Poland beginning in 2011. Central Europe
    provides an optimal location for the interceptors and radar to protect
    all European countries threatened by threats greater than 1,500 km out
    of Iran. These missile defense assets would complement and enhance
    future North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile defense systems. By
    devaluing Iran's longer-range missile force, European missile defenses
    could help dissuade the Iranian government from further investing in
    ballistic missiles and deter it from using those weapons in a conflict.
        There has been some discussion that the defense of all of Europe
    from ballistic missile attack would be more cost-effective if we were
    to replace the fixed missile field, midcourse radar and forward-
    deployed radar currently planned for Europe with mobile missile
    defenses. By our calculations, this is clearly not the case. There are
    serious drawbacks to planning an architecture of mobile systems in lieu
    of the currently planned fixed architecture.
        First, the current configurations of Aegis BMD and terminal high
    altitude area defense do not have the ability to counter
    intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) without extensive and
    costly modifications. Likewise, mobile system sensors for Aegis BMD and
    THAAD cannot provide equivalent radar coverage of Europe. They are
    designed to be augmented with other sensors, like the European
    Midcourse Radar, and their interceptors are designed to engage slower
    short- to medium-range ballistic missiles systems. Without sensor
    augmentation, Aegis BMD ships, using the SM-3 Block IIA (currently
    under development and not available until after 2015), would protect
    approximately only half of Europe against longer-range missiles.
    Furthermore, the THAAD interceptor would require extensive redesign to
    be able to intercept long-range threat missiles. Importantly, if these
    mobile short-range systems achieved an intercept, the intercept would
    occur in the lower parts of the atmosphere where post-engagement
    effects, such as chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon fallout and
    electro-magnetic pulse effects would be of great concern to cities and
    other civilian areas.
        Second, the protection of Europe with mobile systems such as Aegis
    BMD and THAAD would come at a cost that is more than five times greater
    to field and sustain when compared to the fixed BMD site plan. It will
    require 10 Aegis ships on station with SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to
    provide 40 to 60 percent coverage of Europe (central Europe would not
    be protected). To provide this persistent partial coverage, it would
    require four rotations for a total of 40 ships dedicated to the
    European defense. Assuming 20 interceptors per ship, we would need 200
    SM-3 interceptors for the ships on station and 200 SM-3 interceptors
    for rotation. This mobile system alternative will initially cost $17
    billion, with recurring costs around $600 million per year. The command
    and control infrastructure required to support this mobile alternative
    would make this approach even more cost-prohibitive. Of note, we did
    not consider the significant impact on our Aegis ship force levels in
    this calculation.
        The cost for deploying 80 THAAD batteries (the minimum estimate to
    protect key assets Europe) would be approximately $40 billion with
    recurring costs at roughly $2.4 billion per year. The cost to field
    this additional force structure and the need to negotiate with each
    host nation also makes this option prohibitively expensive and not
    viable.
        I believe our current proposed architecture will provide the best,
    most cost-effective protection for our European allies, and it can be
    deployed beginning in 2011. It would protect all European nations
    threatened by longer-range weapons from Iran. The cost of our European
    missile defense component proposal of $3.5 billion non-recurring, and
    $250 million per year to operate and maintain, is far less expensive
    and more effective than the $16 billion, or more, and the $600 million
    per year required for a less-effective mobile ballistic missile defense
    architecture for Europe. The mobile alternative also would not provide
    any additional protection for the United States.
        We also are developing the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) system to
    upgrade long-range interceptor performance by attaining a volume kill
    capability to defeat multiple reentry vehicles and midcourse
    countermeasures. We have restructured the MKV program to develop land-
    and sea-based interceptor payloads by the middle of next decade.
    Besides bringing several kill vehicles to the fight, the MKV system
    will provide critical tracking and discrimination information to other
    system sensors and interceptors and assist with kill assessment. We
    have requested $265 million for this work in fiscal year 2008.
        This budget submission also continues the upgrade of the Thule
    early warning radar in Greenland and its integration into the system by
    2009. Together with the radars in California, Alaska and the United
    Kingdom, the Thule radar will ensure full coverage of the United States
    against threats from the Middle East. We will also continue to enhance
    additional forward-based X-band radar capabilities in Japan and other
    operating locations to meet warfighter needs.
        We also will bolster defenses against short- to medium-range
    threats by increasing the inventory of Aegis BMD sea-based interceptors
    from 86 to 132 by 2013. Upgrades to the Standard Missile-3 include
    improvement of the Divert and Attitude Control System and
    discrimination performance. We also will provide a full upgrade of the
    Aegis BMD weapon system to improve its ability to detect, acquire, and
    intercept more diverse, longer-range threats. At the end of the decade
    we will integrate Aegis BMD with the Navy-developed Open Architecture
    system to remain compatible with Navy ships following modernization.
        We will field two, and future plans call for four, Terminal High
    Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) fire units, which consist of radars and
    96 interceptors. THAAD will provide transportable terminal protection
    for our troops and areas along the U.S. coasts or on the territories of
    our allies. The first unit will be fielded in 2009, with subsequent
    units fielded by 2012. We are requesting $858 million in fiscal year
    2008 for THAAD development and fielding.
                       developing options for the future
        We do, of course, need to address far-term threats. In simplest
    terms, that means managing a program that balances initial, near-term
    fielding of system elements with long-term development. I continue to
    be a firm believer in the balanced program, because it neither
    compromises our security in the present nor short-changes our future
    safety. This approach recognizes the urgency of fielding capabilities
    to address threats we face today and the necessity of continuing
    support for vigorous development activities to prepare for tomorrow's
    ballistic missile challenges to our security.
        I am in strong agreement with the members of the House Armed
    Services Committee, who recently concluded that the country's missile
    defense program ``must be scalable in response to the evolution of the
    threat.'' \2\ The Missile Defense Agency plans to develop options for
    incrementally fielding elements of the ballistic missile defense
    system. We will do this by leveraging a key U.S. strength, our
    technological advantage, and by building with our allies a foundation
    of global access and response.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ House Armed Services Committee, Committee Defense Review
    Report, December 2006, p. 104.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In executing our program we continue to follow a strategy of
    retaining alternative development paths until capability is proven--a
    knowledge-based funding approach. That means we are setting specific
    targets, or knowledge points, that the development efforts have to
    reach to demonstrate a specific capability.
        There are several important development efforts funded in this
    budget. A significant part of missile defense investment has been
    devoted to the development of terrestrial boost phase defenses to
    supplement currently fielded midcourse and terminal defenses. An
    operational Airborne Laser (ABL) could provide a valuable boost phase
    defense capability against missiles of all ranges. We restructured the
    Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) activity to focus on development of a
    high-acceleration booster, one that is more capable than any booster we
    currently have in inventory. Either ABL or the Kinetic energy booster
    will be selected as the primary boost phase program upon completion of
    critical knowledge points before 2010.
        Over the past two years we have demonstrated in ground tests the
    power and reliability of the ABL high energy lasers. We also have
    tested the command and control and passive target detection systems in
    flight. In 2006 we refurbished the high energy laser optics and
    completed integration and ground testing of the low-power tracking and
    beacon illuminator lasers. This year we will flight test the beam
    control and atmospheric compensation lasers against a cooperative
    airborne target. Earlier this month, we reached an important milestone
    in this program when we conducted the first in-flight test of the laser
    targeting system, successfully demonstrating a technology that will
    help track a boosting ballistic missile and identify the most
    vulnerable sections on the rocket motor case to be hit by the high
    energy laser. We recently completed major structural modifications to
    the Boeing 747 aircraft to support installation of the high energy
    laser, which will continue in 2008. The $516 million we request in
    fiscal year 2008 will complete integration of the high energy laser
    modules with the modified aircraft as we prepare for a lethal shootdown
    of a ballistic missile target in 2009. Despite the continued technical
    challenges we face, I remain optimistic that we can produce an
    operationally effective directed energy capability.
        We have made good progress in our high-acceleration booster
    development effort. This past year we successfully conducted the first
    static firings of the first and second stage boosters and demonstrated
    overhead non-imaging data fusion processing within the prototype fire
    control component. This high acceleration booster also would enhance
    the performance of the currently deployed ground-based interceptor.
    Within the restructured program we will maintain options to develop a
    land-mobile launcher and fire control system as well as an option for a
    sea-based capability. We are requesting $214 million in fiscal year
    2008 for this activity.
        We plan to develop space-based sensors to provide a persistent
    identification and global tracking capability. A small constellation of
    Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) satellites will enable
    operation of the missile defense system worldwide, independent of
    terrestrial-based sensors along the threat trajectory. These sensors
    will be able to detect and track enemy ballistic missiles and payloads
    through all phases of flight and close the system fire control loop
    globally. We are on track to launch two demonstration satellites in
    November 2007. Next year, following on-orbit check-out, these
    demonstration satellites will perform live target acquisition, tracking
    and handover. We are requesting approximately $319 million in fiscal
    year 2008 to execute the Space Tracking and Surveillance System
    activity.
        We have learned a great deal from the ground-testing of the STSS
    Block 2006 sensors in representative, thermal vacuum conditions. We
    have proven that this class of sensor will achieve the necessary
    sensitivity to support intercepts. Given the long design timelines for
    space systems, we are requesting funding in fiscal year 2008 to begin
    work on the follow-on constellation. Postponing the start of this phase
    of the program will delay our ability to achieve a necessary global
    sensor and fire control capability.
        This month we are launching a satellite, the Near Field Infrared
    Experiment (NFIRE), to collect high resolution infrared phenomenology
    data from boosting targets. Following preparation of the satellite once
    it is on-orbit, in August and October 2007, we will conduct tests using
    live ballistic missile targets. The data from NFIRE will be fed into
    simulation models and contribute to future sensor designs.
        We will continue work with Japan to increase Standard Missile-3
    range and lethality. The development of the 21-inch Standard Missile-3
    Block IIA interceptor will increase our capability to engage longer-
    range ballistic missiles from Aegis BMD platforms and help close a
    capability gap around 2015. We have requested $74 million in fiscal
    year 2008 as part of our cooperative work with Japan to purchase long-
    lead items required for the development of this interceptor.
        Another capability gap exists in terminal defense against short-
    and medium-range ballistic missiles. For the past 2 years, the Navy and
    the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) have collaborated on plans for a sea-
    based terminal defensive layer. In May 2006 we demonstrated the
    feasibility of developing a limited near-term capability against a
    short-range ballistic missile using a modified Standard Missile-2 Block
    IV interceptor. Based on this demonstration, we are upgrading the Aegis
    weapon system, and the Navy is upgrading the SM-2 Block IV missile, the
    goal being to install a terminal engagement capability on 18 Aegis BMD
    ships beginning in 2009. We also are examining with the Navy options
    for developing a far-term improved capability to address short- and
    medium-range threats. Our fiscal year 2008 request for sea-based
    terminal development work is $75 million.
        The next generation of C2BMC capability will be essential if we are
    to close gaps in our command seams. As we deliver more sensor and
    interceptor capability into the hands of the warfighters, they are
    faced with several more options to defend their areas of
    responsibility. We must continually refine our C2BMC capability to
    allow the warfighters to rapidly process all of the available options,
    plan for the employment of BMDS assets, and globally manage the
    execution of the system on tight timelines. The battlefield effect is
    that the integrated BMD system can defend against more missiles
    simultaneously, reduce risk of missiles leaking through our defenses,
    conserve more interceptor inventory, and defend a larger area.
        Finally, I am deeply concerned about future threat uncertainty and
    worldwide ballistic missile proliferation. I believe the performance of
    the BMD system could be greatly enhanced by an integrated, space-based
    layer. Space systems could provide on-demand, near global access to
    ballistic missile threats, minimizing the limitations imposed by
    geography, absence of strategic warning, and the politics of
    international basing rights. A space layer would apply pressure on
    launches from land or sea, depriving the adversary of free rides into
    midcourse with advanced countermeasures. While deployment of such a
    system must be preceded by significant, national-level debate, that
    debate must be informed by science. To that end, we are ready to begin
    a focused investigation of the feasibility of having an integrated
    space-based layer, and I am requesting $10 million for fiscal year 2008
    to begin concept analysis and preparation for small-scale experiments.
    These experiments will provide real data to answer a number of
    technical questions and help the leadership make a more informed
    decision about adding this capability.
        We have had to restructure some development activities and cancel
    others as a result of congressional and departmental reductions in the
    Missile Defense Agency budget. The following program activities have
    been delayed: delivery of the first operational STSS satellite has
    slipped from 2012 to the 2016-2017 timeframe, prolonging the time we
    will be without a capability to integrate the system globally; and the
    scope of the KEI activity has been reduced to focus on booster
    development and delay work on system integration, battle management,
    and fire control. The reductions also have impacted work in the area of
    innovative technology development. I regret that we have had to cancel
    the advanced technology development work associated with our micro-
    satellite activities and eliminate funding for the High Altitude
    Airship beyond fiscal year 2007.
                          international participation
        The global nature of the threat requires that we work closely with
    our allies and friends to develop, field, and operate missile defenses.
    I am pleased to report that many governments share our vision for
    missile defense. This past year we continued to build on a very
    successful program to involve more countries and forge international
    partnerships. Without the participation of our allies and friends, the
    ballistic missile defense system would look very different.
        The government of Japan remains solidly behind missile defense and
    has even accelerated its program to field multilayered missile defenses
    that are interoperable with the U.S. system. Japan continues to upgrade
    its Aegis destroyers and acquire Standard Missile-3 interceptors. In
    March 2006 we successfully flight-tested new nosecone technologies
    developed in cooperation with Japan. Additionally, the Missile Defense
    Agency and Japan have agreed to co-develop a Block IIA version of the
    Standard Missile-3, which will improve our defensive capabilities
    against longer-range missiles. Japan also is upgrading its Patriot fire
    units with Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles and improved ground
    support equipment. In 2008 Japan is expected to begin co-production of
    the PAC-3 missile.
        The upgraded Royal Air Force Fylingdales radar in the United
    Kingdom will undergo operational testing this year. Once we certify the
    radar, it will provide the system critical early warning, tracking and
    cuing data needed to defeat threat missiles coming out of Iran. We are
    working closely with Denmark to upgrade the Thule early warning radar
    in Greenland to improve its capability to detect and track ballistic
    missiles.
        Later this year we will conduct satellite-to-ground and satellite-
    to-satellite communication experiments with a German-built Laser
    communications terminal installed in the NFIRE satellite. Together with
    an identical terminal on a German satellite, the United States and
    Germany will perform joint experiments to validate the use of laser
    technology for high speed space communications.
        The United States and The Netherlands have been working together to
    modify Dutch frigates with a combat system to enable ballistic missile
    detection and tracking. An upgraded air command and defense frigate
    from The Netherlands successfully detected and tracked the targets in
    the December 2006 Aegis ballistic missile defense flight test.
        We are continuing work with Israel to implement the Arrow System
    Improvement Program and enhance its capability to defeat longer-range
    ballistic missile threats emerging in Iran. We are also conducting a
    feasibility study on a joint development program called David's Sling
    for shorter-range missile defense.
        We continue to support our North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    (NATO) partners in advancing the dialogue on the political-military
    implications of defending European population centers against longer-
    range missile threats. The Missile Defense Agency is supporting the
    NATO Active Layered Tactical Ballistic Missile Defense Program Office
    to develop a capability to protect deployed forces by 2010.
        I am also pleased to announce that this past February we put in
    place a Framework Memorandum of Agreement with Italy and we can now
    begin to develop opportunities for missile defense technology sharing,
    analysis, and other forms of collaboration. We have other international
    interoperability and technical cooperation projects underway, for
    example with Australia, and are working to establish formal agreements
    with other governments.
                                    closing
        Mr. Chairman, in closing, some have said that the Defense
    Department's investments in missile defense are misdirected, that other
    threats are more pressing. Others have said we are spending too much
    money on missile defense and that it is too expensive. And still others
    have claimed that we should slow down fielding activities until the
    technologies are more mature.
        I disagree with these critics, Mr. Chairman. We must meet the
    rising threats posed by ballistic missiles. We have seen rogue nations
    test these weapons in the past year. Ballistic missile defense is
    expensive, but the dollar investment in this Nation's security pales in
    comparison to the overwhelming price this Nation would pay in lives,
    social dislocation, and economic devastation from a single missile
    impacting an American metropolitan area. Indeed, the success we have
    seen in our comprehensive test program indicates that there is no
    reason to slow down.
        In less than 3 short years, thanks to the dedication of thousands
    of men and women across this country and a first-class, cutting-edge
    defense industry, we have deployed missile defenses to protect our
    homeland, our troops deployed to dangerous regions around the world,
    and our allies and friends. But we have a long way to go. So now is not
    the time to cut back missile defense. Now is the time to accelerate it.
        Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

        Senator Inouye. Now may I recognize General Campbell.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEVIN T. CAMPBELL,
                COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY SPACE AND
                MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND/U.S. ARMY FORCES
                STRATEGIC COMMAND AND JOINT FUNCTIONAL
                COMPONENT COMMAND FOR INTEGRATED MISSILE
                DEFENSE
        General Campbell. Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for your support and invitation
    to appear. I want to briefly address my role as the Joint
    Functional Component Command (JFCC) for Integrated Missile
    Defense Command. I'll give you a quick assessment of the
    capabilities to meet the threat. I'll talk briefly about the
    role of the warfighter in the development process and our
    ability to shape what General Obering is producing and last, my
    role as the Army Senior Commander for Space and Missile
    Defense.
        Senator Inouye. General, could you pull that microphone
    toward you, please?

            ARMY SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND COMMANDER'S ROLE

        General Campbell. Yes, sir. In my role as the Joint
    Component Commander for Integrated Missile Defense, we're
    responsible for planning, integrating, and coordinating missile
    defense across the combatant commanders. To translate this,
    this means that we develop concept plans and that we create
    exercises for exercising the system across all of the combatant
    commanders.
        Last year when the North Koreans conducted their ballistic
    missile test, I think this did a number of things for us in our
    ability to operate the system. We demonstrated that we could
    operate the system on a sustained basis and that we could,
    across several combatant commanders, dynamically plan,
    integrate, and coordinate the missile defense system.
        I really think the success that we enjoyed was a result of
    the Missile Defense Agency test program and our involvement in
    it and also the warfighter exercises that we've put together
    over the past few years that allowed us to exercise our
    concepts and our tactics techniques and procedures and it
    certainly improved our ability to operate the system.
        In terms of an assessment of the near-term missile defense
    forces, I think it is limited. However, the limitation is
    usually related to missile inventory. I think there is also a
    requirement for additional systems as well as sensors. And I
    think with the fielding of THAAD in the near future and the
    addition of aegis ballistic missile defense capability, we're
    going to overcome those limitations that we face today.
        In my view, the expansion of the system into Europe is an
    important step that expands not only defense of our friends,
    allies and our deployed forces but also thickens the defense
    over the United States. So in my view, this is an essential
    step in the development of the program.
        I really don't think we can do global missile defense
    without our allies. We're going to need their involvement every
    step of the way. Along the path into the future, I think it's
    important that we maintain a balanced program in our ability to
    address the ICBMs as well as the shorter-range ballistic
    missiles.
        In terms of our ability to shape the future system and what
    General Obering produces, we have a mature process that
    involves all of the combatant commanders and we present General
    Obering with a prioritized list each year of what we think
    should be introduced into the system in his block development
    program. This has been successful. I think there is great
    cooperation amongst the combatant commanders and General
    Obering and producing what the warfighter needs.
        As the Army's Senior Commander for Space and Missile
    Defense, our job is to ensure that the warfighters have the
    tactical systems to delete the short-range threats and deliver
    space capability to them. We're transforming those forces.
    We're integrating them into a net centric environment so that
    these forces are more tailorable and scaleable for combatant
    commanders to meet their needs. Systems such as Patriot, the
    elevated netted sensor, and the surface launched advanced air-
    to-air missile in THAAD are the type of systems that we're
    networking together.
        With the help of this subcommittee, I think we're going to
    continue to make good progress into the future, especially
    progress in defending forward-based forces and allies. I
    appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on these important
    matters and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Kevin T. Campbell
                                  introduction
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Stevens, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for your ongoing support of our military and for
    the opportunity to appear before this panel. In my view, this Committee
    is a strong ally of the Army and the missile defense community,
    particularly in our continuing efforts to field missile defense forces
    for the Nation and our allies. I consider it a privilege to be counted
    in the ranks with my fellow witnesses as an advocate for a strong
    global missile defense capability.
        My current responsibility entails two roles. The first is as the
    Army's senior commander for space and missile defense. The second role
    is as a Soldier on the Joint Missile Defense Team and Commander of the
    Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, a
    part of the U.S. Strategic Command. In this role, I serve as the Joint
    user representative working closely with the Missile Defense Agency
    (MDA), other services, and Combatant Commanders to ensure that our
    national goals of developing, testing, and deploying an integrated
    missile defense system are met in an operationally sound configuration.
        Chairman, as proven during last year's July 4th North Korean
    missile launches, Army Soldiers are trained and ready to operate the
    Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Element of the Ballistic Missile
    Defense System (BMDS) at Fort Greely, Alaska, and the Joint National
    Integration Center at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado. These
    Soldiers, as part of the Joint team, continue to serve as our Nation's
    first line of defense against a rogue nation's launch of an
    intercontinental ballistic missile toward our shores. I am proud to
    represent them along with the other members of the Army and Joint
    integrated missile defense community.
                    united states strategic command jfcc-imd
        The Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile
    Defense (JFCC-IMD) was established in January 2005 as one element of
    the U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) and reached full operational
    capability early in 2006. The JFCC-IMD is manned by Army, Navy, Air
    Force, Marine Corps, and civilian personnel. This joint-manning
    arrangement and our strong partnership with our collocated MDA team
    enable us to execute the integrated missile defense mission by
    leveraging the existing robust infrastructure.
        USSTRATCOM, through the JFCC-IMD, continues to aggressively execute
    its mission to globally plan, integrate, and coordinate missile defense
    operations. Through stressing operational scenarios, integrated missile
    defense has experienced robust growth and maturity and has improved its
    ability to defend this nation. Although, there is much work yet to be
    done, JFCC-IMD continues to lead the Department's transformation toward
    more robust integrated missile defense capabilities. The Soldiers,
    sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians of this Joint warfighting
    organization execute our mission to plan, integrate, and coordinate
    global missile defense operations and support by operationalizing new
    capabilities from MDA, developing global missile defense plans in
    collaboration with the Geographical Combatant Commanders, and
    conducting cross-geographical combatant commander exercises to
    eliminate seams and gaps to maintain a strong defense against changing
    threats. Execution of the essential mission includes providing warning
    of missile attack to other Combatant Commanders and providing
    assessment of missile attack. In all, JFCC-IMD continues to build
    operational competence of the integrated missile defense capability and
    warfighter confidence in executing our mission.
    Ballistic Missile Defense System Progress
        This past year has been a year of operational achievement for
    integrated missile defense as we successfully placed the Ballistic
    Missile Defense System (BMDS) on alert in response to a credible
    ballistic missile threat from North Korea. This limited defense
    capability marked the beginning of global missile defense as
    warfighters from three combatant commands and allies integrated
    respective assets and personnel toward a single mission against a
    common threat. The scale of this integration is unprecedented--non-
    missile defense assets were integrated with legacy and state-of-the-art
    technologies to provide a shield to protect our homeland. Additionally,
    we achieved unparalleled integration of the Department's intelligence
    capabilities to enable timely and responsive indications and warning to
    support missile defense readiness. We expect the warfighting capability
    provided by such integration of assets, platforms, doctrine, and
    personnel to continue to grow in coming years.
        The North Korean incident last summer also underscored the growing
    maturity of the cross-JFCC integration within USSTRATCOM in executing
    its global mission. JFCC-IMD collaborated closely with the JFCCs for
    Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (JFCC-ISR) and Space
    (JFCC-Space) to integrate the intelligence, surveillance,
    reconnaissance, and space assets for the missile defense missions. This
    effort afforded the use of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,
    and space assets that previously had not been included in the missile
    defense mission. Similarly, JFCC-IMD collaborated closely with JTF-
    Global Network Operations to maximize availability of a robust
    communication network to link the decision-makers in Washington with
    commanders across the globe. We have also integrated our planning
    efforts with the JFCC for Global Strike and Integration (JFCC-GSI) to
    ensure we integrated both offensive and defensive capabilities into
    potential courses of action. Our approach today for a missile defense
    contingency is designed to examine and integrate a broader array of
    capabilities into our planning and execution. In short, JFCCs are
    maturing in a deliberate and coordinated pace to extend the New Triad
    in its global mission.
        JFCC-IMD's readiness demonstrated during last summer's incident is
    a testimony to the robust warfighter exercise and test program. During
    the past year, we planned and conducted three major combatant command-
    level exercises involving U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Northern Command
    and U.S. Strategic Command. These exercises enabled combatant
    commanders to exercise concepts of operations and tactics, techniques,
    and procedures, and improve our planning and execution of missile
    defense operations. These activities enhance warfighter competence in
    prosecuting a global missile defense capability. JFCC-IMD's global
    missile defense exercise program also extended to our coalition
    partners. These international exercises further bolstered our allies'
    resolve in conducting combined missile defense operations and extending
    partnership into co-development of future capabilities.
    Warfighter Contributions to System Development
        Warfighters participate in key BMDS tests to build confidence in
    its capabilities. JFCC-IMD led warfighter participation in the first
    distributed ground tests on the operational BMDS, geographically
    distributed from Colorado to Alaska, and Washington to Japan. This test
    demonstrated the growing sophistication and complexity of BMDS
    assessments that are increasingly operationally relevant. Furthermore,
    warfighters collaborated with MDA to successfully conduct key flight
    tests to bolster our Nation's confidence in the effectiveness of the
    integrated missile defense capabilities.
        Within a 90-day period, we successfully intercepted ballistic
    missiles at low and high altitudes; in midcourse and terminal phases;
    and, in endo- and exo-atmospheric environments with the PATRIOT
    Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3), the AEGIS Standard Missile-3, the
    Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and our long-range Ground-
    Based Interceptor. Conducting these system-level flight and ground
    tests required the use of operational assets, the very assets that
    would be used to defend this nation against a possible North Korea
    missile attack. JFCC-IMD worked closely with the Combatant Commanders
    and MDA to coordinate the availability of these assets to ensure
    sustained operational readiness during the conduct of the system-level
    tests.
        The JFCC-IMD was able to balance the requirements of both
    operations and tests, but this period of robust achievements
    underscored the warfighter's requirement to expedite development and
    deployment of a concurrent testing, training, and operations
    capability. Concurrent test, training and operations will permit
    developers and operators to maintain full operational mode of the BMDS
    while simultaneously developing, testing, or training on the system.
    The need for the concurrent test, training and operations capability is
    especially pronounced for the one-of-a-kind assets that are shared
    between the warfighter, developer, and trainer communities.
        Absent a mature concurrent test, training and operations
    capability, JFCC-IMD aggressively conducts an asset management process
    to ensure the highest level of operational readiness during conduct of
    materiel development and tests. Supported by an indications and warning
    system, the asset management process has been the key enabler to
    operationalize new capabilities, perform operationally relevant tests,
    and conduct system-wide upgrades. During the past year, the asset
    management process facilitated warfighters and materiel developers in
    optimizing the use of the deployed elements while fielding additional
    assets. In addition, warfighter participation in the flight and ground
    testing increased our confidence in the system's performance.
    Increasing the Capability of the System
        JFCC-IMD, in partnership with MDA and the Services, has integrated
    additional missile defense sensors and shooters to enhance theater and
    strategic mission capabilities. We have increased the robustness of our
    sensor capability by deploying a mobile sensor in Japan, increasing the
    number of AEGIS ships enabled with the long range search and tracking
    capability, and are deploying a midcourse discrimination sensor in the
    waters of Alaska. We have continued deployment of the Navy's Ballistic
    Missile Defense AEGIS Standard Missile-3, PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3
    missiles, and increased the number of Ground-Based Interceptors.
    Additionally, in my role as the JFCC-IMD Commander, I have been in
    discussion with European Command to build a stronger partnership with
    our Allies and to host a midcourse radar and interceptor site to
    counter the Iranian threat.
        The Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications System
    is an essential evolutionary component of the BMDS that greatly
    enhances both planning and execution capabilities. The command and
    control system contributes to all phases of integrated missile defense
    from optimizing planning to synchronizing the automated execution of
    the BMDS. During the past year, upgrades to the command and control
    system have extended situational awareness, planning, and sensor
    management capability to key components of US Strategic Command, U.S.
    Northern Command, and U.S. Pacific Command. Additionally, critical
    command and control system situational awareness nodes are utilized by
    the White House, National Military Command Center, and Secretary of
    Defense Executive Support Center.
        As we move forward in the next year, much work remains to be done.
    We will continue to integrate and conduct cross-geographic combatant
    commander planning and exercises, deploy new capabilities, and increase
    allies' involvement in global missile defense. We will continue to
    advocate for system improvements that close capability gaps and improve
    system performance. Fielding more capable command and control systems,
    sensors, and kill vehicles, such as the Multiple Kill Vehicle, will
    provide the warfighter with a system capable of addressing a broad
    range of threats. Our continuing goal is to develop a seamless missile
    defense system, that integrates all available capabilities, to deter
    and dissuade the proliferation of missile threats, and if necessary,
    defeat them to protect our Nation, deployed forces, friends, and
    allies.
       air and missile defense--an overview of the fiscal year 2008 army
                               budget submission
        In addition to deploying the BMDS, MDA, the Services, and the
    Combatant Commanders continue to focus on improving theater air and
    missile defense capabilities. Both the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
    and Theater Air and Missile Defense Systems are vital for the
    protection of our homeland, deployed forces, friends, and allies. Air
    and missile defense is a key component in support of the Army's core
    competency of providing relevant and ready land power to Combatant
    Commanders.
        As you are aware, real world events over the past year have
    increased the relevance, urgency, and importance of theater air and
    missile defense as well as cruise missile defense. Medium and short-
    range ballistic missile and cruise missile threats continue to grow,
    especially in light of increased proliferation of missile defense
    technology. These threats, combined with Iran's and North Korea's
    increased interest in nuclear capabilities, are of particular concern.
        As highlighted in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, a number of
    potentially hostile states possess or seek weapons of mass destruction.
    This is especially troubling when considered along with ballistic and
    cruise missile proliferation. For these states, weapons of mass
    destruction--particularly nuclear weapons--provide the means to assert
    regional domination and intimidate others. As such, the Quadrennial
    Defense Review specifically highlighted the need for integrated
    defenses against short-, intermediate-, and intercontinental-range
    ballistic and cruise missile systems.
        The House Armed Services Committee Defense Review Report, released
    in December of 2006, concluded that the U.S. force structure must
    expand and U.S. capabilities must improve to reduce the risk to the
    security of the American people to an acceptable level and noted that a
    robust BMDS is critical to defeat strategic threats to the United
    States and its allies. The report also noted that Operation Enduring
    Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are consuming key missile defense
    capabilities, leaving other worldwide commitments under-resourced.
        In light of these reports and their findings, the Army, in concert
    with the Department of Defense and MDA, is taking the necessary steps
    to ensure that the U.S. homeland, allies and deployed forces are
    provided the necessary protection from these threats. With that as a
    background, I would now like to focus on the Army's fiscal year 2008
    budget submission for air and missile defense systems. The President's
    Budget, presented to Congress on February 5th, includes approximately
    $1.75 billion with which the Army proposes to execute current Army air
    and missile defense responsibilities and focus on future development
    and enhancements of both terminal phase and short-range air and missile
    defense systems. In short, the Army is continuing major efforts to
    improve the ability to provide warning, acquire, track, intercept, and
    destroy theater air and missile threats.
        The Army, as part of the Joint team, continues its transformation
    of air and missile defense forces to meet the increasingly
    sophisticated and asymmetric threat environment encountered by the
    Joint and Allied warfighter. The air and missile defense force will
    meet this threat by adhering to the following imperatives: One seamless
    integrated force; advanced engagement concepts; defense in depth; 360-
    degree defense; early and continuous engagements; assure friendly use
    of airspace; and support information dominance.
    Integrated Air and Missile Defense
        In order to fulfill these imperatives, the Army is transforming its
    air defense force from its current separate systems architecture to a
    component-based, network-centric, Integrated Air and Missile Defense
    system of systems. The Integrated Air and Missile Defense Program
    focuses on systems integration, common battle command and control,
    joint enabling networking, and logistics and training to ensure
    operational requirements, such as force lethality, survivability,
    transportability and maneuverability, are achieved. Benefits of
    developing and fielding such a capability include: Expanded defended
    areas against the full-spectrum of threats; integrated defense design
    which eliminates single nodes of failure; flexibility in choice of
    interceptors; ability to battle manage weapons, sensors, and
    inventories; seamless training adjustments for battle managers across
    the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Force; and closing current
    capability gaps.
        The Integrated Air and Missile Defense Program employs an
    evolutionary acquisition strategy that leads to the objective net-
    centric system of systems plug-and-fight capability. The approach calls
    for a restructuring of current Army air and missile defense systems
    into components of sensors, weapons, and battle management command,
    control, communications, computers, and intelligence with a standard
    set of interfaces among the components using a standardized
    communications network. This modularization of missile defense
    capabilities will allow Joint Forces Commanders to scale and tailor
    assets and forces based upon the specific operating environment in
    which they are employed.
        Technology insertions to the Integrated Air and Missile Defense
    will continue throughout each increment as high-payoff technologies
    mature and are ready for integration. Incremental development of the
    program allows the Army to more quickly field new and improved
    capabilities to the warfighter. The proposed fiscal year 2008
    President's Budget supports the evolution of an Integrated Air and
    Missile Defense capability.
    Air and Missile Defense Organizational Structure
        As part of air defense transformation, the Army has created
    composite air and missile defense battalions. These battalions address
    capability gaps, permitting us to defeat cruise missiles and unmanned
    aerial vehicles while maintaining our ability to defend critical assets
    from the ballistic missile threat. Composite air and missile defense
    battalions will capitalize on the synergies of two previously separate
    disciplines: short-range air defense and high-to-medium altitude air
    defense. Additionally, the Army no longer provides an organic air
    defense artillery battalion to its Divisions. Instead, divisional air
    defense artillery battalions are pooled at the theater-level to provide
    air and missile defense protection based on situation and mission
    requirement. The pool of Army air and missile defense resources will
    address operational requirements in a tailored and timely manner. This
    pooling concept supports the Army's effort to move to modular designs
    that allow force tailoring of units better sized to meet the Combatant
    Commanders' needs and homeland security and defense requirements.
        Within the context just provided, allow me to briefly discuss the
    three main component areas of the Army's air and missile defense
    construct: Terminal Phase Ballistic Missile Defense, Cruise Missile
    Defense, and Force Protection.
                   terminal phase ballistic missile defenses
        The PATRIOT/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) capability
    is designed to counter theater ballistic missile threats in their
    terminal phase in addition to cruise missiles and other air-breathing
    threats. Combining these systems with the Terminal High Attitude Area
    Defense System capability being developed by MDA with a planned
    fielding in fiscal year 2009, brings an unprecedented level of
    protection against missile attacks to deployed U.S. forces, friends,
    and allies well into the future.
    PATRIOT/PAC 3 Overview
        Chairman, since the combat debut of the PATRIOT Air and Missile
    Defense System during Operation Desert Storm, the Army has continued to
    implement a series of improvements to address the lessons learned.
    During Operation Iraqi Freedom, we saw the debut of the improved
    PATRIOT Configuration-3 system, including the effective use of the
    Guidance Enhanced Missile and the PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3)
    Missile. PAC-3 is the latest evolution of the phased materiel
    improvement program to PATRIOT. Combining developmental testing and
    operational data, this program enables the development and deployment
    of a new high-velocity, hit-to-kill, surface-to-air missile with the
    range, accuracy, and lethality necessary to effectively intercept and
    destroy more sophisticated ballistic missile threats. Today's PATRIOT
    force is a mixture of PAC-2 and PAC-3 configured units. To maximize the
    full advantage of the PAC-3 capabilities, the Chief of Staff of the
    Army has directed the Army to pure-fleet the entire PATRIOT force to
    the PAC-3 configuration. In response to Combatant Commanders'
    requirements, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army directed the creation
    of two additional Patriot battalions to help relieve the stress on the
    PATRIOT force and increase the Army's strategic responsiveness in the
    area of terminal ballistic missile defense. These directives underscore
    the importance of PATRIOT to the nation's overall National Military
    Strategy and are necessary to maximize the capabilities for protecting
    the security interests of both the United States and our allies.
        While PATRIOT saved many lives defending against Iraqi ballistic
    missile attacks during Operation Iraqi Freedom, there were some
    operational deficiencies. The Army has undertaken steps to correct them
    and address lessons learned. The Army has pursued two thrusts--
    identification and execution of a $41.6 million program for nine
    specific Operation Iraqi Freedom fixes and continued aggressive
    participation in Joint interoperability improvements in situational
    awareness. The development, testing and materiel release for the nine
    enhancements is on schedule to be completed by the end of this fiscal
    year. Several enhancements have already completed fielding. The
    remaining enhancements are either currently being fielded or are
    planned to start this spring. Based on the current fielding schedule,
    all remaining Operation Iraqi Freedom fixes will complete fielding to
    the units by fiscal year 2009.
        The PATRIOT system remains the Army's mainstay Terminal Air and
    Missile Defense System and our Nation's only deployed land-based short-
    to-medium range BMDS capability. The current PATRIOT force must be
    sustained and recapitalized until MEADS is completely fielded. Fielding
    of MEADS is scheduled to begin in 2015 and be completed by 2028.
    Combined PATRIOT/MEADS Approach
        With the approval of the Defense Acquisition Executive, the Army
    embarked on a path that merged the PATRIOT and MEADS programs,
    establishing the PATRIOT/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program with the
    objective of achieving the MEADS capability through incremental
    fielding of MEADS major end items into PATRIOT. PATRIOT/MEADS Combined
    Aggregate Program is an important capability that will operate within
    the BMDS. It is, in fact, a top Army priority system for defense
    against short- and medium-range tactical ballistic missiles and air
    breathing threats. The PATRIOT/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program will be
    an integral part of the Integrated Air and Missile Defense System of
    Systems and capable of operating within a Joint, interagency,
    intergovernmental, and multinational interdependent operational
    environment. It will provide wide-area protection at strategic,
    operational, and tactical levels.
        The PATRIOT/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program will also provide
    battle management command and control in accordance with the IAMD
    provided common battle command system, introduce lightweight deployable
    launchers, upgrade the PAC-3 missile, and eventually provide the full
    MEADS capability to the entire force. By establishing the PATRIOT/MEADS
    Combined Aggregate Program, the Joint integrated air and missile
    defense architecture will become more robust in key ways. First, MEADS
    enhancements are integrated into the existing system. Second, as
    lessons are learned from the present missile defense capability, they
    will be incorporated into the MEADS follow-on system.
        MEADS is a cooperative development program with Germany and Italy
    to field an enhanced ground-mobile air and missile defense capability.
    The MEADS program, which supports the President's goal for
    international cooperation in missile defense, will enable the joint
    integrated air and missile defense community to operate more
    effectively on future battlefields. MEADS will provide theater level
    defense of critical assets and continuous protection of a rapidly
    advancing maneuver force as part of the Joint integrated air and
    missile defense architecture. Major MEADS enhancements include 360-
    degree sensor coverage and a strategically deployable and tactically
    mobile air and missile defense system that can be deployed and
    controlled as part of the integrated air and missile defense
    architecture. The PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement is currently under
    development and will be integrated into the MEADS program. The Missile
    Segment Enhancement Missile will provide a more agile and lethal
    interceptor that increases the engagement envelope. We are confident
    that this path will provide our service members, allies, friends, and
    our Nation with the most capable air and missile defense system
    possible.
    Terminal High Attitude Area Defense System Overview (THAAD)
        The Department of Defense is committed to fielding an advanced
    capability to defend against tactical ballistic missiles as soon as
    possible. THAAD is designed to provide critical defense against short
    and medium range ballistic missiles. As a result, MDA is funding and
    manufacturing four THAAD fire units for the Army in an accelerated
    fielding that will begin in 2009. This investment represents an initial
    THAAD capability for the warfighter and the next major step towards a
    comprehensive, layered theater ballistic missile defense. Follow-on
    THAAD upgrades are planned in future budgets to meet an ever increasing
    and evolving threat.
                             cruise missile defense
        In the world today, there exists a real and growing threat from
    land attack cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are inherently very
    difficult targets to detect, engage, and destroy because of their small
    size, low detection signature, and low altitude flight characteristics.
    When armed with a weapon of mass destruction warhead, the effects from
    a cruise missile could be catastrophic. The Army's Cruise Missile
    Defense Program is an integral piece of the Joint cruise missile
    defense architecture. Critical Army components of the Joint cruise
    missile defense architecture are provided by the Joint Land Attack
    Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS), the
    Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (SLAMRAAM),
    the Patriot Missile Segment Enhancement Missile, and an integrated fire
    control capability inherent in the Integrated Air and Missile Defense
    System of Systems. We are also working closely with the Joint community
    to assure development of doctrine that synchronizes our military's full
    capabilities against the cruise missile threat.
        The Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor
    System brings a critically needed capability to detect, track, and
    identify cruise missile threats. The system will support engagements
    using the Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile,
    the Navy Standard Missile, and the PATRIOT/MEADS weapon systems by
    providing precision tracking and 360-degree wide-area and over-the-
    horizon surveillance of land-attack cruise missiles. The Surface-
    Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile will provide maneuver
    forces with a critical, beyond line-of-sight engagement capability to
    counter the cruise missile threat, as well as unmanned aerial vehicle
    threats, over an extended battlespace. The Surface-Launched Advanced
    Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile uses the existing Joint Advanced Medium
    Range Air-to-Air Missile currently used by the Air Force and the Navy,
    thereby capitalizing on Joint commonality on the battlefield.
                                force protection
        A significant danger in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
    Enduring Freedom is posed by insurgents employing indirect-fire tactics
    of quick-attack, low-trajectory, urban-terrain-masked rocket,
    artillery, and mortar strikes against U.S. forward operating bases in
    Iraq. To combat this threat, the Army developed Counter-Rocket,
    Artillery, Mortar (CRAM), an integrated solution of capabilities to
    provide warning and intercept of rocket, artillery, and mortar threats.
    CRAM provides a holistic approach to this emerging menace. Horizontal
    integration across the core functions--command and control, shape,
    sense, warn, intercept, respond and protect--is providing an integrated
    modular and scalable capability. This capability provides timely
    warning of mortar attacks, intercept and defeat of incoming rounds, and
    accurate location of insurgent mortar crews, enabling a rapid, lethal
    response. CRAM takes advantage of existing systems and capabilities,
    combining them in a system of systems architecture to support the
    warfighter on today's battlefield. The current CRAM solution is truly
    Joint, in that it uses fielded systems from the Army, Navy and Air
    Force along with a commercial-off-the-shelf system. To date, CRAM has
    been supported solely through supplemental appropriations. Recognizing
    the enduring nature of the rocket, artillery, and mortar threat, the
    Army is exploring ways, to include the use of directed energy, to
    enhance this capability across all of the core functions, thereby
    making it even more relevant to the future modular force.
                                   conclusion
        Chairman, the Army, a fully contributing member of the Joint team,
    is relevant and ready, fighting the war on terrorism, and deterring
    aggression throughout the world, while transforming to meet future
    threats. With its responsibilities for Ground-Based Midcourse Defense,
    THAAD, and PAC-3/MEADS Combined Aggregate Program, the Army is an
    integral part of the Joint team to develop and field an integrated
    missile defense for our Nation, deployed forces, friends, and allies.
    In my role as the Joint Functional Component Commander for Integrated
    Missile Defense, I will continue the development of a Joint BMDS
    capability to protect our Nation, deployed forces, friends, and allies.
    The Army has stepped up to the land-attack cruise missile defense
    challenge by aggressively developing the Joint, integrated, and
    networked sensor-to-shooter architecture necessary to defeat the
    emerging threat. The fiscal year 2008 budget proposal continues the
    transformation of the Army's air, space, and missile defense force to
    support the Army's future force, the Joint Integrated Air and Missile
    Defense System, and our global BMDS. Transformation will continue to
    define the characteristics of the emerging air, space, and missile
    defense force and determine how it can best support the future force
    operating in a Joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational
    environment.
        I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on these important
    matters and look forward to addressing any questions you or the other
    Committee members may have.

        Senator Inouye. Well, thank you very much. Senator Stevens.

                    STATUS OF GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. You know, I really
    think we should add to our congratulations to both of you.
    Because this system is going forward so successfully, I think
    the problem is how to handle success. But we have a test of the
    ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) program. As I understand
    it, you have one scheduled in May and September. Any obstacles
    to those tests?
        General Obering. No, sir. We emplaced the interceptor in
    the silo this last week for that test and usually once we get
    to that point, we go very quickly in terms of through the
    preparations. We delayed the test--originally, it was to be
    flown in December and we had to delay it to May because we
    discovered in the flight test that we flew last September that
    we had an issue with part of the telemetry system. That is,
    part of the test unique hardware on the missile that had to be
    replaced because there was a chance that we would lose all of
    our data in flight and we did not want to do that. So this was
    a configuration that has to do with the test not with any of
    the operational interceptors and so that was what delayed it to
    May, to have to replace that piece of hardware and then do all
    the testing associated with it. But we're on track and we
    should be flying in May and then the next test, as you said,
    sir--by the way, we're going to bring in the sea-based X-band
    radar (SBX), that very large radar. That will be integrated
    into the test in September. It's going to be in a shadow mode
    for this one in May and be fully integrated in the one in
    September.
        We have now delivered our second forward deployed radar
    like the one that we have in Japan and we are proposing to take
    that radar and move it to Alaska. It is currently in California
    in testing. We'd like to move it to Alaska so it can be as
    realistically positioned as soon as possible and use it also in
    that flight test. That's what we're planning right now.
        Senator Stevens. I had several questions about the reports
    of water in the facilities at Fort Greeley. Now, I can tell
    you, there has been a heavy snow here and because of piling up
    the snow from cleaning the driveway, we had about 14 feet of
    snow around our place up there. But was that a result of snow
    or what caused that flooding in the Fort Greeley area?
        General Obering. Sir, we had flooding last summer that
    occurred. That's when we were going on alert for the North
    Korean missiles. We had part of Missile Field No. 3 that had
    been completed and we had several silos, about seven, that had
    not been completed. They were in a transient condition at that
    point. We had, as you may remember, torrential rains that came
    through. In fact, it was an all-time record for the amount of
    rainfall that occurred there and because of the state of
    construction at that time, we had water that got into the
    silos. There was nothing that the contractor or that the
    warfighters could have done about it at that point.
        Senator Stevens. They were empty silos, weren't they?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. They were empty silos. They were
    not part of the operational capability and we--in order to make
    sure that we save money on the construction of the silos, we
    ship basically prefabricated components into the missile field
    and it was those components that ended up getting flooded. So
    we have now begun the repairs. We will have the first one of
    those silos back on line in April, the second one in August,
    and then we'll have three more this year for a total of five
    completed and then--I'm sorry, four total this year and three
    more next year to have them repaired.

                           EUROPEAN SITE NEGOTIATIONS

        Senator Stevens. Shifting to the Poland situation--thank
    you for mentioning that. As I understand, you're going to have
    some exchange of diplomatic notes with Poland and the Czech
    Government but you've had some criticism about this, too. Can
    you tell us, what's the status of that now?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. In fact, I just returned from
    Warsaw last week and from Prague. I was there Monday. We have
    had an exchange of diplomatic notes. We believe that the formal
    negotiations with both countries should begin in about the mid-
    May timeframe. We believe that we're getting strong support
    from within the governments there in Poland and the Czech
    Republic. During the visits that I've had there, what we have
    discovered is a lot of the popular objections that are
    occurring are because the people don't realize--don't have good
    information in terms of the extent, the details and that type
    of thing and so we are working with those governments to put
    together the materials that would be required to educate and to
    better inform the people in both those countries.
        But I did address the parliament in both countries. We met
    with both the majority as well as opposition party members, we
    met with all of them. In the case of the Czech Republic, they
    actually sent a parliamentary delegation to Kwajalein to look
    at the radar and to see how it operates and to see what effects
    it has and they were very, very pleased when they left there.
    In fact, we had been telling them what to expect and the
    headline in one of the popular Czech papers was that the
    Americans are telling the truth. That came from that visit. And
    that included one of the opposition party members.
        So I think we're making great, steady progress. I also
    briefed the NATO Council, as I said in my statement, and the
    NATO Russia Council on Thursday and Friday. As the Secretary
    General stated, we are now getting unanimity in the NATO
    Council on the perceptions of the threat and that we have to
    move ahead. I believe that we're also finding a great way to
    move ahead in terms of integrating this system within a NATO
    framework and we've educated them on how that could be done. We
    ran simulations. And to give you an idea of the popularity of
    this and the interest, we actually took a technical team over
    and we had set up simulations of missile attacks into Europe,
    into the United States and how the system--what would happen if
    we did not have a European component, what would happen if we
    did have a European component of the long-range protection, and
    what would happen if we have the European component tied to a
    NATO deployable capability. We had almost 200 people come
    through those exhibits in 2 days and so there was an incredible
    amount of interest. Every country, just about, in the Alliance
    was represented there.

                                 AIRBORNE LASER

        Senator Stevens. That's good. One last question, Mr.
    Chairman and then I'll move on. I know there are others. The
    airborne laser (ABL) program seems to be making great strides.
    It's been some time since we went out there. How much can you
    tell about this in an open session?
        General Obering. Quite a bit, sir, if you like. The
    aircraft actually, when it's complete, will have three lasers
    onboard the aircraft. It will have a tracking laser that it
    uses for very precise tracking. It has an atmospheric
    compensation laser that goes out along that track and measures
    the distortion in the atmosphere and feeds that into a fire
    control system that then uses that information to deform
    mirrors onboard so that the high-energy laser, the laser that
    actually destroys the boosting missile, when it goes out, it
    goes out in a deformed state and then uses the atmosphere to
    focus the energy. We now have two of those three lasers onboard
    the aircraft--the tracking laser and the atmospheric
    compensation laser. We have actually lased with the tracking
    laser and we've been successful in that. Now we're coming up on
    the atmospheric compensation laser to be able to fire and to
    use that as well. So we're going to achieve some very
    successful knowledge points in that regard in the next several
    weeks. In addition, we have fired the very high-energy laser
    over 70 times in a 747 mockup. It was successful in the testing
    so now we have dismantled that laser and we're going to
    reinstall it or install it on a flying 747 this next year. So
    it is making great progress. It is incredible. It is just
    remarkable to see what American technology and ingenuity can
    do. It would make you very proud, as you know, when you visit
    that. But they are making great strides. It is tough. It's
    tough technical work but they are making great strides.
        Senator Stevens. I look forward to seeing it. Thank you
    very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Shelby.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Campbell,
    with the 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC) announcement,
    much of the missile defense research and development is in the
    process of being consolidated. What are the resulting benefits
    to the missile defense program that will be realized as a
    result of this consolidation? You'll be right in the midst of
    it.

    BENEFITS OF CONSOLIDATING ARMY BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ACTIVITIES AS
                    A RESULT OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        General Campbell. Yes, sir. I think what that's going to do
    for us is bring the developers--General Obering's folks
    together with those that are working some of the basic
    technologies. And there is a synergy there of being able to
    gather together and really get a better understanding between
    the communities and where we need to go in the future. So from
    my perspective, it offers the opportunity for the Missile
    Defense Agency and Space and Missile Defense Command to have a
    joint venture as we move forward in developing a missile
    defense system.

    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEAR-TERM AND LONG-TERM BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
                                    EFFORTS

        Senator Shelby. General, would you discuss briefly the
    priorities of the near-term missile defense capabilities such
    as Patriot, THAAD, and the GMD system as they relate to the
    need to pursue more advanced systems such as kinetic energy
    interceptor (KEI) and the multiple kill vehicle (MKV).
        General Campbell. In my view----
        Senator Shelby. Can you do that here?
        General Campbell. Yes, sir. I think generally in my view,
    we should continue to mature the GMD system. We should move
    ahead with the plans we have for Patriot, which include
    advancing Patriot from its configuration today to the Patriot
    advanced capability 3 (PAC-3). I think it's vitally important
    that we continue with fielding the THAAD system to meet threats
    that we anticipate will be evolving over the next 7 or 8 years.
    In terms of other capabilities that General Obering is working
    on, the KEI and ABL, I think it's important that we continue to
    invest in those programs and he'll reach a decision point in
    about the 2009 timeframe to decide which way to go but I think
    it's a hedge against future threats.
        Senator Shelby. As far as the PAC-3 Pure Fleet, if fully
    funded, what increase in capabilities would this initiative
    bring to the Army and how might this benefit the combatant
    commanders?
        General Campbell. Today we have a shortage of Patriot
    capability around the world to meet combatant commanders'
    requirements so it's essential, in my view, that we go ahead
    and pure fleet the system. In fact, the Army has committed to
    developing and standing up an additional 2 battalions and once
    we've achieved that, we'll have 15 battalions and that will
    basically meet combatant commanders' needs and this gives us
    extended range, greater lethality against the type of threats
    we expect to see in the future.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.

                                    TESTING

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    wanted to ask questions, if I might, about the test coming up
    in May or September because the prior tests haven't been very
    successful in many ways. The question is, how realistic these
    tests really are going to be, whether you're going to employ
    countermeasures, whether they are really geared to intercept a
    real scenario or whether they are highly structured just to hit
    the mark. So I'd like to ask both of you if you could tell us a
    little bit more about what these tests are going to be and what
    they're not going to be.
        General Obering. Thank you very much, Senator. Yes, ma'am.
    First of all--I'll focus just on the long-range system. We were
    very successful in 2000 and 2001 where we flew the long-range
    interceptor, a prototype of the kill vehicle and we had a
    target launch vehicle, we called it, for the booster, to keep
    it within the range of safety constraints that we were
    exercising at the time. We were so successful that my
    predecessor stopped that program and had us go ahead and
    transition to the operational configuration for the booster and
    we went into produce-ability for the kill vehicle.
        When we came back into flight test in late 2004 and early
    2005 is when we had the two failures of the interceptor to
    leave the silo and those were--in one case, it was a
    configuration issue associated with the test, not with an
    operational configuration, and in the other, it was a minor
    software timing issue that actually happens on rare occurrence.
    It just so happened to occur during that countdown. It was only
    one line of code that changed for the missile. Since then, we
    have flown successfully twice and one of those was an attempted
    intercept, which did occur last September.
        Now, there is a misconception and if you bear with me, that
    test was a threat representative target. It flew what we would
    expect a missile launch from North Korea in the United States
    designed to basically emulate a threat missile coming from
    North Korea and an interceptor coming out of Alaska. So that
    geometry we can match by launching a target out of Alaska and
    an inceptor out of California. In this test, we did have a
    threat representative target. We had an operational radar at
    Beale in California and we had soldiers manning the consoles.
    They were not aware, by the way, of the time of the target
    launch. All they knew is that there was a period of interest,
    as we call it that was opening up, which is not unusual.
        They roughly knew not the trajectory but the azimuth in
    terms of the direction. But that is also something you would
    expect in a realistic scenario because if they are launching
    from North Korea, we generally know the fan spread that would
    be coming toward the United States. So that all is realistic as
    well.
        We actually used the operational fire control system, the
    hardware and the software. We used an operational interceptor
    and the operational kill vehicle. Now, the fact that we did not
    have countermeasures on that--we did fly countermeasures in
    2000 and 2001. The reason we did not have it on the left
    several tests was because coming out of those interceptor
    failures, we wanted to make sure that we were taking this a
    step at a time based on the independent review team's
    recommendations that I chartered back during those initial
    failures in 2004 and 2005.
        By the way, just because you do not have countermeasures
    does not mean that it's not realistic. It's not something you
    would assume could happen all of the time with respect to
    missiles.
        In addition, I think a program that is widely recognized to
    be very operational and realistic is our aegis program and that
    is a midcourse interceptor as well and we haven't flown against
    countermeasures in that program either. But that's not because
    of the capabilities, it's because of how we are approaching our
    testing as we go through. So to say that just because you don't
    have countermeasures is unrealistic. I don't agree with,
    Senator.

                               POTENTIAL THREATS

        Senator Feinstein. Okay. Other than Russia and China, which
    countries do you view as a realistic threat at this time, with
    the will, the financial background, et cetera, the ability?
        General Campbell. Well, first of all, the system that we're
    developing is strictly intended to counter two countries of
    particular note--North Korea and Iran. We have watched----

              BALLISTIC MISSILE THREATS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

        Senator Feinstein. You view Iran as a realistic threat
    against the United States. A ballistic missile threat against
    the United States?
        General Campbell. Yes, and I'll explain that statement.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay.
        General Campbell. If you look at what happened in the 1990s
    in North Korea, we saw them acquire Scud technology, which is a
    shorter range missile technology and they began to grow that.
    They grew into a NODONG, which is a medium-range missile and
    then they began to improve that and to develop longer-range
    weapons and they flew two of those. They flew one in 1998,
    which was a TAEPODONG 1 and they flew a TAEPODONG 2 last summer
    that failed shortly after liftoff and we know that they are
    continuing that move.
        Now, we're seeing the very same evolution in Iran. We're
    seeing them take shorter-range missiles and grow them to longer
    and longer range weapons. They are already testing weapons that
    are of much greater range than they would need in a regional
    fight, for example. So why are they are doing that? We have to
    be concerned about that, especially considering the statements
    that they've made about the aggressiveness toward the United
    States and Israel.
        Senator Feinstein. Let me just stop you there. You view the
    TAEPODONG 2--not the 3 but the 2--as a realistic threat to the
    United States?
        General Obering. I believe the TAEPODONG could be a very
    realistic threat to the United States. It would be--most of the
    experts agree that it would be capable of reaching the United
    States.
        Senator Feinstein. In part.
        General Obering. We don't know precisely and we don't know
    that much--all we know is based on what we have observed and
    what we believe. We believe it would be capable of reaching the
    United States.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay. Would you relate that now to the
    Iranian missiles, please?
        General Obering. Well, first of all, in 1998, the
    intelligence experts said that the North Koreans would not be
    capable of flying a long-range weapon for 5 or 8 years. That's
    what their predictions were. They flew one the next month. It
    surprised everybody. Right now, the experts are saying that
    Iran will not have an ICBM until 2010 to 2015 timeframe. But
    it's going to take us at least that long, until 2011 or 2012,
    to get a first capability in the ground to be able to protect
    our European allies from that potential and that growing
    threat. But we're seeing again the same evolution.
        Iran also stated, as the North Koreans did, that they want
    to develop a space launch capability. And if they do that--we
    believe that could occur imminently. If they do that, they will
    have demonstrated all of the building blocks for an ICBM
    capability. So what we're trying to do is stay ahead of what we
    believe to be an emerging threat because we can't wait until
    they actually demonstrate and then say, now let's go find a way
    to counter it because we'll be 3 or 4 years behind the power
    curve at that point.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
    convening this important hearing. We appreciate the cooperation
    of our witnesses today and the hard work being done to help
    ensure we are protecting the security of our country against a
    missile attack. We have deployed forces around the world, too,
    who benefit from our capability to protect our troops against
    harm from missile attacks.
        There has been some who have said that our Defense
    Department has exaggerated the threat that we face from missile
    attack. Could you put that in a context of the realities? I
    know this is not a closed hearing and we can't go into
    classified material, but to the extent that you can, is there a
    way to explain this so we can explain to our constituents why
    it is necessary to spend so much money to develop a ballistic
    missile defense capability and deploy these defenses now?
        General Obering. Well, sir, I'll try a first crack at that
    and then, Kevin, if you'd like to add on.
        First of all, ballistic missiles are very attractive to
    countries like North Korea and Iran. We also saw them used in
    the first gulf war and against our forces in Operation Iraqi
    Freedom, in which the Iraqis fired ballistic missiles at the
    Coalition Forces and by the way, they were completely defended
    by the Patriot system that we had deployed. The reason that
    they are so valuable is they see a way of basically leap-
    frogging and countering what they see to be overwhelming
    conventional capability on the part of the United States and
    our allies. So when you combine a ballistic missile with a
    weapon of mass destruction, either nuclear, biological, or
    chemical, it gives them that leverage.
        What they would like to be able to do is to use that to
    coerce us or our allies or to drive wedges between us. Because
    if you don't have a defense against a missile like that, then
    there is that possibility for that. We saw the hostage taking
    that took place with our British allies by the Iranians, for
    example. You can imagine how that scenario may play out if they
    were equipped with a long-range missile that was capable of
    reaching capitals of Europe with a nuclear warhead. We know
    that there has been this growth in North Korea with respect to
    nuclear capability and they, in fact, tested a device, we
    believe last fall. We know that there is collaboration between
    the North Koreans and the Iranians. So we have to, as I said
    earlier, we have to be very attentive to that.
        If we can--and I sincerely believe this--if we can join
    together with our NATO partners and deploy effective missile
    defenses on a widespread basis, I think it begins to devalue
    these weapons tremendously because now they realize that they
    can be destroyed. They can be effectively countered so they
    lose that attraction that we've seen. And I think this fits
    very nicely into a spectrum of deterrents on one hand, where
    you can deter countries that are deterrable. Arms control
    measures, both positive and negative sanctions for those
    countries that can be affected like that, such as Libya, but we
    have to face the fact that in the 21st century, we may run into
    the equivalent of a nation state, suicide bomber or the lack of
    control of these weapons as they develop them within a country
    to where we have to be prepared to be able to actually knock
    down a missile in flight.
        So I believe it is something that we need to do, not just
    to counter them in an operational sense but also to prevent
    them from being used here politically to be able to intimidate
    our allies and our friends.
        Senator Cochran. General Campbell.

              TERRORIST MISSILE THREATS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

        General Campbell. Yes, sir. If you look at inventories of
    missiles within those particular countries of Iran and North
    Korea, if you look at the testing trends inside those
    countries, it's not a marathon, it's a sprint to get to what
    their objective is. And if you begin to look inside war
    fighting doctrine for North Korea--I mean, it's one of their
    principle elements that they are going to use in wartime, with
    their short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles. So in my
    view, our adversaries are in a sprint to develop their
    capabilities.

                                TERMINAL DEFENSE

        Senator Cochran. The emerging new capabilities that we
    have, the THAAD system, for example, is capable of being
    deployed several different places and Europe is one of those
    areas where we are exploring possibilities for deployment. What
    is the status of the actual execution of the plan for
    deployment of that system?

               TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE PROGRAM STATUS

        General Campbell. Well, sir, we've got the first two fire
    units under contract and they will be delivered in the next 2
    years, 2008 and 2009, those two fire units. We have two more
    that we've added to the program as a result of the
    recommendations from Strategic Command as well. By the year
    2013, we should have four fire units that would consist of
    almost 100 missiles available with respect to THAAD. It is a
    key element of an overall layered defense because it operates
    both inside as well as outside of the atmosphere in that
    region, which is attractive from a defender's perspective. It
    is very useful with respect to deployed forces and as you said,
    in terms of that defense in the terminal phase.
        It has been proceeding very nicely with its test program.
    We have now had three of three successful intercepts with that
    missile this past year and this year. We had a successful test
    just 2 weeks ago and we have two more tests this year. One is a
    fly-out basically in the atmosphere, a very, very high speed to
    determine the ranges of the test envelope and then another
    intercept of a separating warhead this year as well. So the
    program is on track. We have a great relationship with both
    Strategic Command as well as the Army in how we do the
    transition transfer of that program. So I'm very pleased with
    that.
        Senator Cochran. In connection with the testing that you're
    doing on all of our defensive systems, is the budget request
    consistent with what your needs are?

                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE BUDGET ACCURACY

        General Obering. Yes, sir. We believe so. Like I said,
    we're spending almost $2 billion of our budget on testing every
    year now, across the board. The constraints that we have
    primarily have to do with range infrastructure in terms of--for
    example, in Hawaii, we have the Pacific missile test facility
    there completely maxed out. We're basically--we have them
    engaged almost around the clock with our testing between the
    THAAD program and the aegis program and then support of long-
    range test as well, and they are doing a great job.
        But we also like to make sure that we have enough time
    between these tests to evaluate all of the data and to be able
    to make any adjustments in how we conduct the next test. So
    there is a serial nature to this.
        Senator Cochran. Is there cooperation among other
    departments and agencies and services in the Department of
    Defense in your plans for an aegis deployment? Do you have the
    ships that you need and the other ingredients or elements of
    that system in place or does this budget contain requests for
    additional funding for those items?

    DEGREE OF INTERSERVICE COOPERATION IN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS
                                  DEVELOPMENT

        General Obering. Well, it contains requests for additional
    funding, for example, of the aegis. We're actually ramping up
    the interceptor production as well on the aegis program for the
    standard missile 3s (SM-3s) and we will have more than 132 of
    those in the--as I mentioned, on 18 ships in my opening
    statement.
        We have worked very successfully with the Navy in planning
    for the transition of the Block 1 missiles, the first version
    of that. Now, in those 132 missiles, that will consist of three
    different configurations--Block 1, Block 1A, Block 1B. So there
    are always changes that we're making to improve the
    performance, the capabilities, et cetera. But I've been very
    pleased with the Navy and how we have been working together in
    planning that transition transfer.

                           INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

        Senator Cochran. My question is on the extent of
    cooperation we're getting from European allies in the placing
    of radars and other systems that are essential to the success
    of these programs. Is that improving or do you have problems
    there that we need to know about?

      EXTENT OF ALLIED COOPERATION IN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR AND
                             INTERCEPTOR PLACEMENT

        General Obering. Well, sir, both the Czech Republic
    Government and the Government of Poland have been extremely
    forward-leaning with us and as I said earlier, we've exchanged
    diplomatic notes. We believe the formal negotiations will begin
    here about the mid part of May and we hope to conclude those
    this year so that we can begin site preparation work next year.
    That will allow us to have an initial placement of an
    interceptor, for example, in Poland in the latter part of 2010
    or the first part of 2012, and complete that work in 2013. And
    as I said earlier, that gives us a very narrow path, really,
    with respect to the ambiguity in an Iranian development
    program. We believe that's why we need to get started and
    continue that. And we are getting strong support.
        By the way, I met with the President and the prime minister
    of the Czech Republic on Monday and also with members of their
    parliament. I addressed their parliament and I also talked to
    the leader of the opposition party there and again, I believe
    that we see a really strong support among the government and
    we're seeing good support within their parliament and so I'm
    very optimistic there.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran

        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming General
    Obering to this hearing.
        I would like to thank him, and the men and women he
    represents, for their important service to our Nation. The
    Missile Defense Agency plays a major role in protecting the
    United States and our deployed forces from missile attack.
    North Korea's missile tests last year and Iran's nuclear
    activity provide clear examples of the need for the United
    States to continue to develop and deploy our ballistic missile
    defense capability.
        I very much appreciate the efforts of the Missile Defense
    Agency and I look forward to this opportunity to review the
    progress we are making to defend against threats to our
    security from missile proliferation.

    DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE IN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS,
                                 WHEN DEPLOYED

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, there are only 5 minutes
    remaining on the vote so I will be brief. But let me submit
    some questions, Generals.
        Thank you for being here. Let me ask quickly, assuming that
    you have deployment of all that which you intend to deploy,
    with what confidence will these defensive systems operate
    against an offensive threat? Some, as you know, suggest that
    offensive systems almost always overcome defensive systems over
    time and there are some who suggest that upon deployment, the
    issue of dummy warheads and tumbling warheads and a whole
    series of issues will allow some to overcome a defensive
    system. So with what confidence at this point, does the
    deployment perceive?
        General Obering. Well, sir, I will say that first of all, I
    have a lot of confidence based on the test results that we've
    seen so far. To address the countermeasures issue--which is
    what you are referring to, the dummy warheads, decoys, and that
    type of thing, we have two efforts that are underway. The first
    major improvement in that will be the massive SBX radar, for
    example, that we have now deployed to Adak, Alaska, and has
    been--we've moved it down just off the coast of California now,
    to participate in our test program. That represents a
    capability that is unmatched and it will be able--and you've
    probably heard me say this before--if we place it in the
    Chesapeake Bay, we could actually discriminate and track a
    baseball-sized object over San Francisco. So it has the ability
    not only to track but to image the threat sweeps. So we believe
    that will add a tremendous capability and the radar algorithms
    to support that--we're going to deploy both to that radar as
    well as to the forward deployed smaller versions of the radar,
    like we have in Japan.
        The second thing we're doing because that is still a very
    tough problem, is that we're developing an MKV program. That
    means that for every one interceptor, it would actually be able
    to take out what we call credible objects, which could be
    warheads or could be balloons or decoys or dummy warheads for
    each one of the interceptors. It doesn't mean that we can
    counter a massive raid attack like you may encounter from a
    country like Russia or something, which this system is not
    designed for but it does help us with countries like Iran and
    North Korea, who are going to get better in terms of being able
    to use countermeasures. It allows us to take care of those.
        Senator Dorgan. My question was designed more to--and it
    may be a classified answer. I assume that one approaches this
    not just with the ``I have confidence'' but with ``we have a--
    --
        General Obering. We have data, yes. We have the data but I
    can't go into what it is.
        Senator Dorgan. That is classified?
        General Obering. It is. But suffice to say that based on
    everything that we have seen, it's very high confidence in that
    capability.
        Senator Dorgan. All right. I'm going to submit some
    questions on the ABL. I went out and visited that, I guess, 6
    years ago or so and it slipped, I think, 4 or 5 years in that
    period. It seems to me to be a fascinating, interesting
    technology but it continues to slip. I heard your answer on
    that as I walked in the room. I apologize for having been late
    but I'm going to submit some questions on the ABL and also the
    issue of protection against cruise missiles, which you referred
    to some. And because of the vote, Mr. Chairman, I will have to
    hustle along in order not to miss it, but let me thank you for
    appearing and I will submit my questions in writing. Generals,
    thank you very much.

                       BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS

        Senator Stevens [presiding]. That's why Senator Inouye and
    I run the relay to make sure that we don't delay the Generals
    by our voting schedule. But we appreciate your courtesy.
        I do think we ought to schedule a classified briefing on
    some of these questions and I'll ask the chairman to see if
    that's possible. But within what we can talk about here now,
    how many radars are parts of these integrated systems?

            DESCRIPTIONS OF RADARS USED IN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

        General Obering. Sir, currently we have a forward deployed
    radar in Japan that have been tested and integrated in the
    system. We have the Cobra Dane radar that you're very familiar
    with in Shemya, Alaska. We have the Beale radar in California
    that has been tested and integrated into the system. We have
    the SBX that has been tested and we're almost done with that
    testing and then that will be integrated later this year in the
    coming months. We have also almost completely finished the
    testing on the Fylingdales radar in the United Kingdom and gone
    through the initial integration testing with that as well. So
    we are incorporating these sensors as they are available and as
    they are able to be deployed. And by the way, just on a side
    note, so far, the performance of the radars has exceeded our
    expectations with respect to accuracy and performance.
        Senator Stevens. I'd like to go into a classified
    discussion on those in terms of their interoperability and
    vulnerability. Those are questions I think should be explored
    by members of the subcommittee. But beyond that, there is a
    redundancy in it, isn't it? In the system?

          DESIGN REDUNDANCIES TO OVERCOME BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSES
                                VULNERABILITIES

        General Obering. Yes, sir. We're adding more and more
    layers of redundancy every year and that is important as we go
    through because as you well know, on any type of a defensive
    system, you need to have that type of redundancy.
        Senator Stevens. The NODONG 2 would certainly reach Shemya,
    couldn't it?
        General Obering. Well, the TAEPODONG 2--yes, sir. Yes, sir.
    We believe it would have certainly the range to do that.

                        AEGIS BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

        Senator Stevens. What about the aegis--the standard missile
    program? I'm told that you have several control systems and the
    third stage rocket motor. The overall status of this aegis
    system, is it disclosed in your statement or in General
    Campbell's?
        General Obering. Sir, I talk about that a little bit in my
    written statement but I'll be happy to answer a couple of
    things. There were two issues that we were having to address as
    part of our development on the aegis SM-3. One was the third
    stage rocket motor and the other was the solid divert
    anticontrol system module for the interceptor. We have now
    flown the third stage rocket motor and we have shown that it
    does and can do the pulsing that was designed. That was the
    hang-up in some of the previous testing. The solid divert
    matching control module, we have also tested that. We've gone
    through exhaustive testing on the ground. That is planned for
    the next flight testing in terms of whether or not they are
    flight proving that that design change is working well. But all
    indications from our ground testing and hot fire testing are
    that we have solved the problem that was hanging that up.
        Senator Stevens. Will that be tested on the ship this year?
        General Obering. Yes, sir. It will be tested in our flight
    test.
        Senator Stevens. Are there any major challenges to that
    test?
        General Obering. I'm sorry, sir?
        Senator Stevens. Are there any major challenges to that
    test?
        General Obering. No, sir. In fact, we're planning to
    conduct that test tomorrow.

       TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE SYSTEM TRANSITION TO THE ARMY

        Senator Stevens. General Campbell, you mentioned THAAD.
    When is that going to--that transition soon--when is that?
        General Campbell. Sir, that will transition approximately
    2010 to the Army and then we'll have some decisions to make
    about the actual deployment sites for those particular
    batteries.
        Senator Stevens. Are you developing milestones--up our way,
    we call them mileposts. Milestones get covered with snow--but
    mileposts for that program?
        General Campbell. Yes, sir. General Obering has milestones
    specifically for the development and we have milestones now
    that we are working for developing the concept of operations to
    employ the system.
        Senator Stevens. And you expect to be able to use it in
    2010?
        General Campbell. Approximately 2010, sir, yes. In fact,
    there is a possibility that we'd be able to use it in an
    exercise in 2009 if the development continues on its current
    path.

                                 AIRBORNE LASER

        Senator Stevens. Go back to the ABL, if you would. Do you
    expect any delays in that program?
        General Obering. Sir, the delays that Senator Dorgan was
    referring to earlier, about November 2004, we really did, I
    believe, turn a corner on the program. Before that time, the
    program schedule was basically unstable. We were losing 2 days
    for every 3 days that we would attempt on a program. We have
    addressed that. The team pulled together. They focused on the
    technical programs and began to really resolve those.
        I will tell you that what I have seen since November 2004
    is a steady progression. There have been some minor delays here
    and there as they work through--mainly these are integration
    issues now. The actual functioning of the components, the laser
    modules themselves, the optical train and everything else, they
    have pretty much knocked down the technical issues. That is not
    to say that they are out of the woods. There is still work to
    be done. As I said, we should have some significant knowledge
    points on the program in the coming weeks, especially by the
    end of June, if they stay on the schedule that they're on. We
    should be able, by that time, to know whether the tracking
    laser works properly. As I said, we tracked the target 75
    kilometers away and closed that fire control loop. We should
    know if the beam illumination laser, the atmospheric
    compensation laser, is working properly and feeding that
    information into the system and we actually have a surrogate of
    the high energy laser on the aircraft as well. So we should
    know if the entire system is working the way that it is
    designed by the end of June. That will be a significant look
    ahead.
        And then if all of that is successful, we will dismantle--
    we will put the aircraft back on the ground. We will open it up
    and we'll reassemble the high-energy laser onboard the aircraft
    and get that back in the air next year so that we can attempt
    to shoot down a boosting missile in the mid part of 2009.
        Senator Stevens. All three components will be back together
    onboard by 2009?
        General Obering. Yes, sir, and flying.
        Senator Stevens. Is that at Vandenberg?
        General Obering. We're actually doing that work between
    Wichita and Edwards Air Force Base, California and also I
    should say, Sunnyvale, California as well.

                               MIDCOURSE DEFENSE

        Senator Stevens. To go back to that GMD system, I'm told
    we've got about $2.7 billion allocated to this program through
    2008. But my staff tells me that we were short $1.1 billion in
    2007. Now, does that 2008 figure play catch up or are we still
    going to be short in that system?

       TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE SYSTEM TRANSITION TO THE ARMY

        General Campbell. No, sir. I think that we will be caught
    up in terms of how we have managed the program and tried to
    bring the costs under control. It also adds more interceptors
    to the inventory. It begins to work down some of the costs
    variances that occurred. When we had, for example, if you
    remember, we had the explosion in California back in August
    2003 that wiped out one particular configuration of our
    booster. We lost six interceptors as a result of that
    explosion.
        Also, I diverted four more interceptors from the inventory
    into our flight and ground test program 2 years ago to address
    the initial failures that Senator Feinstein referred to and we
    will have caught back up on our original target inventory of 30
    by virtue of being able to basically put the resources where we
    need to within the program and like I say, we cut out some
    unneeded overhead to buy back at least four more of the
    interceptors this last year.
        Senator Stevens. I'll shift again. The chairman is here.
    One last question. On the aegis ballistic missile defense
    system, am I to understand that by the end of this year, all
    three services will be involved? The Air Force, the Army and
    the Navy?
        General Obering. In terms of the transition transfer of
    components, yes, sir. We have the early warning radars being
    transitioned to the Air Force. The aegis ships and their
    interceptors will be transitioned to the Navy and the Army is
    picking up responsibility for the forward deployed radars as
    well as the operation of the GMD system, so we have all three
    services engaged and we just got a letter from Admiral Mullins
    several weeks ago saying that the Navy would be the lead
    service for the massive SBX radar that I talked about that is
    going to be deployed to Alaska and California and we believe
    that's great news because that is an incredibly designed
    system. Just to let you know how well designed it is, when we
    moved it from Hawaii where we were doing the final radar
    calibration and some of the corrosion control work that we had
    delayed to get it out of the gulf in the summer of Katrina, in
    the hurricane season then. As it was moving from Hawaii up to
    Alaska, for a 72-hour period, it encountered continuous 70-foot
    waves and 75 mile an hour sustained winds with gusts up to over
    100 miles an hour and it did beautifully. I went and visited
    the crew when they were in Alaska and they were just amazed at
    how stable the platform was and how seaworthy and how well it
    performed. So we have very good news from that.
        Senator Stevens. I hope you're not around when a storm
    takes place up there.
        They did have a typhoon just north of that in 2005.
        General Obering. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Senator, thank you very much.

                                 SPACE TEST BED

        Senator Inouye [presiding]. Thank you very much. In my
    opening remarks, I said that the GMD, THAAD, and aegis, if need
    be, can be operational and it costs us about $90 billion to get
    to this stage. There is a small item in this fiscal year 2008
    request, $10 million for a space test bed. How much would that
    cost?

          COST OF A TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE SPACE TEST BED

        General Obering. Well, sir, we have a very small amount
    allocated across the entire defense program out through 2013
    that is, I think it totals around $300 million for that space
    test bed.
        What we're doing there, if I could elaborate there a little
    bit. We believe that it is always prudent to continue to think
    about the future and what you may need in the future. We
    believe that space offers a lot of flexibility. It offers a lot
    of attraction with respect to that flexibility and the access,
    et cetera that can be accommodated from space.
        So we allocated this very small amount to do foundational
    testing, to see whether or not you could apply missile defense
    from space. It's in keeping with the President's space policy
    and it is in keeping with this idea of trying to balance the
    future versus the near term. I'll give you an example of why
    that is important, I think. If we had only concentrated on the
    near term back in the early 1990s, then about the systems that
    we would have would be probably the Patriot, since that was
    underway and the THAAD program, which was also underway. But
    programs like the GMD, at that time, were considered futuristic
    and if we had not maintained that balance overall in the agency
    at the time, then we would not have had a system to turn on
    last summer when North Korea did what they did.
        So it is a very, very--as you say, very small amount out of
    the $8.9 billion that we've requested. But we think it's
    prudent to do that experimentation. Now this does not buy any
    hardware, the $10 million. It does not start any type of an
    interceptor program. What it is doing is funding
    experimentation, analysis, and studies so that we can engage
    with our contractors to understand what is within the realm of
    the possible and what is not. For example, if you were to add a
    space-based layer other than sensing, you would need to really
    understand weight and the cost per pound to orbit and what kind
    of improvements can be made there. You really need to
    understand the kinetic control and battle management concept of
    operations and how would that be done. You need to understand
    the differences in sensing from space as well as from the
    ground. So there is a whole host of questions that would be
    answered with this very small experimentation.
        We think that there will be a healthy debate--should this
    country decide that it needs to do that in the future; there
    will be a healthy debate as to whether we actually go ahead
    with that type of capability. We believe that this would help
    to inform that debate because it may be such a technical
    challenge that it may not be worth pursuing and that's the type
    of thing we're trying to answer.

                             COOPERATION WITH JAPAN

        Senator Inouye. So this phase of the program will not be
    carried out at the expense of what you're doing now. Our
    largest partner in missile defense is Japan and the total
    contribution, I think, is about $5 billion and there are plans
    to spend more than $1 billion to co-develop the standard
    missile block for sea-based missile defense. I'm concerned that
    MDA's abrupt decision to move away from this upgrade could
    affect the relationship. Am I correct?

          JAPANESE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATION

        General Obering. Well, sir, let me talk to that. First of
    all, I talked to Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin about the
    threat maturation, we know that we are going to be faced with
    threats in that timeframe, meaning in the next decade, that
    are, in fact, going to be complex. They are going to be able to
    use decoys and countermeasures and that type of thing and
    you're going to have to have the ability, working with the
    radars as well, to be able to counter those decoys and that
    type of thing. So you're going to have to have an ability to
    kill more than one object with an interceptor or it won't be
    cost effective in terms of the number of interceptors you'd
    have to fire at any given threat missile. We have been--this is
    a deviation in terms of the kill vehicle planning that we
    agreed upon with the Japanese, the initial analysis now almost
    2 years ago. So what we're doing is we have launched another
    analysis, working with the Japanese so that they can understand
    the rationale--they can understand the threat maturation that
    we see. They can understand the need for this and they have
    shown us that they are interested in the looking at the results
    of that analysis. We've gotten positive answers back on that.
        I'm sure it is a concern to them because it is a change to
    the program, but when we first started the program back in
    June, when we kicked this off, I told them at that point that
    there are two things we have to be careful of. One is, we want
    to be able to take advantage of technology improvements that
    may come out and number two, we have to be able to address
    maturations in any evolving threat. So from the beginning,
    we've talked about this. It's a matter of making sure that they
    stay on board with us through these analyses, these studies and
    these engagements. So I believe that once they understand the
    facts and the figures, as we can present them, I think they
    will feel better about this.
        And by the way, as you state, that is a very strong
    relationship. It is a very strong partnership. They are
    developing those co-technologies that we've been co-developing
    with them already, as I stated in the opening statement. We
    have a very strong co-test program, participation in testing.
    In fact, they intend to have a flight test this year, which
    they will use Japanese SM-3 in that flight test. So we're--it's
    a very strong relationship and we stay engaged with them on a
    regular basis. I'll be headed back to Japan here in just the
    next month or so.
        Senator Inouye. A recent test of the THAAD has been
    successful. What's the next step?

               TERMINAL HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE SYSTEM TESTING

        General Obering. The next step is, we will fly a test
    missile at the White Sands Missile Range that allows us to
    explore further elements of the envelope, meaning we will fly
    at lower altitudes much longer to see how well the missile
    performs. That will not be against a target. But then later in
    the year, we plan to fly against a separating target--that
    means a warhead that is separated from a booster, to be able to
    engage that and that would occur in the Pacific.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Inouye. General Obering, General Campbell, I have
    several other questions I'd like to submit but we have another
    meeting so if we may, can we just submit our questions for your
    responses?
        General Campbell. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I would appreciate that and with that.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                 Questons Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
        Question. The interceptors in Europe will be downsized versions of
    the ones currently in Fort Greely and Vandenburg. How much development
    and testing needs to be done on these two-stage interceptors in order
    to ensure that they are capable of intercepting a ballistic missile?
    Are we moving too rapidly on fielding this capability before this
    development and testing takes place?
        Answer. The interceptor planned for deployment in Europe is a 2-
    stage configuration of the currently deployed and flight-tested 3-stage
    booster at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base. The common
    components between the 2-stage and the 3-stage booster have undergone
    significant, ground, flight, and qualification testing as part of the
    3-stage development effort. Because the 2-stage interceptor planned for
    Europe has fewer components than its 3-stage predecessor, the planned
    2-stage variant is a less-complex version of the successfully tested
    and fielded 3-stage interceptor.
        The 2-stage interceptor program includes rigorous component
    qualification, integration testing, ground testing, and flight testing.
    The current flight test plans for the 2-stage variant feature two
    flight tests prior to completion of the first 2-stage interceptor for
    deployment, one of which includes EKV intercept of a threat-
    representative target. The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Fire
    Control (GFC) and Command and Launch Equipment (CLE) software adapted
    for the 2-stage interceptor will also be included in the 2-stage
    intercept flight test. The 2-stage intercept flight test is tentatively
    scheduled for 2QFY11 with initial interceptor emplacement in 4QFY11.
    Prior to the intercept flight test, we will perform a booster
    verification flight using an EKV mass simulator.
        The Missile Defense Agency has identified and is currently working
    to mitigate risks for 2-stage interceptor development. Overall, the
    development and fielding for the 2-stage interceptor is low risk. The
    most noteworthy risks are with the software changes and integration
    required with the 2-stage interceptor, the CLE, and the GFC in order to
    optimize the interceptor's performance envelope. These risks will be
    mitigated through our ground and flight test programs.
        Booster modifications (3-stage to 2-stage) are neither uncommon,
    nor unprecedented. In fact, the Payload Launch Vehicles (PLVs) flown in
    the GMD program's first ten Integrated Flight Tests (January 1997
    through December 2002) were 2-stage variants of the standard 3-stage
    Minuteman boosters. So, the Missile Defense Agency has successful prior
    experience in modifying 3-stage boosters to fly 2-stage missions.
        Given our experience in booster modifications and integration, 3-
    stage leveraging and lessons-learned, and the planned 2-stage
    qualification, ground, and flight testing prior to the first European
    emplacement, the Missile Defense Agency does not believe that we are
    moving too rapidly in fielding this critical capability.
        Question. How many Standard Missiles are we buying in fiscal year
    2007 and how many are we planning to buy in fiscal year 2008? Why does
    MDA incrementally fund its missile programs, and when will they be
    budgeted for in procurement accounts?
        Answer. MDA is planning to deliver 13 Standard Missile-3 Blk IA's
    in fiscal year 2007 and 20 additional Blk IA missiles in fiscal year
    2008. MDA currently has authority to use RDT&E funds to develop and
    field missile defense capability. Incremental funding provides the
    flexibility to procure more diverse warfighting capability for the same
    investment. An element of the BMDS, the SM-3 Blk IA, is a developmental
    asset that has not reached the level of technical maturity required to
    support use of procurement funding.
        The Agency's plan is to transfer and transition certain elements
    and components of the BMDS to the Military Departments for production,
    sustainment and operation. At that time, the Military Departments will
    budget and request procurement and O&M funding to acquire and sustain
    these systems. In the case of the SM-3 Blk IA, the sustainment
    responsibility will transfer to the Navy in fiscal year 2008 in
    accordance with the Aegis BMD Block 04 Transition Memorandum approved
    by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on March 9, 2007.
        MDA will continue to develop the BMDS using a capabilities-based,
    spiral development approach that gives the Agency the flexibility to
    use developmental assets such as the SM-3 Blk IA to provide initial
    ballistic missile defense capabilities to the warfighter while
    concurrently continuing our development and testing regimen.
        Question. A study is underway to look at sea-based platforms to
    host the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. However, there are challenges
    associated with each ship or submarine platform being considered. Can
    you update the Committee on the study and tell us what platforms are
    best suited to host the KEI?
        Answer. The Kinetic Energy Interceptors Sea-Mobile Platform
    Alternatives Assessment is conducting a detailed analysis of six
    specific ship and submarine classes: DDG-51, flight IIA (surface
    combatant), LPD-17 (amphibious assault ship), T-AKE (support ship), CV-
    2500 (commercial container ship), SSGN (OHIO class SSBNs converted for
    non-strategic missions), and a conceptual SSXN (potential conversion of
    OHIO class SSBNs to the missile defense mission). Prior related studies
    have indicated that these ship classes provide a broad range of
    benefits and challenges in supporting Kinetic Energy Interceptor's
    missions. This study will greatly reduce the risk of a costly booster
    vehicle redesign should the Agency decide to field the Kinetic Energy
    Interceptors on ships or submarines.
        The Alternatives Assessment will be completed in September 2007
    with an assessment of each platform's mission performance, cost, and
    risk across the entire Kinetic Energy Interceptor mission space: boost,
    ascent, and midcourse. Near term, the results of the Alternatives
    Assessment will be used to help ensure that the Kinetic Energy
    Interceptor booster design is compatible with likely sea-based
    platforms and inform Agency trade studies on investments in future
    capabilities. The specific sea-based platforms on which Kinetic Energy
    Interceptor is fielded will be determined when there is an Agency
    decision to develop sea-mobile Kinetic Energy Interceptor capability.
                          ground-based missile defense
        Question. What milestones and testing events need to occur prior to
    announcing an initial operating capability of the ground-based missile
    defense system?
        Answer. Today, the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) could
    provide a limited defense if called upon as the initial set of
    capabilities necessary to defeat an incoming ballistic missile have
    been fielded and demonstrated. These capabilities are currently in a
    ``shakedown period'' under which our crews are gaining valuable
    experience in their operations, and should some threat arise, we could
    transition from a test phase to an operational phase in a matter of
    hours. MDA is working with the warfighters to ensure they are ready to
    operate the system when directed as well developing the capability to
    operate and test the BMDS concurrently.
        A Secretary of Defense decision to put the system on a higher level
    of alert will be based on a number of factors. These factors include:
    the advice he receives from the Combatant Commanders, and other senior
    officials of the Department; our confidence in the operational
    procedures we have developed; demonstrated performance during both
    ground and flight tests; modeling and simulation; and the threat.
        Question. If the third stage rocket motor is removed from the
    ground-based interceptor, can it do boost phase intercept? What would
    its capabilities and characteristics, including size and mobility, be
    in comparison to the Kinetic Energy Interceptor?
        Answer. [Deleted.]
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
        Question. General Obering, since, as you testified, the current
    Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) initiatives are designed to counter the
    asymmetrical threat from Iran and North Korea, what formal negotiations
    are currently underway to obtain acquiescence from the Russian
    Federation for the deployment of these systems? Does the Department of
    Defense intend to proceed with the stationing of missiles and radars in
    Eastern Europe independent of Russian Federation acceptance of the
    deployments?
        Answer. The deployment of Ground Based Interceptors and a Mid-
    Course Radar to Europe is critical to the defense of the United States,
    its deployed forces, and its European friends and allies. We do not
    believe Russia ought to be able to exercise a ``veto'' over our
    decision to proceed. However, the Department will continue its efforts
    to explain the non-offensive nature of the Ballistic Missile Defense
    system to the Russian Federation and will continue to provide
    transparency into our efforts and seek ways in which we may cooperate
    with Russia on missile defense.
        Question. General Obering, the proposed missile defense deployments
    in Poland and the Czech Republic have sparked a great deal of public
    debate, and the bilateral agreements you reach with those countries
    will be subject to approval by their respective Parliaments. In light
    of the fact that it is far from certain that both countries'
    governments will approve these deployments, how do you justify the
    large funding request in the fiscal year 2008 Budget for this program?
    Would it be more prudent to first ensure that this project will be
    allowed to proceed before committing these funds?
        Answer. There are two principal agreements under negotiation with
    the Czech Republic in support of the European ballistic missile defense
    sites in the Czech Republic (radar) and in Poland (ground-based
    interceptors): a Defense Basing Agreement (status of forces and general
    basing provisions) and a Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement
    (provisions for the construction, maintenance, sustainment, and
    operation of the sites). Progress on these agreements has been timed to
    support the approved program of record resourced in the fiscal year
    2008 President's Budget request.
        Since the 2nd quarter of fiscal year 2006, our approved program of
    record has specified major construction contract award in the 4th
    quarter of fiscal year 2008. Negotiations of the two agreements with
    each country began in May 2007 with a goal completion by Fall 2007,
    well before the need date of 4th quarter of fiscal year 2008. Based on
    the approved program of record, negotiation of the Defense Basing
    Agreement and Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement with both the Czech
    Republic and Poland are proceeding on schedule. The Polish and Czech
    governments publicly support this initiative, and we are confident that
    the governments will work with us to conclude the agreements as soon as
    possible.
        Question. General Obering, you testified that a ballistic missile
    defense deters nations from developing weapons that can be countered.
    You also testified that Iran and North Korea currently are developing
    missile technology at a ``sprint pace.'' Since the United States claims
    to have a functioning missile system defense against limited attacks in
    place, why is this not deterring their development efforts? What
    evidence is there that a missile defense program will serve as an
    active deterrent to a rogue nation missile or nuclear development
    program?
        Answer. My testimony made the point that missile defenses could
    help dissuade a government from further investing in ballistic missiles
    and deter it from using those weapons in a conflict. But the threats
    posed by rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea continue to
    challenge our notions of deterrence and defense. Surprise--strategic,
    tactical, and technical--is an expected feature of today's security
    landscape. While deterrence remains the cornerstone of our strategy, we
    recognize an increased risk that deterrence may fail. The actions of
    North Korea and Iran this past year demonstrate the determination of
    these rogue regimes to achieve a ballistic missile capability and
    potentially weapons of mass destruction to further aggressive ends.
    Under such circumstances, missile defenses are highly desirable as a
    hedge against the failure of deterrence. As the robustness of the
    capability fielded increases, we could expect that the deterrent effect
    of this initial capability would grow by reducing an adversary's
    confidence in the success of an attack.
        Question. General Obering, what missile system is being considered
    for the Polish deployments and are the development schedules and the
    deployment schedules in sync?
        Answer. The interceptor planned for deployment to Poland is a 2-
    stage variant of the currently deployed and flight-tested Ground-Based
    Midcourse Defense (GMD) 3-stage Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) deployed
    at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base. The development and
    deployment schedules are synchronized.
        The GMD 2-Stage booster development strategy starts with the
    currently deployed and flight-tested 3-stage booster. Boeing and its
    booster subcontractor, Orbital Sciences, began working 2-stage
    development activities on February 23, 2007. In fiscal year 2007 and
    early fiscal year 2008, the booster contractor will conduct design
    trade studies and electronic piece/part level testing. A Program
    Critical Design Review is scheduled to occur December of 2008. In
    fiscal year 2009, the booster contractor will complete design
    modifications and component-level qualification to eliminate the third
    stage rocket motor and repackage the booster electronics that were
    located on the third stage. Additionally, navigation and guidance
    software changes will be implemented to enable the interceptor to
    perform mission profiles for two stages of flight versus three.
        The GMD 2-Stage booster test program includes both ground and
    flight tests. Two Ground Test Missiles (GTM) will be delivered in the
    second quarter of fiscal year 2010. Ground tests begin in the third
    quarter of fiscal year 2010. Two flight tests are planned to prove out
    the GMD 2-Stage booster performance prior to deploying any of the ten
    2-Stage GBIs (interceptor numbers 45 through 54). A booster
    verification flight using an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) mass
    simulator will precede a flight test with intercept from the same
    location utilizing a flight qualified EKV against a threat-
    representative target. The booster verification flight is scheduled for
    the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010 and the flight test with an
    intercept is scheduled for the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, both
    from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Interceptor deployment
    into the European Site is scheduled from the fourth quarter of fiscal
    year 2011 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2013.
        Question. General Obering, will a 10 missile deployment be adequate
    to counter the potential threat from Iran or North Korea if long-range
    missiles being developed by these nations are used in conjunctions with
    decoys? What integrated system testing has been done to simulate this
    challenge? What testing is being planned?
        Answer. [Deleted.]
        Question. General Obering, since command and control of the Eastern
    European deployments will be in the United States, what involvement
    will NATO, the Czech Republic or Poland have in the command and control
    of these systems? Will NATO support the deployment of this system?
        Answer. Our NATO Allies understand that the time available to react
    to a hostile missile is measured in minutes, not hours. Further, they
    understand this requires the system to be highly automated with
    engagement procedures worked out in advance. We have assured our NATO
    Allies that they will be consulted as these engagement procedures are
    developed.
        Further, we have considered offering situational awareness nodes to
    Poland and the Czech Republic, and suggested that a similar node could
    be provided to NATO. The situational awareness node will provide a
    status of the system so that the viewer will be constantly apprised of
    the system status. The United Kingdom already has a situational
    awareness node because it hosts the Fylingdales Upgraded Early Warning
    Radar.
        Finally, we will work with our NATO Allies to develop crisis
    management/decision procedures to be implemented during times of
    increased tension that may result in the launch of ballistic missiles
    against the United States or Europe.
        We are actively working with NATO so that it will not only support
    but will welcome the deployment of a U.S. missile defense system to
    Europe because the Allies agree there is a threat and understand that
    the planned U.S. assets in Europe would be highly complementary to any
    future NATO missile defense effort. NATO is already developing ways to
    link Allies' short- and medium-range missile defense assets through its
    Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTBMD) system. The
    U.S. system provides a defense to Europe and the United States against
    long-range ballistic missiles. Combined, the two systems could begin to
    defend all of Europe from the full range of threats. Over the last six
    months officials from the Missile Defense Agency, Office of Secretary
    of Defense, and State Department have met numerous times with our NATO
    Allies to explain the threat and proposed U.S. deployment.
        Question. General Obering, what type of NATO missile defense
    deployments are currently being planned and how much is being invested
    by European nations in such a venture?
        Answer. NATO currently has an Active Layered Theater Ballistic
    Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program to develop a command and control
    capability to link NATO countries' short range missile defense assets
    together to protect deployed NATO forces and other high value assets
    from short and medium range missile attacks. The ALTBMD Program will
    upgrade existing NATO command and control systems, and will create
    ALTBMD defense capability at all NATO command levels, from the
    strategic to the tactical levels.
        The ALTBMD Program Office signed a contract worth approximately $95
    million with an international consortium led by Science Applications
    International Corporation to develop and operate an integration test
    bed for developing and testing the integration/linking of different
    short range missile defense architectures.
        Several NATO member countries currently possess missile defense
    assets that will be contributed to NATO and linked together via the
    ALTBMD program. Germany has the Patriot system and is a partner, along
    with the United States and Italy, in the Medium Extended Air Defense
    system. The Netherlands also has the Patriot system and is developing a
    long-range capability for maritime search and track of ballistic
    missile threats. France is currently developing the SAMP-T air defense
    system, which will have capability against ballistic missiles in future
    upgrades. Greece has Patriot systems that could be upgraded to have
    ballistic missile engagement capability. Denmark and the United Kingdom
    agreed to allow the United States to upgrade early warning radars on
    their territory and use these radars for BMD.
        Question. General Obering, in addition to the threat of nuclear
    weapons, the threat of chemical and biological weapons has been put
    forward as a rationale for the deployment of a ballistic missile
    defense system. Is there evidence of Iranian or North Korean research
    to develop inter-continental ballistic missile weapons or warheads
    capable of both the accuracy and payload survivability to support these
    concerns?
        Answer. [Deleted.]
        Question. General Obering, what are assessed to be the most
    realistic current threats from Iran: short, medium, or long range
    missiles? What coverage against an Iranian launch will the Eastern
    European ballistic missile defense deployment provide that cannot be
    covered by THAAD, PAC-3, and Aegis deployments?
        Answer. In November 2006 and January 2007 Tehran demonstrated that
    it has short and medium range ballistic missile capabilities by
    conducting several short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and
    rocket launches. In the November exercises Iran demonstrated for the
    world its offensive capabilities via televised broadcasts. Iran
    dedicates significant resources to acquire ballistic missiles, to
    include new medium- and intermediate-range systems capable of reaching
    forward-deployed United States forces and our allies and friends. Our
    intelligence community assesses that Iran would be able to develop an
    ICBM before 2015 if it chooses to do so. With the missile firings over
    the past year, they have also demonstrated the ability to conduct
    coordinated launch operations.
        The capability provided by a GBI site located in Poland, a European
    Midcourse Radar located in the Czech Republic, and a forward deployed
    radar could provide redundant protection coverage of 90 percent for the
    United States and Canada and 100 percent coverage for the territory in
    NATO that is threatened by long range missiles from Iran, but only by
    intermediate and short range missile defense forces, such as PATRIOT
    PAC-3. U.S. missile defense forces such Aegis SM-3 and THAAD (supported
    by an AN/TPY-2) could be deployed in a crisis to fill any coverage
    gaps.
        Question. General Obering, what is the timeline for Aegis equipped-
    vessels to have counter-ICBM capabilities and what are the greatest
    technological challenges to the development of this system?
        Answer. The 21-inch diameter Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA
    interceptor paired with the Aegis BMD 5.1 Weapon System will increase
    our capability by defeating longer-range ballistic missiles, up to and
    including some Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles. We have requested
    funding in fiscal year 2008 to support concept development and complete
    a System Design Review in fiscal year 2008.
        The primary technological challenges are the Lightweight VLS
    Canister and integrating the Aegis BMD 5.1 Combat System and BMDS to
    achieve the necessary ``quality of service'' required to extract the
    optimum SM-3 Block IIA performance through ``Engage on Remote''
    operations. A lighter canister is necessary to offset the additional
    weight of the larger missile. The Lightweight VLS Canister will be the
    first one made with composite materials.
        The remainder of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, as funded in the
    program of record, is a scaled up version of the SM-3 Block IB and
    integrated into the Aegis BMD 5.1 Weapon System, thereby leveraging the
    legacy and investment in technological missile propulsion and warhead
    development. We are confident that these challenges can be met to
    support initial deployment in 2015.
        Question. General Obering, what are the current lift-phase
    intercept capabilities, what programs are currently underway to develop
    this capability, and what are the greatest hurdles to developing that
    capability?
        Answer. There is currently no operational boost phase intercept
    capability.
        We are developing two potential boost phase intercept capabilities
    to supplement currently fielded midcourse and terminal defenses. The
    Airborne Laser (ABL) element of Ballistic Missile Defense is the
    primary effort currently underway to address boost phase ballistic
    missile threats of all ranges. The high-acceleration Kinetic Energy
    Interceptor (KEI) booster (KEB) development effort, continuing on the
    recommendation of the Defense Science Board's, is an option in the
    event ABL does not meet critical knowledge points in its test program.
        The greatest hurdles to develop an operational ABL capability are:
      --Flight test of beam control and atmospheric compensation lasers
            against a cooperative airborne target.
      --Integration of high energy laser modules with the modified Boeing
            747 aircraft in preparation of a lethal shoot-down of a
            ballistic missile target.
      --Maintainability--Demonstration of routine safe processes for
            handling of corrosive on-board chemicals for extended flights.
      --Reliability of optical system performance, including compensation
            for atmospheric effects, aircraft induced optical jitter, and
            ensuring high beam quality in an operational environment.
      --Realization of producing additional ABL units within cost and
            schedule to demonstrate readiness for weaponization.
        The greatest hurdles to develop an operational Kinetic Energy
    Interceptor capability are items such as booster fly-out meeting the
    high performance, high maneuverable requirements, the trapped-ball
    thrust vector control, or the ability to get and process data in a
    operationally useful timeline as potential technical hurdles for KEI.
    Additionally:
      --Maintaining flexibility to integrate with Multiple Kill Vehicle
            capability in the future and/or using the KEB as a replacement
            booster for our other kinetic energy components;
      --Maintaining options to develop a land-mobile launcher and fire
            control system as well as an option for a sea-based capability;
      --Mitigate critical risk areas prior to making full budget
            commitments;
      --Flight test of high acceleration booster.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
                                 airborne laser
        Question. When I visited the Airborne Laser program at Kirtland AFB
    in January 2000, I was told that the Airborne Laser program was on
    schedule to do a lethal shoot-down in 2003 and that the first aircraft
    of a seven-aircraft fleet would be deployed in 2007. Now the first
    shoot-down attempt is scheduled for 2009 and there seems to be no plans
    for deploying the system.
        Can you explain to me in layman's terms what has caused the program
    to slip so much?
        Answer. In January 2000, the Airborne Laser (ABL) Element of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) was scheduled to conduct lethal
    shootdown in 2003 and to deploy the first of a seven-aircraft fleet in
    2007. However, the ABL Element has evolved considerably since 2000 in
    response to technical and programmatic challenges in developing this
    powerful, revolutionary, speed-of-light weapon system. Major
    adjustments to the program and its schedule have arisen primarily from:
      --Technological complexity of the program's revolutionary
            capabilities: a high-power chemical laser and associated beam
            control optics on a flying platform;
      --Risks associated with rapid prototyping during the early part of
            the program;
      --Prior to 2004, programmatic focus on a single objective of
            shootdown, rather than incremental successes in proving
            technology and capability (i.e., knowledge points); and
      --Unforeseen technical discoveries during development, integration
            and test, especially during hardware/software integration.
        In 2004, the MDA Director refocused the ABL Element and directed
    the use of an incremental, knowledge-based acquisition approach, a
    change which shifted lethal demonstration from December 2004 to late
    2008. The ABL Element has recognized more efficiency both in terms of
    schedule and costs as a result of this change. Technical discoveries
    since the 2004 restructure have only recently pushed the projected
    shootdown date to 4QFY09.
        ABL is on the cutting edge of technology in almost every aspect of
    its development. Each component of the ABL has overcome significant
    technical challenges, often through the invention of ``first-ever''
    technological achievements. Moreover, the rapid prototyping approach
    prior to the 2004 restructure offered the prospect of quick operational
    capability but also carried a higher risk of re-design and rework as
    many processes were attempted in parallel rather than in serial. The
    new restructured approach slows the development process down, but also
    significantly reduces risk. After all, the integration of the laser,
    optics, and software on a flying platform represents a level of
    complexity never before attempted in an airborne optical system.
        In summary, the ABL Element of BMDS is successfully developing a
    revolutionary, speed-of-light capability that will prove invaluable to
    the nation's defense against ballistic missiles and will establish a
    role for Directed Energy weapons in the future defense of the United
    States.
                             cruise missile defense
        Question. What capabilities do the ballistic missile defense
    systems that you are developing offer for defending against cruise
    missiles?
        Answer. The Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) currently under
    development has been designed for defense in depth against short-,
    medium- and long-range ballistic missiles. Some of the elements
    designed for short- and medium-range ballistic missile defense also
    provide a capability for cruise missile defense. Chief among these are
    the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System and the Aegis Weapon System,
    upon which the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense capability is built.
        The Patriot Air and Missile Defense System, being procured by the
    Army, provides a capability to detect, track and engage aircraft,
    cruise missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles in their terminal
    phase. These different target types can be engaged simultaneously. A
    Patriot Fire Unit is deployed with an AN/MPQ-53/65 phased array radar,
    an Engagement Control Station, and multiple missile launchers. Each
    launcher contains up to sixteen Patriot PAC-3 missiles. While the fly-
    out of the PAC-3 missile limits Patriot engagements to fairly short
    ranges, a Missile Segment Enhancement currently under development by
    the Army will significantly increase the engagement ranges for all
    target types. This enhancement will form the basis for the Medium
    Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), being jointly developed by the
    United States, Germany and Italy, which will also have the capability
    to engage aircraft, cruise missile and ballistic missile targets.
        The Aegis Weapon System, deployed on Aegis-class Cruisers and
    Destroyers, also provides the capability to detect, track and engage
    aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. These targets can be
    engaged simultaneously, as was demonstrated in the recent FTM-11 test
    of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system. Unlike Patriot, Aegis is
    capable of engaging ballistic missiles in the ascent, midcourse and
    descent phases of their trajectories. The Aegis Weapon System is
    comprised of the AN/SPY-1 phased array radar, a Command and Decision
    system, and a Weapon Control System, capable of controlling the launch
    of multiple Standard Missiles from vertical launch cells. Different
    Standard Missile variants are currently used for the engagement of air
    and ballistic missile targets. The SM-2 Blk III and Blk IV missile
    variants developed by the Navy are used for the engagement of aircraft
    and cruise missiles, while MDA-developed variants to the SM-3 missile
    are used for the exoatmospheric engagement of ballistic missiles.
    Recently, MDA has funded modifications to the SM-2 Blk IV missile which
    will provide an endoatmospheric Sea-Based Terminal defense against
    ballistic missiles, making it dual-use for both air and ballistic
    missile targets. In addition, a new missile variant under development
    by the Navy, the SM-6, will replace the SM-2 for defense against
    aircraft and cruise missiles, and is under consideration for use by MDA
    as part of the Sea-Based Terminal ballistic missile defense capability.
        The Missile Defense Agency has recently been tasked by Congress to
    assess candidate architectures for the defense of the U.S. Homeland
    against asymmetric threats comprised of cruise missiles or short-range
    ballistic missiles launched from a ship off the U.S. coastline. Some of
    the elements of the BMDS described above would most likely have a role
    in such an architecture. In particular, while additional sensors would
    most likely be needed to detect and track low-flying cruise missiles
    over wide areas, the Patriot PAC-3 and the SM-6 Standard Missiles could
    potentially provide the engagement capability needed to counter both
    the asymmetric cruise and ballistic missile threats.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                      cost
        Question. A November 2006 report by the Congressional Budget Office
    states that the annual cost of missile defense could reach $18 billion
    by 2016. Is this an accurate assessment? If so, how can you justify
    spending so much on national missile defense given the number of
    national defense priorities we face? If not, what is a more realistic
    assessment and where did the Congressional Budget Office go wrong?
        Answer. The CBO estimate for total investment in missile defense
    programs for 2016 was about $15 billion and the estimate was based on
    carrying out all projected development and acquisition programs. The
    CBO noted that if cost risk is taken into account, the amount ``might
    be about $3 billion higher each year.''
        It will be several years before the Department of Defense
    Comptroller issues official fiscal guidance to MDA that includes fiscal
    year 2016. However, even without seeing future year fiscal guidance, it
    is safe to say that we do not anticipate our fiscal requirement for
    fiscal year 2016 will approach $18 billion as the recent CBO report
    suggests. We believe that the Department will likely maintain MDA's
    current ``top line''. Accordingly, this would amount to a funding level
    of approximately $10-$11 billion for fiscal year 2014 and beyond.
    Within this top line constraint, the Director, MDA, would recommend to
    the Department leadership the best course of action for balancing
    investments across the missile defense program that would allow us to
    continue to meet the priorities of the President, the Department, the
    Congress, and the Warfighter.
                            performance and testing
        Question. In March 2005, you were quoted as asserting that ``We
    could certainly shoot down an incoming missile if we needed to'' with
    the ground-based mid-course (GMD) system. Is that still your
    assessment?
        Answer. Yes, that is still my assessment for threats launched from
    North Korea to the United States. On July 4, 2006, North Korea did
    launch seven missiles capable of striking our allies and deployed
    forces in the Western Pacific, and also launched a Taepo Dong 2 long-
    range missile believed to be capable of striking the Western United
    States. Our confidence in our assessment stems from the fact that we
    have successfully completed numerous ground tests, to include hardware
    in the loop, culminating in a flight test (FTG-02) that demonstrated a
    representative engagement.
        Question. We have deployed a missile defense system without any
    operational testing of the system. The system is not on alert. Is that
    accurate?
        Answer. Currently the fielded Ballistic Missile Defense System
    (BMDS) is not on alert at all times, but it is available to be placed
    on alert as demonstrated when we converted the system to alert mode
    prior to North Korea's missile launches on July 4, 2006. Transition to
    alert status is periodically exercised when STRATCOM conducts
    unannounced system readiness demonstrations. There is no need to keep
    the BMDS on continuous alert because it is continuously subject to
    recall, in response to changes in real world events, based upon changes
    in defense readiness conditions specified by U.S. Strategic Command.
        The fielded BMDS has been subjected to operationally-realistic
    combined developmental and operational testing, and we work closely
    with the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, Operational Test
    Agencies, and Combatant Commanders to incorporate operational test
    objectives and include operational personnel, to the maximum extent
    possible, in all of our flight tests. We also work together to
    characterize the effectiveness and readiness of the system at every
    stage in its development and fielding.
        Testing under operationally realistic conditions is an important
    part of maturing the system. We have been fielding test assets in
    operational configurations in order to conduct increasingly complex and
    end-to-end tests of the system. Our flight tests are increasing in
    operational realism, limited only by environmental and safety concerns.
        For example, in September 2006, we conducted a long-range intercept
    flight test that exceeded our objectives. That complex test involved an
    operationally configured interceptor launched from an operationally
    configured silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base, operational sensors, and
    operationally trained crews manning the fire control consoles. The test
    demonstrated the functionality of the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle and
    the ability to engage a threat-representative target using the Upgraded
    Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base in California. After the
    kill vehicle acquired the target, launched from the Kodiak Launch
    Complex in Alaska nearly 3,000 km away from the engagement zone, it
    successfully intercepted it. This was our most operationally realistic,
    end-to-end test of the system involving the Ground-based Midcourse
    Defense element to date.
        Based on the many tests we have conducted to date, we maintain our
    confidence in the Ballistic Missile Defense System's basic design, its
    hit-to-kill effectiveness, and its inherent operational capability.
        Question. The system was put on alert when North Korea conducted
    missile tests in July 2006. At that time, the Missile Defense Agency
    stated: ``we currently do not have a capability to concurrently
    maintain the [Ballistic Missile Defense System] in full operational
    mode while simultaneously developing, testing, or training on the
    system.'' In other words, the Missile Defense Agency cannot walk and
    chew gum at the same time. If we have the system on alert, we have to
    stop testing, development, and training. Is that still your assessment?
    If it is, would you agree that it calls into the question the whole
    notion of ``spiral development'', that is fielding a system before it
    has been actually been operationally tested?
        Answer. The United States has the ability to put a Ballistic
    Missile Defense System (BMDS) on alert today because of the capability-
    based, spiral development acquisition approach the Missile Defense
    Agency (MDA) has followed since 2002. This approach leverages
    collaboration with the warfighter community throughout development and
    testing to the point where we transition or transfer militarily useful
    capabilities to the operators.
        For the first time in the history of the United States when the
    North Koreans launched several ballistic missiles last summer, we had
    the capability of defending our people against a long-range missile.
        The issue of testing and training while the BMDS is in operational
    mode is complex and involves safety considerations as well as other
    technical matters. We are actively addressing this issue by developing
    the capability to conduct Concurrent Test, Training, and Operations.
    This capability will allow Combatant Commanders to keep the system in
    operational mode while we test, train, and make improvements to the
    system. Our spiral development strategy has allowed us to field an
    initial capability in record time and to improve that capability over
    time. Without spiral development, we would not have had any capability
    fielded last July.
        Testing under operationally realistic conditions is an important
    part of maturing the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). MDA is
    using a combined Developmental and Operational Testing (DT/OT) approach
    that uses Operational Realism criteria developed by MDA and Director,
    Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). In fact, MDA has been fielding
    test assets in operational configurations to provide an initial
    capability while allowing us to conduct increasingly realistic and
    complex end-to-end tests of the system.
        Question. Is it your view that the American people are, at this
    moment, safer from a ballistic missile attack with a national missile
    defense system that is not on alert and has not been operationally
    tested?
        Answer. I believe the American people are safer at this moment
    because we have in place today a limited defensive capability to
    engage, with a high degree of confidence, a North Korean
    intercontinental ballistic missile. Prior to December 2004, the United
    States had no capability in place to intercept a North Korean warhead
    and prevent it from detonating in or over an American city. With the
    deployment of an initial defensive capability just under three years
    ago, we have begun to close a gaping hole in our defenses.
        We are able to monitor global missile launch activities continually
    using national intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance and tracking
    assets, which are able to provide significant data on announced and
    unannounced launches and support missile defense readiness. We are able
    to focus many of these assets on countries of greatest concern, and,
    based on the commendable record of reporting from the Intelligence
    Community to date, I believe that we will have reliable, timely, and
    responsive indications and warning of potential and imminent ballistic
    missile launches out of North Korea.
        We demonstrated this past summer that we are able quickly to
    activate the Ballistic Missile Defense System and prepare it for
    emergency operations. We worked closely with the U.S. Strategic,
    Northern, and Pacific Commands, the Intelligence Community, and our
    allies during this real world event to ensure that the system was ready
    to engage the North Korean long-range ballistic missile, if necessary.
        The system available for emergency use today has undergone
    significant testing, with our most recent tests focused on
    demonstrating the functionality of the system under operationally
    realistic conditions. Over the years we have tested many of the
    hardware and software components of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
    (GMD) system. In the September 2006 test of our GMD long-range defense
    capability, we used an operationally configured interceptor launched
    from an operationally configured silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
    operational sensors, and operationally trained crews manning the fire
    control consoles. Continuing our close working relationship with the
    warfighter community, operational test agencies, and the Pentagon's
    Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, we will configure the next
    test and subsequent tests of the GMD element, to similarly mirror a
    realistic operational event and feature greater test complexity. The
    growth in our confidence in this system's effectiveness is directly
    tied to our ability to practice with it in operationally realistic
    ways.
        We ought not discount the deterrence and dissuasion effects of what
    we have deployed. By fielding a system we can put on alert on very
    short notice, we deploy a defensive capability, the performance of
    which the enemy cannot possibly know with any degree of confidence.
    Having a system that can be activated shifts a portion of the risk to
    the enemy.
        Question. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system (GMD) has only
    intercepted a target in 6 out of 11 highly scripted attempts. When is
    the next intercept attempt? Will it use countermeasures? Will any test
    in the near future incorporate countermeasures?
        Answer. The next intercept attempt, GMD Flight Test-03 (FTG-03), is
    planned for May 2007 and will not use countermeasures on the target
    reentry vehicle. The subsequent flight test, FTG-04, is currently
    scheduled for September-October 2007 and test plans currently include
    countermeasures. However, MDA has successfully tested GMD intercepts in
    a countermeasure environment in the past and we are confident, based on
    modeling and engineering, that we will continue to do so.
        (See attached two charts: GMD Flight Test Summary)

        Question. Why is there no operational testing planned? 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. MDA has conducted operationally realistic tests in the past
    and plans to conduct additional operationally realistic tests in the
    future. Testing under operationally realistic conditions is an
    important part of maturing the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
    MDA has been fielding test assets in operational configurations
    primarily to provide an initial capability and to conduct increasingly
    complex and end-to-end tests of the BMDS.
        MDA has an Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP), which emphasizes
    operationally realistic test and criteria as directed by congressional
    language. This plan is revised annually in coordination with the
    Department's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. The plan will
    continue to expand on the combined Developmental and Operational Test
    (DT/OT) approach which focuses on increasing operational realism as we
    move from subsystem to fully integrated system-level testing for each
    block of fielded capability. The testing progression that we have
    defined in the IMTP builds upon increasing levels of operationally
    realistic scenarios, targets, and warfighter interaction. Every
    Ballistic Missile Defense System ground and flight test will include
    operational test objectives to provide data for an operational
    assessment.
        Using criteria established by the Agency's system engineers and our
    warfighters, all system ground and flight tests provide data that we
    and the operational test community use to verify the system's
    functionality and operational effectiveness. Our flight tests are
    increasing in operational realism, limited only by environmental and
    safety concerns. Each system test builds on the knowledge gained from
    previous tests and adds increasingly challenging objectives, with the
    goal of devising scenarios that test elements of the system from end-
    to-end. This spiral test approach increases knowledge of, and
    confidence in, the system performance while maintaining safety and
    minimizing artificiality.
        For example, in September 2006, we conducted a long-range intercept
    flight test that exceeded our objectives. That complex test involved an
    operationally configured interceptor launched from an operationally
    configured silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base, operational sensors, and
    operationally trained crews manning the fire control consoles. The test
    demonstrated the functionality of the Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle and
    the ability to engage a threat-representative target using the Upgraded
    Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base in California. After the
    kill vehicle acquired the target launched out of the Kodiak Launch
    Complex in Alaska nearly 3,000 km away from the engagement zone, it
    successfully intercepted it. While it was not hooked into the system,
    we also demonstrated the powerful contributions the Sea-Based X-band
    radar can make in the areas of tracking and discrimination. This was
    our most operationally realistic, end-to-end test of the system
    involving the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element to date.
        Question. If we are concerned about the treat posed by ballistic
    missiles, why is the system not on 24/7?
        Answer. [Deleted.]
        Question. What specifically is the time frame for researching and
    developing the two-stage interceptor that the Missile Defense Agency
    wants placed in Easter Europe? What is the testing schedule? What level
    of reliability must it meet before it will be deployed? What will
    happen if the European nations decide not to accept missile defense
    interceptors?
        Answer. The interceptor planned for deployment in Europe is a 2-
    stage configuration of the currently deployed and flight-tested 3-stage
    booster at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base. The booster
    contractor will complete design modifications to eliminate the third
    stage rocket motor and repackage the booster electronics that were
    located on the third stage. Additionally, navigation and guidance
    software changes will enable the interceptor to perform mission
    profiles for two stages of flight versus three. The common components
    between the 2-stage and the 3-stage booster have undergone significant,
    ground, flight, and qualification testing as part of the 3-stage
    development effort. Because the 2-stage interceptor planned for Europe
    has fewer components than its 3-stage predecessor, the planned 2-stage
    variant is a less-complex version of the successfully tested and
    fielded 3-stage interceptor.
        The GMD 2-Stage development activity has started and a Program
    Critical Design Review is scheduled to occur in December of 2008. Two
    flight tests will be conducted, both from Vandenberg Air Force Base in
    California, prior to deploying interceptors at the European Site. The
    two flight tests include a booster verification flight with an Exo-
    atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) mass simulator, scheduled for the fourth
    quarter of fiscal year 2010, and an integrated flight test with an EKV
    and a threat-representative target vehicle scheduled for the second
    quarter of fiscal year 2011. The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
    Fire Control (GFC) and Command and Launch Equipment (CLE) software
    adapted for the 2-stage interceptor will also be included in the 2-
    stage intercept flight test.
        The Missile Defense Agency has identified and is currently working
    to mitigate risks for 2-stage interceptor development. Overall, the
    development and fielding for the 2-stage interceptor is low risk. The
    most noteworthy risks are with the software changes and integration
    required with the 2-stage interceptor, the CLE, and the GFC in order to
    optimize the interceptor's performance envelope. These risks will be
    mitigated through our ground and flight test programs.
        Booster modifications (3-stage to 2-stage) are neither uncommon,
    nor unprecedented. In fact, the Payload Launch Vehicles (PLVs) flown in
    the GMD program's first ten Integrated Flight Tests (January 1997
    through December 2002) were 2-stage variants of the standard 3-stage
    Minuteman boosters. So, the Missile Defense Agency has successful prior
    experience in modifying 3-stage boosters to fly 2-stage missions.
        The non-recurring engineering funding for the GMD 2-Stage
    development totals $15 million and is located in the Ground Based
    Interceptor portion of project 0008 of the GMD Program Element. Boeing
    and its subcontractor Orbital Sciences began working 2-stage activities
    February 23, 2007.
        The 2-stage interceptor reliability will be demonstrated through
    rigorous component qualification, integration testing, ground testing,
    and flight testing.
        Interceptor deployment into the European Site is scheduled for the
    fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011 through the second quarter of fiscal
    year 2013. A detailed schedule is presented in the attachment. If the
    decision were made not to deploy GBI's 45-54 in Europe, we could use
    those interceptors at Fort Greely.

                                 effectiveness
        Question. In March of 2003, Edward ``Pete'' Aldridge, who was then
    the undersecretary 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. On
    July 21, 2005, you stated that there is a ``better-than-zero chance of
    successfully intercepting, I believe, an inbound warhead.'' Can you
    explain the differences in your assessments? Since you made that
    statement, have our chances improved at all?
        Answer. Since I made that statement, we have made substantial
    progress in developing testing and fielding an integrated, layered
    Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). As commentary on our progress,
    I would point to testimony by the Director, Operational Test and
    Evaluation on March 27, 2007 that the ``BMDS has demonstrated a limited
    capability against a simple foreign threat'' and that ``MDA's ground
    test program was active, robust, and disciplined, demonstrating BMDS
    capability and interoperability.'' And as our testing and fielding
    continues, our confidence in the reliability and maintainability of the
    BMDS increases. The BMDS is on track to reach its specification values
    in the 2010-2012 timeframe. This means the system effectiveness would
    be in the range of 90 percent for certain threat class and launch
    locations. Our current system capability against North Korean threats
    ranges from 80 percent-90 percent for the defense of the United States.
    This is defensive capability we have not previously had and one which
    the warfighters have deemed useful to have as we continue testing and
    progress toward planned system effectiveness.
        Question. Will we ever come close to 100 percent? How much will it
    cost to get there? Where will we be at the end of this fiscal year?
        Answer. Complex weapon systems rarely achieve 100 percent
    effectiveness. Nevertheless, the GBI element of the Ballistic Missile
    Defense System is highly effective in performing its mission since we
    commit two interceptors to every threat missile in order to approach
    100 percent effectiveness. At the end of the fiscal year with our
    current shot doctrine, we achieve greater than 90 percent effectiveness
    for the interceptor. In addition, the GBI is a component of a layered
    BMDS which will allow for even greater performance. Furthermore, over
    the past five years we have made substantial progress in developing,
    testing, and fielding an integrated, layered Ballistic Missile Defense
    System (BMDS) to defend the United States, our deployed forces and our
    Friends and Allies against ballistic missiles of all ranges in all
    phases of flights. As our testing and fielding continues, our
    confidence in the reliability and maintainability of the BMDS
    increases.
        Question. Do you believe that our program has served as a deterrent
    on the nuclear weapons aspirations of either the Iranian or the North
    Koreans?
        Answer. The threats posed by rogue nations such as Iran and North
    Korea continue to challenge our notions of deterrence and defense.
    Surprise--strategic, tactical, and technical--is an expected feature of
    today's security landscape. While deterrence remains the cornerstone of
    our strategy, we recognize an increased risk that deterrence may fail.
    The actions of North Korea and Iran this past year demonstrate the
    determination of these rogue regimes to achieve a ballistic missile
    capability and potentially weapons of mass destruction to further
    aggressive ends. Under such circumstances, missile defenses are highly
    desirable as a hedge against the failure of deterrence. As the
    robustness of the capability fielded increases, we expect that the
    deterrent effect of this initial capability will only increase.
                                 space test bed
        Question. The Missile Defense Agency has requested $10 million for
    the Space Test Bed. What does the system architecture look like? What
    would prompt you not to go forward with this program? Do you agree that
    this may amount to the weaponizing space? Would it compel other
    countries to move forward with their own systems?
        Aanswer. The Space Test Bed is not an acquisition program with a
    set architecture. It is a proving ground for concepts and technologies
    that might some day be integrated into a space-based missile defense
    layer should the data indicate feasibility (survivable, affordable,
    deployable, operable) and if future policy decisions permit.
    Exploration of alternative implementation architectures is a critical
    part of the Space Test Bed.
        The Space Test Bed is not an acquisition program. It is a proving
    ground for determining the feasibility of concepts and technologies.
    Activities would cease if undeniable showstoppers were discovered
    through analysis, experimentation and demonstration or if significant
    breakthroughs in global terrestrial engagement made space defenses
    unnecessary.
        No, we do not. Space ``weaponization'' arguments are not helpful,
    due to the complexities in defining what constitutes a ``space
    weapon,'' as well as the inability to identify meaningful and
    verifiable compliance mechanisms without artificially limiting peaceful
    and practical uses of space.
        The concept of the space test bed as a vehicle to conduct research
    and development of advanced technologies for space is consistent with
    the existing legal regime, based primarily on the 1967 Outer Space
    Treaty and with the President's recently-released National Space
    Policy. The Department has not made a decision to pursue space-based
    interceptors. However, should it consider deploying missile defense
    interceptors in space in the future, the debate will be greatly
    improved by a quantitative understanding of the issues.
        Space based defenses are inherently global and could serve the
    interest of mutual security. There may be powerful incentives to
    develop space based capabilities within the framework of international
    cooperation.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
        Question. Over a year ago, the graham panel recommended
    intensifying your flight and ground testing, while recently the
    Inspector General pointed out issues with your network communications
    security. How has your confidence in our deployed system, including the
    interceptors Fort Greely and Vandenberg, changed? Your plan calls for
    only one ground based missile defense intercept test in fiscal year
    2006; are you comfortable with that level and rate of testing?
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency's confidence in our deployed
    BMDS is growing. If the deployed system were called upon in an
    emergency we believe that it would work based on the testing we have
    conducted to date. Recent tests conducted over the past year bolster
    our confidence as we have successfully flown the operationally
    configured interceptor. We hope to gain further confidence in our
    system's capability when we conduct an intercept flight test with an
    operationally configured GBI later this year.
        We are successfully executing our plan of continued laboratory and
    distributed asset testing at the component and system level, and are
    conducting a regimented flight test schedule with well-defined entrance
    and exit criteria in accordance with the recommendations of the
    Independent Review Team (IRT) and the Mission Readiness Task Force
    (MRTF). We have instituted a stringent pre-mission ground test program
    prior to our Ground Based Midcourse Interceptor flight test missions
    which allows us to fully exercise the ground components at Fort Greeley
    and Vandenberg prior to a flight test event. In addition, we have
    successfully demonstrated the ability to launch, fly and separate the
    Ground Based Midcourse Interceptor's Exo-atmospheric kill vehicle,
    thereby validating the modifications we made after previous flight
    tests. We have also recently conducted live tests of other key BMDS
    assets demonstrating the system's ability to detect and track live
    targets in flight using operational sensors, operational networks, and
    our operational battle management and fire control nodes.
        Our disciplined path to returning to a flight program required
    specific technical criteria to be met before the flight test could
    occur. This approach limited us to one intercept flight test in fiscal
    year 2006, but provided us with key insights to bolster confidence in
    each and every subsequent event. We plan to maintain this strategy as
    we strive to increase the flight test tempo in subsequent years,
    improve integration of Information Assurance (IA) Controls, and believe
    that this strategy helps balance the technical risks with additional
    confidence that comes from testing in more stressful intercept
    environments.
        Concerning the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG)
    report on the Ground Based Midcourse Defense Communications Network
    (GCN), MDA is confident that the GCN will continue to perform safely,
    securely, and efficiently when called upon to defend this nation, our
    friends and allies against missile threats. The IG recommendations are
    matters that need attending to, and are being appropriately addressed.
                          ground-based missile defense
        Question. I'm pleased that the airborne laser has made technical
    strides during the last year. Will this program have the funding to
    meet its key milestones in 2007?
        Answer. The program has sufficient funding to accomplish the
    projected milestones in 2007. ABL is a high-risk/high-payoff program
    based on cutting edge technology in developing and integrating advanced
    optics and lasers on a flying platform. The program has made
    significant progress by successfully demonstrating long-duration lasing
    at lethal power levels in ground tests and completing flight testing of
    the integrated beam control/fire control and battle management systems
    on board the ABL prototype aircraft. The program is following a very
    aggressive schedule to complete both ground and flight tests of the
    beacon and tracking illuminators (including demonstration of
    atmospheric compensation) before the end of CY06, and completion of low
    power system testing in CY07, while the high energy laser component is
    refurbished in preparation for installation on board the aircraft in
    CY07. All these efforts are leading up to a lethal shoot-down of a
    ballistic missile in the 2008 timeframe.
        Question. Fielding Aegis and Ground Based Midcourse Defense are
    priorities for this committee. Can you assure this committee that the
    Missile Defense Agency has adequate resources allocated to the testing,
    fielding and operational aspects of the current system before embarking
    on the development of new capabilities?
        Answer. I share your views on the importance of fielding the
    Ground-based Midcourse and Aegis BMD elements of the Ballistic Missile
    Defense System (BMDS).
        In fiscal year 2007 we plan to continue the incremental fielding
    and sustainment of Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors;
    additional SM-3 missiles and upgrades to Aegis BMD ships; and the
    supporting sensors, command, control, battle management and
    communication capabilities required to integrate these interceptors
    into the BMDS. We have been steadily increasing the operational realism
    of Aegis BMD flight tests leading to deployment of a certified tactical
    capability later this year. In Aegis BMD, the Navy's Operational Test
    and Evaluation force is conducting concurrent testing as part of Aegis
    BMD flight test missions. We will also be pursuing a comprehensive and
    integrated approach to increasing the operational realism of our GMD
    and BMDS flight tests as well as making our ground testing program more
    robust. At the same time, we are not wavering from our commitment to
    sustaining these systems once they are in the field.
        The resources included in our fiscal year 2007 President's Budget
    request, as well as throughout the FYDP, are adequate to support our
    fielding, sustaining and testing commitments. Currently, we are
    fielding missile defense assets about as fast as we can and I can
    assure you that our budget request represents an appropriate balance
    between providing near term missile defense capabilities and preparing
    for the emerging threats of the future through our evolutionary
    development programs.
        Question. The radar at Shemya and the sea based X-Band are key
    elements of the ground based missile defense system. As such, they are
    likely high value targets in the initial phases of an attack. Does the
    Missile Defense Agency plan to protect these assets from our
    adversaries? Can you provide us that plan in a classified session?
        Answer. The overall protection strategy for the Cobra Dane Radar on
    Shemya Island, Alaska and the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) is based upon an
    assessment of the current threat, the application of security measures
    to deter identified threats and appropriately protect the radar and
    personnel, and the Combatant Commanders planned response to actual
    threats.
    Cobra Dane
        U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Strategic Directive 538-2,
    ``Global Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (GBMDS) Physical Security
    Program'' directs protection standard at the SSL-A level. This
    specifies protection commensurate with assets for which loss, thefts,
    destruction or compromise would cause great harm to the strategic
    capability of the U.S. Cobra Dane does not currently meet all SSL-A
    protection requirements. Remoteness of the asset, severe weather
    conditions, and cost vs. risk are considerations being evaluated
    towards a decision to properly updated existing security. MDA is
    working with USSTRATCOM and Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) to conduct a
    security assessment and develop a risk mitigation plan to identify
    security systems suitable for the Eareckson environment, including
    enhanced security for the Cobra Dane radar.
    SBX
        SBX is currently protected as a System Security Level-A asset in
    accordance with DEPSECDEP direction, as implemented by U.S. Strategic
    Command (USSTRATCOM) Strategic Directive 538-2. USSTRATCOM has endorsed
    MDA security and force protection measures as consistent with 538-2 for
    SSL-A.
        Geographic Combatant Commands (GCC) are responsible under the
    Unified Command Plan (UCP) for force protection oversight of SBX-1 when
    operating in their area of responsibility. While MDA is responsible for
    antiterrorism/force protection (AT/FP) of the vessel, the GCC is
    responsible for responding to attacks by adversaries during increased
    threats/wartime. Based on the Force Protection Condition (FPCON) and
    current intelligence, GCCs will direct assigned forces or request
    additional forces to protect the SBX operations, as required.
        Question. Your agency is in the initial development stages of the
    Kinetic Energy Inteceptor, which appears to offer improved performance
    during boost and ascent phase engagements. For commonality,
    supportability, and cost have we examined all avenues of improvements,
    or modifications, to the existing ground based interceptors to provide
    this capability?
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency did examine the possibility of
    improving or modifying the existing Ground-Based Interceptor to enable
    boost and early ascent phase defenses prior to starting the Kinetic
    Energy Interceptors program in 2003. What we and multiple industry
    teams determined is that a mobile, fast-burning, high acceleration
    booster capability is required to meet boost/ascent phase mission
    requirements. The Kinetic Energy Interceptor booster has approximately
    three times the acceleration of a Ground Based Interceptor with a
    similar payload volume and weight capacity. The Kinetic Energy
    Interceptor is also half the weight of a Ground Based Interceptor; its
    physical size (length and diameter) is constrained to allow rapid
    transport on a C-17 aircraft and future integration on a sea-based
    platform. The only way to achieve this mobile weapon capability is to
    design, develop, integrate and test new booster motors. The development
    of this unique booster vehicle capability is the primary focus of the
    Kinetic Energy Interceptors program through the 2008 booster flight
    knowledge point.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
              value of test ranges to missile defense agency (mda)
        Question. White Sands is perhaps the most unique installation in
    all of DOD and, when combined with Fort Bliss (most of which is located
    in New Mexico) and Holloman Air Force Base, it gives the Department a
    highly valuable venue for combining operations and testing.
        Can you describe the value MDA places on its access to an
    installation like White Sands with its enormous geographic size and
    unrestricted airspace?
        Answer. MDA values access an installation like White Sands Missile
    Range (WSMR) for testing of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMDS) elements
    due to its geographic size and airspace. However, WSMR is not well
    suited for MDA test engagements across multiple time-zones which are
    necessary to increase confidence in the whole BMDS. We continue to
    integrate theater and regional missile engagement capabilities into the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System with a strategic engagement capability
    demonstrated for Block 04. With its size and airspace, WSMR will
    contribute to the success of the BMDS in future testing involving
    PATRIOT integrated with Command Control Battle Management and
    Communications (C2BMC) and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense
    system (THAAD). PATRIOT testing is required to assist in maintaining
    the Limited Defensive Capability of the BMDS as well as the development
    of future Blocks of the BMDS.
        Question. Does this access provide the type of realistic testing
    environment needed to collect accurate data for your systems?
        Answer. Yes, at the developmental testing level, but not as much
    for operational testing:
      --Airborne Laser (ABL).--WSMR is well suited for firing the laser in
            flight at diagnostic missiles during beam characterization, and
            for some test sorties where active laser operation is not
            required.
      --THAAD.--For ground testing, THAAD will conduct a total of 26
            activities comprised of tests, demonstrations and New Equipment
            Training/Collective Training. These activities will exercise
            the Launcher, Radar, and Fire Control and Communication
            components of the THAAD element, at WSMR and other ranges, from
            2007 through 2011.
      --PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC)-3.--In fiscal year 2007 and
            fiscal year 2008 there will be a total of two BMDS tests that
            use the Army's PATRIOT tests at WSMR. The first test, set for
            2QFY07, will bring C2BMC and THAAD Hardware-In-the-Loop (HWIL)
            to exercise the latest PATRIOT and C2BMC software. MDA will
            collect data on communications between THAAD and PATRIOT and
            will test PATRIOT's ability to receive C2BMC engagement-
            coordination direction. For the second test, set for 1QFY08,
            MDA will bring C2BMC and THAAD HWIL to the PAC-2 Guidance
            Enhancement Missile (GEM) P6X-2 test to accomplish the same
            objectives. It should be noted that the Army will be conducting
            PATRIOT tests at WSMR in addition to MDA specific tests.
        Question. How will White Sands contribute to the success of the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System in the future?
        Answer. In Block 06 and beyond, the MDA has planned engagement
    sequences that include THAAD engagement on its X-band radars and on
    system-level tracks. The WSMR flight campaigns will contribute to
    proving key functionality and interfaces as the BMDS extends to
    integrated, layered, worldwide-defensive capabilities. Accordingly, the
    MDA testing program includes THAAD flight tests and Patriot flight
    tests to demonstrate early interoperability, then integration with the
    BMDS. The C2BMC element will participate in these flight tests to
    demonstrate the situational awareness and planning functions that are
    needed to conduct regional missile defense operations.
        Question. A range-wide environmental impact statement has not been
    completed for WSMR in more than ten years. Would the Missile Defense
    Agency benefit from such an EIS?
        Answer. A decision to conduct a range wide EIS at the Army's White
    Sands Missile Range would be made by the Army and White Sands Missile
    Range, and any value to the Missile Defense Agency would be indirect.
    The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) coordinates test planning at White
    Sands Missile Range with the Army, and as new missile tests are
    identified to meet our testing goals, and as the proponent of those
    tests, the Missile Defense Agency would initiate the necessary level of
    compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for the specific
    action. Current planned Missile Defense Agency testing at White Sands
    Missile Range is compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act.
        Question. What does the Missile Defense Agency need from White
    Sands Missile Range and New Mexico?
        Answer. THAAD returned to flight testing in 2005, and the second
    flight test of five at WSMR occurred on May 11, 2006. The THAAD program
    currently plans to conduct three additional flight tests at WSMR over
    the rest of this year and into fiscal year 2007 before moving future
    testing to the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) at Barking Sands,
    HI, where we can conduct tests of more challenging engagement
    scenarios.
        WSMR provides support for many other MDA flight tests via our
    Pacific Range Support Teams (PRST) which are teams composed of staff
    from multiple DOD ranges to support broad ocean area tests, and to
    specific MDA dedicated mobile test assets. We need the WSMR team to
    continue their outstanding support of our MDA PRST, providing critical
    mobile equipment and expertise to remote locations around the Pacific.
    While the WSMR geography seems substantial for tactical systems, MDA
    systems must demonstrate their capabilities on both a broader theater
    and global scale. This large-scale testing will require us to use large
    areas within the Pacific oceans.
        MDA and DOD continually seek more commonality of testing processes
    and tools across the Major Ranges and Test Facility Base, to enable
    more efficient and flexible testing in the future. WSMR's continued
    support of these activities is crucial.
        The C2BMC element participates in THAAD and PATRIOT testing from
    WSMR to achieve early demonstrations of element interconnectivity and
    data message transfer during live fire events. This interconnectivity
    testing is made easy by WSMR's SIPRNET on-range connectivity and ease
    of set-up and troubleshooting.
        MDA's programs take advantage of a substantial amount of
    infrastructure and technical expertise from across New Mexico. Some of
    the other areas include: Holloman High Speed Test Track and WSMR for
    lethality and survivability testing; Kirtland Air Force Research Labs
    and the ABL program office support to our Directed Energy activities;
    and Sandia National Labs for support to our FT targets, threat
    analyses, survivability, among others.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Inouye. The hearing is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, April 25, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:34 a.m., in room SH-216, Hart
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye, Byrd, Leahy, Dorgan, Feinstein,
    Mikulski, Kohl, Murray, Stevens, Cochran, Specter, Domenici,
    Shelby, and Gregg.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
    ACCOMPANIED BY HON. TINA JONAS, COMPTROLLER

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Before we proceed, I must announce that the
    leadership has scheduled four bills for consideration and the
    voting will commence at 11:30. So, reluctantly I must insist
    upon the 5-minute rule. Otherwise some Senators will not be
    heard.
        I would like to welcome you, Mr. Secretary and General
    Pace. I will abbreviate my statement and put the full statement
    in the record.
        Your budget request of $481 billion is the highest we have
    ever had, so it would appear logical that the request would be
    sufficient to meet all needs. However, we have found several
    serious shortfalls. For example, a critical shortfall in the
    healthcare system; the Air Force planned termination of the C-
    17 fails to take into consideration the need for more aircraft
    due to overuse in Iraq; the National Guard and Reserves have
    testified that equipment levels are shockingly low; and I think
    events in Kansas recently demonstrated that.
        So we see that funding problems still exist, Mr. Secretary.
    My colleagues have also raised a question of recent changes to
    our deployment plans of our National Guard and active duty
    forces. Healthcare experts are now raising questions about the
    impact of lengthy tours on the mental health of these men.
        So, Mr. Secretary, General Pace, we appreciate your
    attendance here.
        I would like to now recognize the vice chairman of the
    subcommittee.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Good morning Mr. Secretary. I want to welcome you and
    General Pace as the subcommittee continues its Defense
    Department hearings on the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
        During our hearings this year we have received testimony
    from various components and activities of your Department.
        Each of the military departments, the National Guard and
    Reserves, the Missile Defense Agency, the Surgeons General and
    representatives from the intelligence community have all
    provided their input to the committee.
        Next week we will conclude our hearings as we receive
    testimony from members of the general public.
        The fiscal year 2008 DOD budget request of $481 billion is
    at record high levels, so it seemed logical for us to assume
    that funding levels in the request would be sufficient to meet
    all the needs of the Department. In fact, that is not the case.
    We have found a number of areas where surprising shortfalls
    remain.
        In health care, your budget includes savings for assumed
    legislative changes to increase beneficiary co-payments and
    forced efficiencies in our military treatment facilities. At
    the same time, the problems found at Walter Reed demonstrated
    that there are critical shortfalls in our health care system.
        We have learned that the Air Force planned termination of
    the C-17 fails to take into consideration the need for more
    aircraft due to its overuse in Iraq, as well as a newly planned
    increase in Army force structure, and the recommended
    retirement of the older C-5A airlifter.
        The National Guard testified its equipment levels are
    shockingly low and events in Kansas last weekend confirmed
    that.
        So even in these times of record budgets, not even
    including wartime supplementals, we see that funding problems
    still exist.
        My colleagues have also raised questions on recent changes
    to our deployment plans for our National Guard and active duty
    forces.
        This is of some concern to us as we hear that health
    experts are raising questions about the impact of lengthy tours
    on mental health.
        So Mr. Secretary, General Pace, we appreciate your
    attendance here today.
        We hope we can have in depth discussions on these and many
    other subjects. Please be advised that your remarks will
    certainly aid us in the preparation of the fiscal year 2008
    defense appropriations bill.
        We thank you very much and look forward to your testimony.
        Let me begin first by recognizing the vice chairman,
    Senator Stevens.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In the interest of time, I will put my statement in the
    record and welcome the Secretary and General Pace and Ms.
    Jonas. We are pleased to have you here today.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens

        I join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses here today.
    Thank you all for your service and for appearing here to
    discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
        We face a difficult task in balancing the military's
    competing requirements for modernization, maintaining force
    readiness, and improving the quality of life for our military
    service members and their families. As we all know, the demand
    for funding far surpasses the amounts available. We look
    forward to working with you to meet the most pressing needs. I
    look forward to hearing your testimony here today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                       SECRETARY GATES' OPENING STATEMENT

        Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Gates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
    fiscal year 2008 defense budget, which includes the base budget
    request and the fiscal year 2008 global war on terror (GWOT)
    request. My statement which has been submitted for the record
    includes additional information and details.
        In summary, the budget request submitted by the President
    will modernize and recapitalize key capabilities in the armed
    forces, to include funding increases for the next generation of
    ships, strike aircraft, and ground combat systems, sustain the
    all-volunteer military by reducing stress on the force and
    improving the quality of life for our troops and their
    families, improve readiness through additional training and
    maintenance and by resetting forces following their overseas
    deployment, build the capabilities of partner nations to combat
    extremists within their own borders by using new train and
    equip authorities, thus reducing the potential demand for U.S.
    troops in the future, and fund U.S. military operations during
    fiscal year 2008 in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the
    ongoing campaign against violent jihadist networks around the
    globe.
        I believe that it is important to consider the request, the
    budget request submitted to the Congress this year, the base
    budget, and war-related requests in some historical context,
    inasmuch as there has been understandably some sticker shock at
    their combined price tags of more than $700 billion.
        But consider that at about 4 percent of America's gross
    domestic product (GDP), the amount of money the United States
    is projected to spend on defense this year is actually a
    smaller percentage of GDP than when I left Government 14 years
    ago following the end of the cold war and a significantly
    smaller percentage of GDP than during previous times of war,
    such as Vietnam and Korea.
        Since 1993, with a defense budget that is a smaller
    relative share of our national wealth, the world has gotten
    significantly more complicated and arguably more dangerous. In
    addition to fighting the global war on terror, we face the
    danger posed by Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions and
    missile programs and the threat they pose not only to their
    neighbors, but globally because of their records of
    proliferation, the uncertain paths of Russia and China, which
    are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization
    programs, and a range of other flash points, challenges and
    threats.
        In this strategic environment, the resources we devote to
    defense at this critical time should be at the level to
    adequately meet those challenges. The costs of defending our
    Nation are high. The only thing costly ultimately would be to
    fail to commit the resources necessary to defend our homeland
    and our interests around the world and to fail to prepare for
    inevitable threats in the future.
        As Sun Tzu said more than 2,500 years ago, ``The art of war
    teaches us to rely, not on the likelihood of the enemy's not
    coming, but on our own readiness to receive him, not on the
    chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we
    have made our position unassailable.''
        Another perspective in this regard, closer in time and
    place to today, is that of George Washington, who said in his
    first State of the Union Address: ``To be prepared for war is
    one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.''

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the support this subcommittee
    has provided to the men and women of our armed forces over the
    years, and we look forward to your questions.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Robert M. Gates
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: I thank the Committee for
    all you have done to support our military these many years, and I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide an overview of the way ahead at
    the Department of Defense through the President's fiscal year 2008
    Defense Budget, which includes the base budget request and the fiscal
    year 2008 Global War on Terror Request.
        I believe that it is important to consider the budget requests
    submitted to the Congress this year--the base budget and the war-
    related requests--in some historical context, as there has been,
    understandably, sticker shock at their combined price tags--more than
    $700 billion total.
        But consider that, at about 4 percent of America's gross domestic
    product, the amount of money the United States is expected to spend on
    defense this year is actually a smaller percentage of GDP than when I
    left government 14 years ago, following the end of the Cold War--and a
    significantly smaller percentage than during previous times of war,
    such as Vietnam and Korea.
        Since 1993, with a defense budget that is a smaller relative share
    of our national wealth, the world has gotten more complicated, and
    arguably more dangerous. In addition to fighting the Global War on
    Terror, we also face:
      --The danger posed by Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions and
            missile programs, and the threat they pose not only to their
            neighbors, but globally, because of their records of
            proliferation;
      --The uncertain paths of China and Russia, which are both pursuing
            sophisticated military modernization programs; and
      --A range of other potential flashpoints and challenges.
        In this strategic environment, the resources we devote to defense
    should be at the level to adequately meet those challenges.
        Five times over the past 90 years the United States has either
    slashed defense spending or disarmed outright in the mistaken belief
    that the nature of man or behavior of nations had somehow changed, or
    that we would no longer need capable, well funded military forces on
    hand to confront threats to our nation's interests and security. Each
    time we have paid a price.
        The costs of defending our nation are high. The only thing
    costlier, ultimately, would be to fail to commit the resources
    necessary to defend our interests around the world, and to fail to
    prepare for the inevitable threats of the future.
        As Sun Tzu said more than 2,500 years ago, ``The art of war teaches
    us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our
    own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking,
    but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.''
        A perspective in this regard--closer in time and place to today--is
    that of George Washington who said in his first inaugural address, ``To
    be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving
    peace.''
                          fiscal year 2008 base budget
        The President's fiscal year 2008 base budget request of $481.4
    billion is an increase of 11.4 percent over the enacted level of fiscal
    year 2007, and provides the resources needed to man, organize, train,
    and equip the Armed Forces of the United States. This budget continues
    efforts to reform and transform our military establishment to be more
    agile, adaptive, and expeditionary to deal with a range of both
    conventional and irregular threats.
        Some military leaders have argued that while our forces can support
    current operations in the War on Terror, these operations are
    increasing risks associated with being called on to undertake a major
    conventional conflict elsewhere around the world. This budget provides
    additional resources to mitigate those risks.
        The fiscal year 2008 base budget includes increases of about $16.8
    billion over last year for investments in additional training,
    equipment repair and replacement, and intelligence and support. It
    provides increases in combat training rotations, sustains air crew
    training, and increases ship steaming days.
                             increase ground forces
        Despite significant improvements in the way our military is
    organized and operated, the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan
    have put stress on parts of our nation's ground forces.
        In January, the President called for an increase in the permanent
    active end strength of the Army and Marine Corps of some 92,000 troops
    by fiscal year 2012. The base budget request adds $12.1 billion to
    increase ground forces in the next fiscal year, which will consist of
    7,000 additional Soldiers and 5,000 additional Marines.
        Special Operations Forces, who have come to play an essential and
    unique role in operations against terrorist networks, will also grow by
    5,575 troops between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.
                      strategic investments--modernization
        The base budget invests $177 billion in procurement and research
    and development that includes major investments in the next generation
    of technologies. The major weapons systems include:
      --Future Combat System ($3.7 billion).--The first comprehensive
            modernization program for the Army in a generation.
      --Joint Strike Fighter ($6.1 billion).--This next generation strike
            aircraft has variants for the Air Force, the Navy, and the
            Marine Corps. Eight international partners are contributing to
            the JSF's development and production.
      --F-22A ($4.6 billion).--Twenty additional aircraft will be procured
            in fiscal year 2008.
      --Shipbuilding ($14.4 billion).--The increase of $3.2 billion over
            last year is primarily for the next generation aircraft
            carrier, the CVN-21, and the LPD-17 amphibious transport ship.
            The long-term goal is a 313-ship Navy by 2020.
                                missile defense
        I have believed since the Reagan administration that if we can
    develop a missile defense capability, it would be a mistake for us not
    to do so. There are many countries that either have or are developing
    ballistic missiles, and there are at least two or three others--
    including North Korea--that are already developing longer-range
    systems. We also have an obligation to our allies, some of whom have
    signed on as partners in this effort. The department is proceeding with
    negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic on establishing a
    missile defense capability in Europe while we work with our other
    allies, including the United Kingdom, on upgrading early warning radar
    systems. We are willing to partner with others in developing this
    defensive capability, including Russia. The missile defense program
    funded by this request will continue to test our capability against
    more complex and realistic scenarios. I urge the committee to approve
    the full $9.9 billion requested for the missile defense and Patriot
    missile programs.
                               space capabilities
        The recent test of an anti-satellite weapon by China underscored
    the need to continue to develop capabilities in space. The policy of
    the U.S. Government in this area remains consistent with the
    longstanding principles that were established during the Eisenhower
    administration, such as the right of free passage and the use of space
    for peaceful purposes. Space programs are essential to the U.S.
    military's communications, surveillance, and reconnaissance
    capabilities. The base budget requests about $6 billion to continue the
    development and fielding of systems that will maintain U.S. supremacy
    while ensuring unfettered, reliable, and secure access to space.
                                recapitalization
        A major challenge facing our military is that several key
    capabilities are aging and long overdue for being replaced. The prime
    example is the Air Force KC-135 tanker fleet. With planes that average
    45 years of age, the fleet is becoming more expensive to maintain and
    less reliable to operate. The Air Force has resumed a transparent and
    competitive replacement program to recapitalize this fleet with the KC-
    X aircraft. The KC-X will be able to carry cargo and passengers and
    will be equipped with defensive systems. It is the U.S. Transportation
    Command's and the Air Force's top acquisition and recapitalization
    priority.
                          train and equip authorities
        Recent operations have shown the critical importance of building
    the capacity and capability of partners and allies to better secure and
    govern their own countries. In recent years we have struggled to
    overcome the patchwork of authorities and regulations that were put in
    place during a very different era--the Cold War--to confront a notably
    different set of threats and challenges.
        The administration has, with congressional support, taken some
    innovative steps to overcome these impediments. A significant
    breakthrough was the Section 1206 authority, which fills a critical gap
    between traditional security assistance and direct U.S. military
    action. It allows the Defense and State Departments to build partner
    nations' security capacity in months, rather than years. The program
    focuses on capacity-building in places where we are not at war, but
    face emerging threats or opportunities. DOD and State cooperation in
    executing this program has been excellent and serves as a model for
    developing other whole-of-government approaches to complex security
    problems.
        Section 1206 projects approved last year are already helping
    partners reduce threats to global resource flows, narrow terrorists'
    freedom of action, and increase stability in sensitive regions. The
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders regard this
    program as the most important authority the military has to fight the
    War on Terror beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, because it allows us to help
    others get ahead of threats, exploit opportunities, and reduce stress
    on our active duty, reserve and National Guard servicemen and women.
        For fiscal year 2007, combatant commanders and country teams have
    identified nearly $800 million in projects globally. We sought $300
    million in the Supplemental and are seeking dedicated funding of $500
    million in the fiscal year 2008 base budget to provide the combatant
    commanders with the resources to implement this authority.
        Building the capacity and capability of partners and allies to
    better secure and govern their own countries is a central task to
    counter terrorism. Dedicated funding will help us accomplish this task
    without disrupting other vital DOD programs. It is much more effective
    for partner countries, rather than U.S. forces, to defeat terrorists
    operating within their borders. We strongly urge your support for this
    critical program.
              quality of life--sustaining the all-volunteer force
        Our nation is fortunate that so many talented and patriotic young
    people have stepped forward to serve, and that so many of them have
    chosen to continue to serve. So far, all active branches of the U.S.
    military exceeded their recruiting goals, with particularly strong
    showings by the Army and Marine Corps. The fiscal year 2008 request
    includes $4.3 billion for recruiting and retention to ensure that the
    military continues to attract and retain the people we need to grow the
    ground forces and defend the interests of the United States.
        We will continue to support the all-volunteer force and their
    families through a variety of programs and initiatives. The budget
    includes:
      --$38.7 billion for health care for both active and retired service
            members;
      --$15 billion for Basic Allowance for Housing to ensure that, on
            average, troops are not forced to incur out-of-pocket costs to
            pay for housing;
      --$2.9 billion to improve barracks and family housing and privatize
            an additional 2,870 new family units; and
      --$2.1 billion for a 3 percent pay increase for military members.
        In addition, recently announced changes in the way the military
    uses and employs the Reserves and National Guard should allow for a
    less frequent and more predictable mobilization schedule for our
    citizen soldiers.
        Combined with other initiatives to better organize, manage, and
    take care of the force, these changes should mean that in the future
    our troops should be deployed or mobilized less often, for shorter
    periods of time, and with more predictability and a better quality of
    life for themselves and their families.
                          global war on terror request
        The President's fiscal year 2008 Global War on Terror request for
    $141.7 billion complies with Congress's direction to include the costs
    of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the annual Defense
    Department budget. Given the uncertainty of projecting the cost of
    operations so far in the future, the funds sought for the fiscal year
    2008 GWOT request are generally based on a straight-line projection of
    current costs for Iraq and Afghanistan. This request includes $70.6
    billion to provide the incremental pay, supplies, transportation,
    maintenance and logistical support to conduct military operations.
    Reconstitution
        The fiscal year 2008 GWOT request includes $37.6 billion to
    reconstitute our nation's armed forces--in particular, to refit the
    ground forces, the Army and Marine Corps, who have borne the brunt of
    combat in both human and material terms. These funds will go to repair
    or replace equipment that has been destroyed, damaged, or stressed in
    the current conflict. In many cases, reconstitution funds will provide
    upgraded and modernized equipment to replace older versions. The $13.6
    billion in reset funds in the fiscal year 2008 GWOT request for the
    U.S. Army will go a long way towards replacing items, one for one, that
    were worn out or lost during operations to ensure force readiness
    remains high.
    Force Protection
        This fiscal year 2008 GWOT request includes $15.2 billion for
    investments in new technologies to better protect our troops from an
    agile and adaptive enemy. Programs being funded would include a new
    generation of body armor, vehicles that can better withstand explosions
    from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), and electronic devices that
    interrupt the enemy's ability to attack U.S. forces. Within this force-
    protection category, the fiscal year 2008 GWOT request includes $4
    billion to counter and defeat the threat posed by IEDs.
    Afghan/Iraqi Security Forces
        The fiscal year 2008 GWOT request includes $4.7 billion to stand up
    capable military and police forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bulk of
    these funds are going to train and equip Afghan National Security
    Forces (ANSF) to assume the lead in operations throughout Afghanistan.
    As of February, over 90,000 have been trained and equipped, an increase
    of more than 33,000 from the previous year.
        In Iraq, approximately 334,000 soldiers and police have been
    trained and equipped, and are in charge of more than 60 percent of
    Iraqi territory and more than 65 percent of that country's population.
    They have assumed full security responsibility for four out of Iraq's
    18 provinces and are scheduled to take over more territory over the
    course of the year. These Iraqi troops, though far from perfect, have
    shown that they can perform with distinction when properly led and
    supported.
    Non-Military Assistance
        Success in the kinds of conflicts our military finds itself in
    today--in Iraq, or elsewhere--cannot be achieved by military means
    alone. The President's strategy for Iraq hinges on key programs and
    additional resources to improve local governance, delivery of public
    services, and quality of life--to get angry young men off the street
    and into jobs where they will be less susceptible to the appeals of
    insurgents or militia groups.
        Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds are a relatively
    small piece of the war-related budgets--$977 million in the fiscal year
    2008 GWOT request. But because they can be dispensed quickly and
    applied directly to local needs, they have had a tremendous impact--far
    beyond the dollar value--on the ability of our troops to succeed in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. By building trust and confidence in Coalition
    forces, these CERP projects increase the flow of intelligence to
    commanders in the field and help turn local Iraqis and Afghans against
    insurgents and terrorists.
                                   conclusion
        With the assistance and the counsel of Congress, I believe we have
    the opportunity to do right by our troops and the sacrifices that they
    and their families have made these past few years. That means we must
    make the difficult choices and commit the necessary resources to not
    only prevail in the current conflicts in which they are engaged, but to
    be prepared to take on the threats that they, their children, and our
    nation may face in the future.

        Senator Inouye. General Pace.
    STATEMENT OF GENERAL PETER PACE, UNITED STATES MARINE
                CORPS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
        General Pace. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you. It is a great honor to sit before you
    this morning to represent the 2.4 million men and women in your
    armed forces who serve this country so nobly. On their behalf,
    I would like to thank you all for your very strong bipartisan
    support, not only from the standpoint of funding, but also the
    visits that you make to the field and the visits you make to
    the hospitals. The word gets around to the troops that you are
    out visiting. It makes a difference, and for them and for
    myself I want to say thank you, sir. I also want to say----
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, General Pace.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of General Peter Pace
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, distinguished members of the
    Committee, it is my privilege to report to you on the posture of the
    U.S. Armed Forces. On behalf of 2.4 million Active, Guard, and Reserve
    Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and our families, thank you for
    your continued support. Your visits to troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
    beyond; comfort to the wounded; and funding for transformation,
    recapitalization, pay and benefits are deeply appreciated.
        America's military is the world's finest, due in large measure to
    the patriotic sacrifices of our Nation's Service members. I want to
    thank them and their families for all they have done, and continue to
    do, to maintain our freedom. For the first time, America's All
    Volunteer Force is fighting a long term war with a significant
    commitment of combat forces. Our troops are serving with extraordinary
    dedication and distinction. They are an inspiration to us all and I am
    honored to represent them here today.
        Winning the War on Terrorism is and will remain our number one
    priority. At the same time, we will continue to transform our Armed
    Forces, strengthen Joint Warfighting capabilities, and improve the
    Quality of Life of our Service members and their families.
                             strategic environment
        My biennial National Military Strategy Risk Assessment was
    submitted to Congress earlier this year. That classified document and
    the Secretary of Defense's plan for mitigating risk depict the
    challenges we face around the globe and discuss how we will overcome
    them. Sustained deployments, equipment utilization, and operational
    tempo each impart risk from a military perspective. The current heavy
    demand for ground, sea, and air capabilities is not likely to dissipate
    in the immediate future.
        As stated in my Assessment, our Armed Forces stand ready to protect
    the homeland, prevent conflict, and prevail over adversaries. These
    missions present simultaneous and interrelated challenges of varying
    intensity, immediacy, and danger.
        America's Armed Forces are in our sixth year of sustained combat
    operations. We are fighting sectarian violence, insurgency, and
    terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and its allies threaten the
    safety of our homeland and our overseas partners--threats made more
    alarming by the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. We face
    other threats and challenges as well:
      --Iran sponsors operations in Lebanon and Iraq that are destabilizing
            those governments. In addition, Iran's drive to enrich uranium
            highlights its desire to assert greater influence in a region
            of vital interest to our Nation.
      --North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and associated missile
            technologies poses another strategic challenge. The launch of
            multiple ballistic missiles on the fourth of July 2006 coupled
            with the apparent successful detonation of a nuclear device in
            October 2006 undermines counter-proliferation efforts,
            threatens many, and could provoke a regional arms race.
      --China's military build-up continues unabated, to include offensive
            strike missiles, expanded sea and air control capabilities,
            anti-satellite systems, cyber-attack technologies, and an
            increasingly capable Navy and Air Force.
      --Pakistan requires continued international support to maintain
            stability. Given its possession of nuclear weapons and pivotal
            location, a stable government in Pakistan is critical to guard
            against transnational terrorism and ease tensions with
            neighboring India.
      --The Abu Sayaf Group in the southern Philippines and Jemaah
            Islamiyah in Indonesia remain terrorist threats in the region
            and continue to exploit security gaps in the largely maritime
            tri-border region of southern Philippines, Indonesia, and East
            Malaysia.
      --Narco-terrorists in Latin America destabilize societies, harm
            nations, and hold American citizens hostage.
      --The governments of Venezuela and Cuba are openly anti-United
            States. Together, they actively seek to create alignments to
            oppose us throughout the region.
      --Succession questions in Cuba may lead to mass migration.
      --Political and humanitarian challenges in Africa are myriad,
            including the specter of growing instability, genocide, civil
            war, and safe havens for terrorists.
        Given the breadth of these challenges, their complexity, and their
    potential long duration, we must increase our overall capacity in order
    to reduce strategic risk. The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget, the
    fiscal year 2007 supplemental, and the fiscal year 2008 Global War on
    Terrorism request match resources to these tasks. These budget requests
    represent a significant investment, but that investment is
    approximately 3.9 percent of our Gross National Product--relatively
    modest in historic terms.
        We also submitted an amendment to the fiscal year 2007
    supplemental. The proposal reallocated $3.2 billion within the pending
    fiscal year 2007 request to fund our new way forward in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. The revised request better aligned resources to meet our
    goals without increasing the Supplemental.
                            win the war on terrorism
        We must prevail in the Global War on Terrorism. Sustaining
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while maintaining readiness to
    respond to new contingencies around the globe, is a heavy burden for
    our current force structure. Nearly a million American men and women in
    uniform have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 400,000
    have been deployed more than once. Presently, more than 200,000 troops
    are deployed to the Central Command area of responsibility; another
    210,000 are elsewhere overseas. Most of our Army Brigade Combat Teams
    and their Marine Corps regiment equivalents receive only one year at
    their home station before deploying again--and that year is spent
    actively preparing to redeploy overseas to fight. We will have twenty
    Brigade/Regimental Combat Teams deployed to Iraq, with another three in
    Afghanistan, one in Korea, and one in Kosovo. This drives our units to
    operate at about a 1:1 ``deployed:at-home'' ratio--which is about half
    the time we believe is necessary to sustain readiness for the long
    term.
        To accomplish our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and remain
    prepared for other challenges, the President and Secretary of Defense
    have announced a number of personnel initiatives. These include the
    increase of force structure for the Army and Marine Corps, and policy
    changes to the way we mobilize our Reserve Component. The Army and
    Marine Corps are both focused on using this added troop strength to
    grow their operational forces. We are committed to building an active
    Army of 48 Brigade Combat Teams. That is an increase from a previous
    goal of 42. For the Marine Corps, we are adding one Regimental Combat
    Team. The Army is also civilianizing military positions, cutting its
    non-operational force structure, and reallocating those manpower
    savings to combat units. The Marine Corps is also implementing policy
    to ensure all Marines have the opportunity to serve in a combat zone.
        Army units are now deployed to the Central Command area of
    responsibility for fifteen months. They will be at home for not less
    than twelve months. This initiative reflects both the challenge we face
    and our commitment to success in Iraq and Afghanistan. This policy is
    designed to ensure our troops have a year at home before returning to
    the fight. That year is important. It allows a predictable amount of
    dwell time for Soldiers to be with their families as well as to train
    with their units for combat. This decision asks much of our Soldiers
    and their families. We are deeply grateful for the service and
    sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their commitment to
    accomplishing our mission.
        Approximately 38,000 individual augmentees have deployed to
    headquarters such as Multi-National Force-Iraq, the International
    Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and U.S. Central Command.
    Nearly 13,000 others have helped train Afghan and Iraqi forces. Most of
    these positions are filled by mid-grade leaders normally serving in
    operational units. Increased manning in these mid-grade ranks, to
    include the Army's request for an additional 2,852 field grade
    officers, will fill requirements without undermining combat units.
        Our weapons, equipment, and supplies have been reduced by combat
    loss and consumption in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past five and a
    half years. We have also used significant resources in disaster relief
    operations responding to the Asian Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and
    Pakistan's earthquake. The fiscal year 2007 supplemental and fiscal
    year 2008 Global War on Terrorism request include a total of $51.5
    billion to reconstitute our Joint Forces. While it will take some time
    for newly authorized troops to become available for deployment and for
    reconstitution of equipment to take effect, our men and women in
    uniform are grateful for the much needed additional manpower and
    resources that are on the way.
        The challenges we face are not ours alone; they threaten many
    others. Working with partners improves our ability to defeat terrorist
    networks and increases regional stability and security. Our regional
    security cooperation efforts in Latin America, particularly in Colombia
    where great progress is occurring, help local militaries protect
    democratic governments and build partnership capacity to counter
    terrorist, narcotic, and other illicit activity. In the Far East, our
    support for Southeast Asia maritime security in the Strait of Malacca
    and the Sulu and Sulawesi Seas helps fight terrorist and criminal
    activity. Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa and the Trans-Sahara
    Counter-Terrorism Partnership deter terrorist activity, provide
    humanitarian assistance, and improve the ability of African countries
    to foster security within their own borders. And, we are establishing a
    new unified command for Africa to better integrate U.S. interagency
    efforts and partner with other nations and international organizations.
        Boosting the capability of other countries' forces and providing
    direct action support to commanders in the field requires that we
    expand our irregular warfare capabilities. Irregular warfare includes
    long duration unconventional warfare, counter-terrorism,
    counterinsurgency, clandestine operations, and military support for
    stabilization and reconstruction. Our Special Operations units perform
    these missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deploy to approximately
    forty other countries around the world. To answer these demands, we are
    expanding the size of our Special Operations Forces and we have
    established the Marine Special Operations Command. We are also moving
    forward with the Global Special Operations Force Posture plan that will
    maximize the number of Special Operations Units forward deployed.
        In addition to physical battlefields, the Global War on Terrorism
    has a significant information component. Our enemies use propaganda to
    deliver their message and justify their actions. We counter the enemy's
    efforts most effectively when our actions and words reinforce America's
    strategic goals and national ideals. We deny our foes success in
    mobilizing sympathizers when local and global audiences understand the
    enemy's true intent. The Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, and the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense are working together to ensure
    greater consistency and timeliness in our strategic communication
    efforts.
        At its most basic level, winning the War on Terrorism means
    defending our homeland. To better protect the United States from direct
    attack, our Armed Forces are working closely with civilian leadership
    in federal, state, and local governments to provide an effective
    response in time of crisis. The Navy and Coast Guard are strengthening
    maritime domain awareness. The Air Force maintains surveillance and
    interceptor alerts to provide air sovereignty protection. The Army is
    investing in expanded biological weapons detection equipment and
    vaccines. And we are continuing to increase the capability of our
    Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear and High Yield Explosive
    Consequence Management Response Forces and seeking more resources to
    better respond to multiple events in different locations. Contingency
    plans are continually refined so that the Armed Forces are prepared to
    assist civil authorities in the event of another terrorist attack. We
    are creating additional Weapons of Mass Destruction response teams.
    Moreover, we are working with coalition partners, through intelligence
    sharing, coordinated planning, and agreements such as the Proliferation
    Security Initiative to prevent the spread of Weapons of Mass
    Destruction.
        Additionally, your Armed Forces are prepared to assist in
    responding to natural disasters. In such events, we would provide
    support in the form of manpower, logistics, transportation,
    communications, and planning, just as we did following the devastation
    of Hurricane Katrina. Likewise, military planners are focused on the
    dangers of a possible global Pandemic Influenza, to ensure our
    readiness to execute military missions and support civil authorities.
                           accelerate transformation
        The evolving diverse threats to our Nation make it imperative that
    we adapt and innovate. Transformation is a continual effort to
    significantly increase our ability to deter and defeat America's foes.
    It is an ongoing process of rethinking our doctrine and operational
    concepts; fashioning professional education and training to meet new
    challenges; restructuring our organizations and business practices to
    be more agile; improving our personnel policies; adapting our planning
    systems to be more responsive; reforming our acquisition and budget
    processes; and harnessing advanced technology. It is not an end state.
    It is a mindset and a culture that encourages innovation and fresh
    thinking.
        We need a dramatic leap forward in our relationship with
    interagency and international partners. Today's many challenges--
    conventional, insurgency, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons
    of mass destruction--require that our Armed Forces work closely with
    our civilian government counterparts and multinational partners. Much
    like Goldwater Nichols accomplished for our Armed Forces two decades
    ago, we should assess what new or revised authorities are needed to
    enhance interagency coordination, and build a more joint and integrated
    process. To increase our government's overall effectiveness in the War
    on Terrorism, we must improve three areas.
        First, we must improve our ability to build partnership capacity.
    Our struggle against violent extremists requires that we fight people
    who hide in countries with whom we are not at war. The best way to do
    this is by augmenting the capacity of those countries to defeat
    terrorism and increase stability--helping them overcome problems within
    their borders and eliminate terrorist safe havens. Building partnership
    capacity leverages the local language, knowledge, and culture of
    indigenous forces, which reduces requirements for our own forces. To
    this end, I support legislation to extend and expand past enacted 1206
    and 1208 authorities for educating, training, and equipping foreign
    forces for counter-terrorism operations. Such authorities increase our
    ability to share resources among agencies. Additionally, I support
    authorization for a National Security Initiative Fund, under
    Congressional oversight and managed jointly by the Departments of State
    and Defense. Such a fund enhances our agility in coordinating and
    harnessing resources to address changed circumstances and policies, and
    will complement congressionally granted transfer authority and
    emergency supplemental appropriations.
        Second, we need greater expeditionary capabilities in U.S.
    government civilian agencies for stabilization and reconstruction
    operations. The Global War on Terrorism requires all instruments of
    national power--not just the military. U.S. government civilian
    agencies have a vital role to play in overseas operations. Greater
    investment in these agencies is required if they are to be more
    effective. To increase their expeditionary capability, the President
    has proposed the creation of a Civilian Reserve Corps for the State
    Department. We strongly support this initiative to boost our Nation's
    capability to deploy civilian expertise in tandem with our military.
        Third, we must enhance interagency effectiveness. Today's many
    national security challenges cross the boundaries of specific
    government departments. We need to improve our collective approach and
    ensure decisions are implemented in a coherent and timely manner across
    agencies. Just as the Goldwater-Nichols Act established a system of
    incentives and requirements to foster Jointness among military
    officers, we need to find ways inside of our government to encourage
    interagency expertise. Rewarding interagency education, interagency
    experiences, interagency collaboration, and interagency planning will
    facilitate better synergy between departments. We can go beyond the
    education we provide our military and civil servant professionals by
    integrating our National Defense University within a National Security
    Education Consortium. We can strengthen and institutionalize mechanisms
    for interagency coordination by building on the success of interagency
    centers such as the National Counter Terrorism Center and Combatant
    Command Joint Interagency Coordination Groups. We can expand our
    interagency exercises. And, we can increase planning capacity in
    civilian agencies to improve our execution of operations.
                          strengthen joint warfighting
        To win the war and continue the process of transformation, we are
    strengthening our Joint Warfighting capabilities. By employing our
    Service branches in a joint manner, we leverage their complementary
    capabilities. We can and should, however, go beyond our current level
    of jointness by moving from an interoperable force to an interdependent
    force. We have already had some successes. For instance, naval aviation
    is now responsible for all airborne electronic warfare. Air Force
    Unmanned Aircraft Systems provide key intelligence for all Services.
    Moreover, Navy and Air Force security, communications, and logistics
    elements fill joint requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Combatant Commanders have identified shortfalls in our persistent
    Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance capabilities, such as
    shortages of platforms, sensors, and processing infrastructure. To
    better support our Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance needs,
    we are budgeting for more capacity. We are also refining integration
    between our unmanned assets, human intelligence operations, and our
    analysis capabilities--improving all.
        Warfighter demands for satellite platforms and related terminal
    programs continue to grow as we field more bandwidth-intensive systems,
    deploy to austere locations, and connect more tactical users to our
    Global Information Grid. To meet our requirements for beyond-line-of-
    sight and reach-back communications, we must maintain military
    satellite communications launch schedules, leverage commercial
    capabilities, pursue efficiencies, and continue research and
    development initiatives.
        America and our friends around the globe are increasingly dependent
    on networked communications systems to store, modify, and exchange
    data. Interruption of our access to cyberspace could significantly
    damage national defense and civil society. The Armed Forces' new cyber
    strategy sets a course that calls for the development of new
    organizations, intellectual capital, and greater interagency
    coordination. To ensure unity of effort, U.S. Strategic Command's Joint
    Task Force--Global Network Operations is working with the Combatant
    Commands, the Services, and the Interagency to strengthen and integrate
    defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. We are reviewing the
    authorities and responsibilities required for dealing with cyberspace
    threats, particularly as they apply to our relationship with other U.S.
    government agencies. Changes in authority and policy must ensure that
    the entire U.S. government is able to meet current and emerging
    threats.
        We must also enhance our capability to engage targets globally and
    rapidly to strengthen strategic deterrence and response. We are
    developing conventional long range strike capability, improving missile
    defense, and modernizing our national command and control. These
    efforts will ensure our strategic deterrence capabilities remain
    relevant.
      improve the quality of life of our service members and our families
        Our men and women in uniform are our most precious resource. We
    must continue to ensure their welfare and that of their families. The
    most advanced ship, aircraft, or weapon system is useless without
    motivated and well-trained people. Every day, our Soldiers, Sailors,
    Airmen, and Marines serve our Nation with distinction. We do well to
    honor their service by providing for them and their loved ones.
        The funding of the fiscal year 2007 Military Construction, Quality
    of Life, and Veteran's Affairs appropriation by House Joint Resolution
    caused a $3.1 billion shortfall in the Base Realignment and Closure
    (BRAC) appropriation. This shortfall jeopardizes our ability to
    complete BRAC actions within statutory deadlines and creates negative
    effects on the movement of our troops and their families in support of
    our global defense posture restructuring. I urge the Congress to
    correct this shortfall by providing the necessary funds at the earliest
    opportunity.
        Predictability of deployments for all Service members is a key
    factor to quality of life. Sustainable force rotation policies are
    needed to spread the burden across the Active and Reserve Components.
    Greater mobilization predictability for Reserve Component members, and
    their families and employers is required. To accomplish this, the
    Secretary of Defense has established a new Total Force Policy. The
    mobilization of Reserve Component forces will be managed on a unit,
    instead of an individual, basis--and with a goal of one year maximum
    mobilization, followed by five years at home. This predictability will
    improve the quality of life in our Guard and Reserve while fostering
    greater unit cohesion. Stop Loss for both Active and Reserve forces
    will be minimized.
        To our families, protecting our troops in combat is the most
    important measure of quality of life. All Defense Department personnel
    in Iraq and Afghanistan have state of the art body armor. As technology
    improves we are procuring the next generation of body armor. Likewise,
    thanks to your continued support, currently all of our tactical
    vehicles that operate off forward operating bases in Central Command's
    area of responsibility have armor protection. And we are purchasing
    vehicles explicitly designed from the wheels up to limit Improvised
    Explosive Device damage. To further counter Improvised Explosive
    Devices, we established the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
    Organization. Teaming with private industry, we continue to make
    progress in this vital endeavor.
        Providing for our troops and their families also means caring for
    our wounded. Our military medical system saves lives everyday--and
    helps them heal here at home. The efforts of our medical professionals
    and recent advances in medicine, technology, and rehabilitation
    techniques make a huge difference. Injury survivability rates are at a
    historic high--nearly 9 in 10 of all wounded troops survive, many of
    whom would have died in past conflicts. We are also working to address
    the effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Many injuries have a
    profound impact on troops and their families, and our health care
    system is dedicated to doing everything possible to bring them back to
    duty, if they wish--or, through our Military Severely Injured Center
    and the Services' wounded warrior programs, help our wounded return to
    society empowered to make a positive difference.
                                   conclusion
        I testify before you today with tremendous pride in the performance
    of your Armed Forces. Some are in combat. Others stand guard. All are
    at war helping deter attacks on our Nation and allies.
        Like World War II did for the Greatest Generation, this war will
    define this generation, and our troops are doing an extraordinary job.
    They serve this Nation superbly, willingly, and unflinchingly--
    volunteers all. The sacrifices they and their families bear for our
    entire Nation warrant our deepest gratitude. Like so many who have gone
    before them, their heroism is awe inspiring. It is an honor to serve
    alongside them.
        Thank you for your support.

        Senator Inouye. Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary,
    General. I know we are on the 2008 bill, but I would like to
    inquire, what is going on now in the Department because of the
    delay in getting the supplemental through? Are you actually
    reprogramming moneys and is there a deadline here of when you
    are going to run out of money? I want to know, what is the
    urgency for getting another bill to the President?
        Secretary Gates. Senator, the Army already is slowing
    spending in a number of areas here at home to provide money to
    fully fund the war. We just, this committee just yesterday, I
    believe, approved a $1.6 billion reprogramming from the Air
    Force and the Navy to the Army. We will probably have another
    reprogramming up here in a few days. That kind of a
    reprogramming will extend us about a week.
        The disruption to the Department and programs here at home
    in order to fully sustain the troops abroad and particularly in
    Iraq and Afghanistan has a growing impact here at home in terms
    of contracts not let, civilians not hired, programs where the
    spending is slowed or stopped. We were already doing month to
    month service contracts for services and supplies and things
    like that on the basis--so the Army is already trying to cope
    with this.
        We will probably--if we pulled out all the stops, used
    everything possible available to us, we could probably fund the
    war into July. But I would tell you the impact on the
    Department of Defense in terms of disruption and cancelled
    contracts and programs would be huge if we had to do that.
        Senator Stevens. I would like to go some time into the
    increased cost of delaying it that long, because when you
    cancel a contract you have termination costs and everything
    else. It is just going to increase the overall costs.

                                  IRAQI FORCES

        General Pace, I know it is early on. General Petraeus told
    us his estimate and asked for time to have the surge concept
    work. Can you tell us, are the Iraqi forces coming into place
    as we thought they would as this surge goes forward?
        General Pace. Sir, the Iraqi forces have come in place, but
    there has been a mixed quality to the troops that have arrived.
    Prime Minister Maliki promised his three additional brigades in
    January and February and those three additional brigades did in
    fact show up in Baghdad. Initially the brigades came in at
    about 60 percent strength. Once that was pointed out to the
    prime minister, he and his leaders got together and the
    remaining units that showed up arrived beginning around 80
    percent and the last two units showed up at over 100 percent.
    So the leadership has taken action with that regard.
        But the Iraqi forces that had been promised have been
    delivered on the time lines that they were promised they would
    deliver them.

                        KEEPING WALTER REED OPERATIONAL

        Senator Stevens. Secretary Gates, and maybe Ms. Jonas might
    want to get into this, but what steps are being taken to assure
    that Walter Reed will stay at an operational level and meet all
    the needs of these people that need special treatment until the
    new facility at Fort Belvoir is ready?
        I get the feeling, and some reports, that to a certain
    extent the quality of treatment and the ability to maintain
    that treatment would go downhill as we are moving more and more
    emphasis to Fort Belvoir. Is there a timing here and are we
    going to protect the Walter Reed facility until it is totally
    replaced?
        Secretary Gates. The short answer to your question, to your
    final question, is yes, Senator. I have given direction that
    Walter Reed will be maintained fully funded and fully staffed
    until the new facilities at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir are
    ready. If that requires for some reason going beyond the time
    allocated under base realignment and closure (BRAC) and we see
    that is going to happen, we would come back up here to the
    Congress and ask for your approval to do that.
        But my view is that everybody have the assurance that
    Walter Reed, particularly once we have made these fixes that
    are underway right now, will remain at full capability until
    literally the day the various capabilities can be moved either
    to Bethesda or Fort Belvoir.

                    BUDGET SUPPORT FOR END STRENGTH INCREASE

        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        This will have to be my last question. We are told the Army
    is going to grow by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by
    27,000 marines. Now, is this bill before us now for 2008, is it
    capable of initiating that growth? Are we going to have the
    ability to have the facilities for these people, the training
    capability to handle them, and really all it takes to initiate
    this expansion?
        I support that expansion. I just want to know, do we have
    to add any money to this bill to carry forward this new
    announcement?
        Secretary Gates. I think that the fiscal year 2008 request,
    Senator Stevens, takes those needs into account. There is about
    $12 billion in this budget to fund the first year's increment
    of 7,000 in the Army and 5,000 in the Marine Corps. We have
    also asked the services to come to us and make clear where they
    intend to base the additional troops so that we can ensure that
    the funds are allocated to make sure the barracks and other
    facilities are available when those troops come on board.
        Senator Stevens. Do you agree, General Pace?

                                     BUDGET

        General Pace. I do, sir. It codifies the 30,000 increase
    that the Army has already sustained and adds the money for the
    7,000 for next year. It codifies the 5,000 that the Marine
    Corps has already increased and gives them money for 5,000 for
    next year and allows them to build 7,000 per year for the Army
    and 5,000 per year for the Marine Corps out until they get the
    65,000 and the 27,000.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you. It is nice to have you here.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Leahy.

                            NATIONAL GUARD SHORTFALL

        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You turn on the news and you see the makings of a tropical
    storm over the southeast coast. Hurricane season has not even
    started. Kansas is depending upon Guard resources in the
    aftermath of a terrible, deadly disaster. I mention this
    because the domestic demands of the National Guard go on
    unabated no matter what is happening overseas. They go on
    unabated, whether it is fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, and so
    on.
        Now, over the next 5 years the Army and the National Guard
    agree the Guard faces a $24 billion shortfall in National Guard
    equipment. I have got the long list that they put out. There
    are no funds, no funds in here to meet the shortfall. It seems
    like the kind of a hole that you could drive a Humvee through--
    well, if they had the Humvees. They are going to be hard-
    pressed in these basic emergencies without trucks, generators,
    communications, and so on.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the
    detailed description of the shortfalls be included in the
    record.
        Senator Inouye. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
                  ARNG Equipping Requirements Versus Resources

                                                           ARNG UFR TO REACH 90 PERCENT: $13.1 BILLION
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Shortfall
                                                                                Quantities   Quantities   Shortfall   Procurement  Post Fiscal
                                                       Required     On Hand     Delivered      Before       Before      Program     Year 2008-   UFR to S-1
                   Equipment Category                 Quantities   Quantities  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year       13        Floor (90
                                                        (000)        (000)       2007-08      2008-13      2008-13      2008-13     Shortfall   percent) \1\
                                                                                  (000)        (000)         ($M)         ($M)         ($M)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armor-Hvy T/W..................................        15.04         8.58          .59         5.87    $1,949.18    $2,312.76  ...........  ............
    AVN............................................        60.58        29.84          .36        30.38   $12,928.15    $3,596.72    $9,331.43     $5,528.87
    C2.............................................       189.68        17.02        23.95       148.71    $1,917.63    $2,021.18  ...........  ............
    Communicate....................................       589.81       336.90        15.52       237.39    $3,009.98    $1,512.38    $1,497.60       $891.07
    Engineer.......................................        30.97        14.42          .79        15.76    $1,655.52      $851.72      $803.80       $478.26
    Force Protection...............................       476.50       356.94        20.29        99.27      $996.37      $122.89      $873.48       $519.72
    ISR............................................         5.65         2.22          .93         2.50      $381.96      $787.05  ...........  ............
    Logistics......................................       588.11       137.45         3.07       447.59    $1,637.92      $648.38      $989.54       $588.78
    Maintenance....................................        19.25         3.25         2.29        13.71      $281.19       $36.50      $244.69       $145.59
    Medical........................................        25.14        10.24         6.19         8.71       $15.98      $101.67  ...........  ............
    Precision Strike...............................        27.51        10.49          .91        16.10    $1,975.81    $2,474.67  ...........  ............
    Security.......................................     1,730.86       819.94       135.94       774.97    $3,561.81    $1,543.94    $2,017.87     $1,200.63
    Transportation.................................       179.61        51.20        17.61       110.80   $10,163.36    $5,178.90    $4,984.46     $2,965.76
    Other..........................................       262.05        72.35  ...........       189.70    $1,451.32  ...........    $1,451.32       $863.54
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals...................................     4,200.75     1,870.85       228.23     2,101.46   $41,926.18   $21,188.76   $22,194.19    $13,182.22
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In addition to the fall current funds programmed through fiscal year 2013, an additional UFR of $13.18 billion is required to get the ARNG to 90
      percent EOH (S-1). It will take approximately $24 billion to reach 100 percent. All figures are based on fiscal year 2008 Costs and don't include
      ``Grow the Army'' Costs.

                                               FISCAL YEAR 2008 ARNG TOP 25 EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION SHORTFALL LIST
                                                                      [Dollars in millions]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Quantity        Quantity
                                                     Required        Shortage        Shortage       POM 2008-13              APPN               UFR 2008-13
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HMMWV.......................................          48,715          18,611          $4,039        $1,647.0  OPA.......................        $2,392.0
    Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles..........          37,995          30,140          $7,267        $1,689.9  OPA.......................        $5,577.1
    HTV--HEMTT/LHS/PLS..........................          21,180          14,796          $1,652        $1,059.3  OPA.......................          $592.7
    M916A3 Light Equipment Transporter..........           1,591             794            $180          $152.4  OPA.......................           $27.6
    Tactical Trailers...........................           5,699           2,984            $177           $10.6  OPA.......................          $166.4
    M917A2 Dump Truck...........................             544             334             $67  ..............  OPA.......................           $67.0
    CH-47F Chinook..............................             159             159          $6,678          $670.6  ACFT......................        $6,007.4
    Comm Systems (JNN, SINCGARS, HF)............         143,615          62,613          $3,997          $968.7  OPA.......................        $3,028.3
    UAV Systems (Shadow, Raven).................             586             575            $462          $307.1  OPA.......................          $154.9
    Small Arms..................................         209,098          99,129            $360          $240.0  OPA.......................          $120.4
    ABCS (Suite of Systems).....................           1,399             800            $166           $20.7  OPA.......................          $145.3
    Digital Enablers (Log Automation)...........          12,167           7,873            $196  ..............  OPA.......................          $196.0
    Movement Tracking System....................          16,711          12,588            $302          $203.4  OPA.......................           $98.6
    Night Vision (AN/PAS-13, AN/VAS-5)..........          41,912          33,170            $640          $241.5  OPA.......................          $398.5
    Tactical Water Purification System..........             131             128             $61           $38.9  OPA.......................           $22.1
    Tactical Quiet Generators...................          19,611          12,748            $324          $118.1  OPA.......................          $205.9
    All Terrain Crane (ATEC)....................             174              29              $7  ..............  OPA.......................            $7.0
    M9 ACE SLEP.................................             114              90             $80  ..............  OPA.......................           $80.0
    Route and Area Clearance Systems............             138             138            $203          $167.8  OPA.......................           $35.2
    Horizontal Construction Systems.............             587             332            $141          $111.0  OPA.......................           $30.0
    Howitzers (M777A1, M1 19A2).................             498             342          $4,259          $477.4  WTCV......................        $3,781.6
    Profiler....................................              65              63             $57           $57.2  OPA.......................  ..............
    LLDR........................................           1,099           1,034            $362          $187.5  OPA.......................          $174.5
    Gun Laying Positioning System...............             455             208             $20  ..............  OPA.......................           $20.0
    Chemical (Detectors, Decon & Shelters)......          65,719          52,433            $669          $107.5  OPA.......................          $561.5
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTALS................................         629,962         352,111         $32,367        $8,476.5  ..........................       $23,890.1
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quantity Required=Endstate Fiscal Year 2008 ARNG Requirements (MTOE or like AC) to fully modernize the ARNG.
    Quantity Shortage=Quantity Required minus On-Hand minus Programmed (2-year Equipment Distribution Plans).
    Shortage ($M=Quantity Shortage times Per Unit Cost.
    POM 2008-13 ($M)=Total procurement funding stream from FDIIS (dtd 10 JAN 07), by Army Program Element (APE) for respective equipment systems.
    APPN=Type of Appropriation (OPA minus Other Procurement Army, ACFT minus Aircraft, WTCV minus Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles).
    UFR 2008-13 ($M)=Shortage dollar amount minus POM 2008-13 dollar amount.

                                                                          ESSENTIAL 10 KEY ENABLERS: DSCA PRIORITIZED BUY LIST
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Item                         Priority 1      Priority 2      Priority 3      Priority 4                                Rationale/justification
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Joint Force Headquarters: Miscellaneous              $5,000,066      $5,000,027      $5,000,126      $5,000,111
     Equipment.
    Command and Control (C2):
        Joint Network Nodes (JNN)..................     $33,300,000     $16,650,000     $16,650,000     $16,650,000  Provides the tactical user with an interface to strategic data networks; and
                                                                                                                      interoperability with commercial, joint, combined and coalition communications
                                                                                                                      systems across multiple security levels
        Army Battle Command Systems (ABCS).........      $7,808,500      $7,233,500      $5,638,100      $6,458,800  Provides enhanced situational awareness via a suite of systems that receive and
                                                                                                                      transmit C4ISR information
        Standard Army Management Information System     $25,727,920     $20,550,610     $21,595,610     $15,953,980  Provides logistics management/automation systems and electronic information
         (STAMIS).                                                                                                    exchange capability via both tactical and commercial networks
        Unmanned Aerial Vehicle--SHADOW............     $15,000,000     $15,000,000     $15,000,000     $15,000,000  Without funding the ARNG will be unable to provide commanders superior
                                                                                                                      situational awareness, information flow, and adequate Force Protection in
                                                                                                                      urban and conventional tactical environments
    Communications: HF Radios/Equipment............     $16,288,475     $17,445,135     $15,435,815     $18,785,815  Provides secure, long-range voice and data capability
    Aviation:
        Helicopters--Hoists/Mounts.................        $953,016      $1,191,270      $1,191,270      $1,191,270  Required to support HLD/HLS, state, domestic and other contingency operations
        Helicopters--NAVSTAR GPS Aviation Sets.....      $1,235,130      $1,235,130      $1,370,130      $1,370,130  Provides modern equipment and interoperability to ARNG aircraft
    Civil Support Teams and Force Protection:
        NBC Shelters...............................      $5,502,000      $6,288,000      $7,860,000      $7,860,000  Provides a contamination free and environmentally controlled work area for
                                                                                                                      medical personnel
        NBC--Joint Services Transportable                  $990,000        $990,000      $1,155,000      $1,320,000  Without funding the ARNG will be cascaded outdated and no longer in production
         Decontamination System Small Scale (JSTDS-                                                                   models of the M17 LDS from the Active Component
         SS).
        NBC Radiation/Chemical Detectors...........        $682,160        $682,160        $816,990        $910,740  Provides the capability to monitor and record the exposure of individual
                                                                                                                      personnel to gamma and neutron radiation
    Engineer:
        Heavy Construction Equipment--Horizontal        $16,151,889     $11,927,933     $12,579,096     $11,957,388  Replaces overaged systems that are in critical need of modernization and
         (Dumps, Graders, Excavators).                                                                                incapable of full mission support
        Heavy Construction Equipment--Vertical          $19,004,075     $16,755,970     $19,505,970     $22,255,970  Primary container/material handling equipment required to support and sustain
         RTCH, ATLAS).                                                                                                ARNG units
    Logistics:
        Generators--Small/Medium...................      $5,348,830      $5,839,690      $5,839,690      $5,783,445  Critical requirement during natural disaster or state emergency. Provides
                                                                                                                      electrical power as needed to support mission requirements
        Liquid Logistics--Water Purification.......      $6,451,500      $8,070,000      $8,047,500     $10,707,500  Replaces existing 600 GPH reverse osmosis water purification systems with a
                                                                                                                      1,500 GPH capability
        Liquid Logistics--Tank Water...............      $4,840,000      $4,840,000      $4,840,000      $5,550,000  Provides a bulk water delivery/distribution/storage systems
    Maintenance: STAMIS--Standard Army Maintenance         $967,458        $942,780        $983,910      $1,557,590  Mission critical system required to support unit-level maintenance support
     System (SAMS).                                                                                                   requirements
    Medical: HMMWV Ambulance.......................     $13,455,000     $14,490,000     $14,490,000     $13,455,000  Provides patient transport/evacuation capability
    Security:
        Small Arms--Shotgun........................        $264,610        $299,860        $332,525        $377,645  Critical for security operations in urban environments
        Night Vision--Driver's Vision Enhancers          $4,926,825      $4,926,825      $5,036,310      $5,474,250  Provides a thermal night vision capability to drivers enabling continuous
         (DVE).                                                                                                       mission operations
    Transportation:
        HMMWV--Un Armored..........................    $101,590,000    $107,800,000    $107,800,000    $106,765,000  Critical enabler for the ARNG to perform all mission and support requirements,
                                                                                                                      domestic or combat
        HMMWV--Up Armored..........................     $31,598,000     $38,003,000     $38,003,000     $35,868,000  ...............................................................................
        FMTV--Trucks...............................     $60,451,326     $61,580,790     $60,966,638     $60,451,326  Replaces obsolete, non-deployable trucks. Critical enabler for the ARNG to
                                                                                                                      perform all mission and support requirements
        HTV--HEMTT Tanker/Wrecker/LHS..............     $42,833,720     $52,628,720     $51,203,720     $50,637,440  Provides line and local haul, resupply, and recovery capability to sustain
                                                                                                                      operations
        HTV--PLS Truck/Trailer/Bed/CHU.............     $56,768,600     $56,768,600     $56,768,600     $56,768,600  Primary component of the maneuver-oriented ammunition distribution system. Also
                                                                                                                      performs local-haul, line-haul, unit re-supply and other transportation
                                                                                                                      missions
        MTV--M916A3 Light Equipment Transporter....     $11,350,000     $11,350,000     $11,350,000     $11,350,000  Prime mover for pulling the M870 series trailer and heavy engineer equipment
        MTV--Tactical Trailers.....................     $11,510,000     $11,510,000     $10,540,000     $10,540,000  Required for transport of heavy engineer equipment, ISO containers, and other
                                                                                                                      cargo
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total....................................    $500,000,000    $500,000,000    $500,000,000    $500,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Leahy. We are working hard to include $1 billion to
    help with the Guard's backlog. That is a $24 billion backlog.
    We have put $1 billion in the budget that the President has
    vetoed. Senator Bond and I have worked on that and will
    continue to.
        They seem--these backlogs seem to be unprecedented in the
    modern era of the National Guard. Would you agree with that?
        Secretary Gates. I do not have a lot of historical
    knowledge on this, Senator Leahy. But my impression is that the
    percentage of equipment on hand, which is about 56 percent, the
    norm that is expected for the Guard is about 70 percent
    equipment on hand. So they--across the country--have that
    shortfall, and I think that that is the lowest percentage, that
    56 percent, is certainly the lowest percent since I think at
    least 2001.
        Senator Leahy. I think you will find that it is even lower
    than that in a number of specific areas--communications, heavy
    equipment, and so on. Should we not be starting now a multiyear
    process to replace this equipment? We are not going to do it
    all in 1 year. We all agree on that, especially if the $24
    billion is correct. But should we not set a multiyear situation
    to do it?
        Secretary Gates. That is absolutely correct, Senator. In
    the 2007 and 2008 budgets, altogether there is almost $9
    billion for the Guard. Between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year
    2013, we have in this budget or in the budget and plan $21.9
    billion just for the Army Guard. And between 2005 and 2013
    there will be something on the order of $35 or $36 billion.
        Senator Leahy. But this $24 billion is not budgeted and
    many will say that the shortfall, that they are actually down
    to 35 percent, not in the 50 percentile range----
        Secretary Gates. Well, it varies from State to State.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. But in the 35 to 40.
        But I wish you would look at that and get back, because
    right now there is nothing in the budget to do this. There is
    no plan to resupply them. This is creating a real concern among
    Governors around the States, certainly among the adjutants
    general around the States. I mention this knowing that the
    Guard and Reserve have answered the call and they have been
    sent abroad. But we also need them to answer the call at home
    when they are needed.
        [The information follows:]

        The current Army National Guard (ARNG) equipment posture is
    49 percent. This is a national average of total Modified Table
    of Organization & Equipment (MTOE) available within the
    Continental United States (CONUS). This percentage increases to
    56 percent if equipment currently deployed is added to the
    calculation. Prior to 9/11, the Army National Guard was at 75
    percent equipment on hand for Equipment Readiness Code (ERC) A
    and P items and 58 percent for total MTOE. Since 9/11, ARNG
    equipping requirements increased significantly due to
    modernization of MTOEs. Modernization requirements combined
    high operational tempo for ARNG units supporting the warfight
    has further reduced the ARNG on-hand equipment rate.
        The Army has programmed nearly $37 billion for ARNG
    equipment, not including over $11 billion in cascading of
    equipment from the active component. If executed as programmed,
    delivery of the equipment by the end of fiscal year 2015 is
    estimated to take the ARNG to approximately 77 percent
    equipment on-hand. The current Army plan is to equip the ARNG
    to 100 percent by fiscal year 2020. In order to resource the
    ARNG to 100 percent equipment on-hand by 2020, the Army will
    have to program approximately $5.5 billion per year from fiscal
    year 2014 through fiscal year 2020. This is in addition to an
    estimated $1 billion in cascaded equipment per year.

                          WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ

        Senator Leahy. Now, the President has vetoed what I believe
    is a solid withdrawal plan. You may well disagree. But there is
    now talk around here by both Republican leaders and Democratic
    leaders about benchmarks the Iraqis can use to determine
    whether they are making the necessary political compromises to
    save their country. General Petraeus says he is going to take a
    close look at the strategy in September. The Republican leader
    in the House has said that is about the time we should be
    looking at it.
        But in the paper today it says that General Odierno, the
    operational commander in Iraq, seems to indicate is
    predetermined when he is quoted as saying the troop escalation
    is going to have to last well into next year. Now, you are the
    number two commander of the military right behind the
    President. At what point would you recommend to the President
    that we need an orderly withdrawal? What are the conditions
    when you would say, Mr. President, it is finally time to bring
    our soldiers home?
        Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I think that it is
    very important to underscore that General Petraeus has said
    that he and Ambassador Crocker will make their evaluation of
    the situation and the surge in September, probably earlier
    rather than later in September. And that is the evaluation that
    the President and I and the chairman will be looking for, and I
    think I can just assure you right here that the outcome of that
    evaluation is not foreordained.
        In my view, getting the level of violence in Iraq to a
    point where the political process can go forward and seeing
    some progress in reconciliation sets the stage for us to begin
    withdrawing our units from first of all the surge, but
    withdrawing our units and allowing those security
    responsibilities to be assumed by the Iraqis. So I think those
    are the circumstances on the ground that we will be looking
    for, and I think we are going to be looking for the direction
    of events.
        We do not have to have it all locked in place and
    everything already completed. I think if we see some very
    positive progress and it looks like things are headed in the
    right direction, then that is the point at which I think we can
    begin to consider reducing some of these forces.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Specter.
        Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Gates. Thank you, General Pace, and we
    thank the 2.4 million people in the armed forces of the United
    States and the 140,000 troops now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                         PROSPECTS FOR PROGRESS IN IRAQ

        The President's veto has been sustained and we will have
    another very sharp look in September, as you have already
    noted, and we will be up for appropriations for the full
    budget, which now approximates $500 billion. This morning's
    press does talk about looking by the commanders beyond this
    year into April 2008. We know from the last election and the
    public opinion polls and the talk on the street that we are
    dealing with a very unpopular war now and there is a question
    as to how long Congress will sustain the President's position.
        We have up until now and I have--a question that I have,
    and I know it is difficult to assess and you are going to make
    a calculation in September, but what are the prospects for
    having some light at the end of the tunnel, to see some
    encouragement which would enable the Congress to have the
    fortitude to support the President and go beyond September in
    the full funding of the $500 billion?
        Secretary Gates. Well, I think that the honest answer is,
    Senator, that I do not know. I would tell you this, though. I
    think I consider it my responsibility and I think General
    Petraeus and the chairman consider it their responsibility to
    give the President and the Congress an honest evaluation of
    whether the strategy is working or not in September. Regardless
    of the answer to that question, it seems to me that sets the
    stage then to make decisions about the future.
        Senator Specter. Well, I can understand the answer you have
    given, but there is a sense here, certainly by the Democrats
    and growing among Republicans, that there has to be some
    progress, significant progress, to sustain it beyond September.

                      IRAQ WITHDRAWAL EMBOLDENING AL-QAEDA

        Let me turn to a related question, Mr. Secretary. That is,
    our civilization is threatened by al-Qaeda and by radical
    Islamic fundamentalism, and we frequently hear the argument
    that if we do not fight them there we are going to be fighting
    them here. This is an issue which is very hard to evaluate, but
    to what extent would withdrawal, if we were to take what
    Congressman Murtha wants to do, a withdrawal date, to what
    extent in your opinion would that embolden al-Qaeda and
    embolden radical Islamic fundamentalism, increase the risk of
    further attacks on our homeland?
        Secretary Gates. Senator Specter, I think that in the first
    instance it depends on the circumstances under which we
    withdraw. If we withdraw and we leave Iraq in chaos, then I
    think the consequences are pretty dire. I think we have a
    thinking enemy in al-Qaeda in Iraq. They change strategies when
    we change strategies. The way they use these improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs) is an example that they even are able
    to change technologically how they deal with this.
        If we were to withdraw leaving Iraq in chaos, al-Qaeda
    almost certainly would use Anbar Province as another base from
    which to plan operations, not only inside Iraq, but first of
    all in the neighborhood, and then potentially against the
    United States. We know that al-Qaeda has reestablished itself
    in the federally administered territories on the western border
    of Pakistan, where they are training new recruits. They have
    established linkages now in North Africa.
        So al-Qaeda has actually expanded, I would say, its
    organization and its capabilities. So I think that if we do not
    leave Iraq in some sense, with some sense of stability,
    regardless of ongoing internal difficulties, then I think the
    problem we face will be significantly worse.

                      A 2 MONTH $50 BILLION APPROPRIATION

        Senator Specter. A final question, Secretary Gates. There
    is talk in the House about $50 billion now. From what I
    understand, you have to have the full $100 billion now if you
    are to get the contracts to protect our troops. To what extent
    would it complicate an orderly progression if you only get $50
    billion now and we have to come back for another vote at a
    later time?
        Secretary Gates. Senator, my concerns about the proposal
    are actually very practical. A 2-month appropriation assumes
    that the Department of Defense, first of all, has a precise
    idea in real time of the balances in thousands of accounts that
    we have to manage. In truth, I essentially have 10,000 faucets
    all running money and some of them run at one rate, some of
    them run at another, and they all draw on one big pool of money
    behind them.
        Turning them on and off with precision and on a day-to-day
    basis or even a month-to-month basis gets very difficult. I
    think the bill, the proposal, also assumes financial and cash
    flow controls, a precision in those controls day to day, that
    would require a degree of agility that is not normally
    associated with the Department of Defense.
        In truth, I think people may also think that they are
    voting for a soldier, voting money to support a soldier in
    Iraq, when because of the way this money is pooled they may
    actually be voting to pay the salary of some guy mowing the
    lawn at Fort Lewis, because it just is not segregated in the
    way that perhaps some people think.
        A couple of other points. It would have a huge impact on
    contracting, especially with respect to readiness and reset, in
    terms of--I mean, it is tough to do a 2-month contract for a
    mine resistant and ambush protected (MRAP), for some of these
    new armored vehicles. Also, as I suggested earlier, to do
    service and supply contracts on a 2-month basis would add
    significant costs and disruption.
        Finally, in terms of the vote, proposed vote in July, we
    will have forward spent so much money to keep the troops in the
    field by that time that the truth is if that vote were to be a
    no I would have to shut down significant elements of the
    Department of Defense in August and September because I would
    not have the money to pay salaries. So a no vote in July would
    have dramatic consequences.
        In essence, the bill asks me to run the Department of
    Defense like a skiff and I am trying to drive the biggest
    supertanker in the world. We just do not have the agility to be
    able to manage a 2-month appropriation very well.
        Senator Specter. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        I would like to recognize the President pro tempore of the
    Senate, Senator Byrd.
        Senator Byrd. Thank you, Chairman Inouye and Senator
    Stevens, for conducting this hearing. With the continuing and
    escalating costs of the military operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan and the growing percentage of Department of Defense
    funding within the domestic discretionary budget, the fiscal
    year 2008 defense budget merits close scrutiny. It is clear
    that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are straining our
    military, both in terms of troop fatigue and in terms of
    equipment wear and replacement.
        But the strains go even further, to issues of training and
    preparedness of those units stationed in the United States,
    which constitute our first response to any domestic emergency,
    and to those units stationed overseas to deal with crises
    there.
        Like many observers, I am concerned, General Pace. I am
    concerned, Secretary Robert Gates. I am concerned that we may
    be undermining our many years of military superiority and
    readiness, leaving the United States ill prepared to respond to
    any new developments at home or abroad. We must, we must
    carefully consider both our current commitments and the impact
    that those commitments may be having on our military and our
    Federal spending in a broader context.
        I have a number of questions for Secretary Gates and
    General Pace along those lines. Secretary Gates, the 2002
    authorization to use force in Iraq authorized the President to
    use force for two purposes. The first was to defend the
    national security of the United States ``against the continuing
    threat posed by Iraq.'' Let me read that again now. The first
    was to defend the national security of the United States,
    ``against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.''
        The second was to, ``enforce all relevant United Nations
    Security Council resolutions against Iraq.''
        Since the Government of Iraq that is referred to in the
    resolution no longer exists, having been replaced by a
    democratically elected one, do you agree, do you agree, that
    this authorization no longer applies to the ongoing conflict in
    Iraq?
        Secretary Gates. I think the honest answer, Senator Byrd,
    is that I do not know the answer to that question.
        Senator Byrd. That is being honest. Therefore, if you do
    not know the answer, how does it apply if you do not know the
    answer?
        Secretary Gates. Well, sir, my impression is that it is the
    view of the President that it still continues to authorize the
    actions that we are taking in Iraq.
        Senator Byrd. All right.
        Secretary Gates, in a recent hearing before the Senate
    Armed Services Committee Admiral Fallon testified that the
    United States currently has no plans for contingency,
    emergency, or phased redeployment in Iraq. First of all, is
    that true?
        Secretary Gates. Let me ask General Pace to answer that
    question.
        Senator Inouye. General Pace.

                                     FORCES

        General Pace. Sir, we have published no orders directing
    the planning for the overall withdrawal of forces. We do have
    ongoing replacements of forces and we do change the size of the
    force over time, so that that system is available to either
    plus up or draw down. But we have published no orders saying
    come up with a complete plan for total drawdown.
        Senator Byrd. I am advised by my chairman that my time has
    expired. Thank you, sir.
        General Pace. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, gentlemen. It is good to be with you.

                     WAR COSTS HURTING OTHER DEFENSE NEEDS

        Mr. Secretary, you know that I support getting our deployed
    troops all of the funding they need. But I am concerned about
    reports that I have heard and read that the billions of dollars
    we are spending in Iraq is negatively impacting our
    Department's domestic needs. Now let me talk about that a
    minute and then ask you to chat with me.
        Can you talk to us for a minute about how the war is
    affecting our ability to equip our National Guard, procure new
    assets which we have planned on for a long time--like the new
    fighters; just pick one--and meet the other needs of our
    services? Will you tell us and tell the American people about
    that?
        Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, Senator, the fiscal
    year 2008 budget proposal before you includes $177 billion for
    research, development, and procurement. That includes meeting
    new security challenges that the country will face, including
    both additional F-22s, funding the Joint Strike Fighter, new
    Navy ships, and new equipment for the Army.
        So I think that the budget, the base budget that you have
    before you, is intended to address the full range of potential
    threats and challenges that the United States may face and that
    base budget is about 11.5 percent above the fiscal year 2007
    budget and includes a significant increase in this area.
        In terms of the National Guard, as we discussed with
    Senator Leahy, we do have about $22 billion budgeted for the
    period fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2013 just for the Army
    Guard, and we have money in the budget for both the Army and
    Air National Guard in the fiscal year 2008 global war on
    terror, as well as the fiscal year 2007 supplemental before the
    Senate.
        There is no question that there has been a drawdown of
    equipment in the National Guard. As I indicated, the overall
    national average for equipment on hand is about 56 percent. As
    Senator Leahy pointed out, it varies from State to State. But
    clearly, we need to follow through with this program to rebuild
    the stocks of equipment that are available to the National
    Guard.
        Senator Domenici. We hear a lot of politics and political
    talk about this, depending upon who the talk is coming from. I
    would merely tell you that in my case the State is in the
    position of having little of its equipment for its Guard.
    Clearly the New Mexico National Guard is in need; in about 3
    weeks it is going back to Iraq. It just does not seem to sit
    very well when you are down to zero and your people are going
    off to war.
        I know they are different. It is different to have people
    going to Iraq and having little domestic equipment. You are not
    taking all of that equipment with you, apparently. But you
    understand it does not make too much sense to average people as
    they read it. They wonder what we are doing.
        So what you are saying is we are doing the best we can to
    build up our domestic needs. That is not a good word, but I
    mean those that are not involved in the war. We are doing our
    best, and indeed we are doing it on two fronts. One is research
    and development to keep us modern. We are spending a lot of
    money on that front to make sure that happens, correct?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. And we do not have to bend down and worry
    that we are going to find somebody that uses this war to get
    ahead of us on new kinds of strike forces and new research and
    development (R&D)? That is not going to happen, right?
        Secretary Gates. No, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Is that correct, that is not going to
    happen?
        Secretary Gates. No, sir, it is not going to happen.
        Senator Domenici. Because we are planning the other way?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. And with reference to the National Guard,
    they are not going to be as well equipped, you are saying, as
    they might have been if this war was not there, but they are
    going to get a lot of new money----
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. To get re-equipped, is that
    correct?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. And their infrastructure will
    also benefit from the money we will be spending on the regular
    force, the active component infrastructure here in the country
    as well.
        Senator Domenici. I want to just--I know my time--is it
    over?
        Senator Inouye. Yes.
        Senator Domenici. The chairman says I do not even have time
    for this next question. So I will just give you a name: Cannon
    Air Force Base. Then we can file a question for the record
    later.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I did not know if we were
    going in order of arrival. Senator Kohl was here before.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Kohl.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator
    Mikulski.
        Secretary Gates, I and I think people all across the
    country are trying to make some common sense conclusions or
    deductions from the things that we hear here today, the things
    that we read, the things that we have now been experiencing for
    nigh how many months. Initially the surge was going to be
    evaluated in June and now you are saying it will be evaluated
    in the fall, and yet we read this morning that the troops that
    are being sent in will be augmented and they will be there well
    into next year.
        That is what so many people are fearful of, that this is in
    fact an open-ended commitment. You yourself have said this
    morning that we cannot think about leaving in your opinion
    until the level of violence has been contained, and no one
    knows how long that level of violence will go on before it can
    be contained.
        So to many people who are concerned about what is going on,
    this is an open-ended commitment that has no duration attached
    to it. The President has said that we will be there as long as
    we have to be there to achieve what he calls victory. You said
    this morning we cannot leave until we deal with the level of
    violence, and we are also hearing that the commitment that we
    are now reinforcing will go on into next year. Yet you said
    that there are no preconditions and we will be looking at this
    thing in the fall and we do not know what we will be saying
    then. But at the same time you are saying we cannot leave as
    long as the level of violence is at its current levels.
        So what the American people I think in large numbers would
    like to hear is something clear about what the administration's
    goals are and what the level of commitment is and how long it
    is going to be before we can think about redeploying our
    troops. General Pace said we have no plans to redeploy troops.
    So that is, as you know, that is the argument that is going on.
    That is the dissonance that is going on. It seems too many of
    us that you all have a responsibility to say as clearly as you
    can what these contradictions are and when they are going to be
    responded to in a way that makes sense.

                          EVALUATING PROGRESS IN IRAQ

        Secretary Gates. Well, sir, a couple of observations.
    First, when I was before this committee, before the
    Appropriations Committee, the full Appropriations Committee, a
    couple of months ago, my comment was that I thought we would be
    able to evaluate whether the Iraqis were keeping their
    commitments on the security front by early summer and whether
    we were having much luck in bringing down the level of violence
    by June.
        I think we are in a position to do that and the fact is
    they have met their commitments and the picture on the level of
    violence is a mixed one. The announcement, the press story this
    morning or in the last day or two about the 35,000 troops,
    really is a reflection of the order that I gave last week
    moving to a 15-month deployment and 12 months at home
    guaranteed. One of the purposes of doing that was to give the
    troops the maximum possible notice that they might have to
    deploy and if they do that is when they will deploy.
        So the 35,000 is simply a replacement force for forces that
    are already in the country and they may or may not have to
    deploy depending on the circumstances.
        What I was trying to convey to Senator Specter in terms of
    the September evaluation is that I think we owe the President
    and the Congress and the American people an honest evaluation
    of how the surge is working. We are not going to get--in
    September--the level of violence down to zero. The question is
    whether the level of violence is such that the political
    process can go forward in Iraq, and that then sets the stage
    for us to begin drawing down our troops.
        So I think that the evaluation that people--that we are
    expecting from General Petraeus, and I might add also from
    Ambassador Crocker, in September is really fundamental, and we
    owe you an honest answer whether, based on his evaluation,
    whether the strategy worked and what the path forward is at
    that point.
        Senator Kohl. So is it fair to conclude that, in the
    absence of any new statements, the old cliche that we broke it
    and now we own it is true about our situation in Iraq?
        Secretary Gates. Well, I would say that it is true to an
    extent, because you do now have an Iraqi government, an Iraqi
    government increasingly jealous of its sovereignty, an Iraqi
    government that is now negotiating and dealing with its
    neighbor states. You have them trying to stand up ministries.
    So they are sort of on a day-by-day basis assuming greater and
    greater responsibility. The Iraqi government has now taken over
    I think full control of four provinces. They now have full
    control of 9 of their 10 divisions in their Army.
        So certainly we have a responsibility, however, you
    characterize how we got here, to help them make this
    transition. But I would say that with each passing day they are
    taking greater ownership of the problem.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, Mr. Secretary, General Pace, I want to thank
    you, like everybody, for your service, for your willingness to
    serve under difficult circumstances.
        I want to pick up on what Senator Kohl mentioned a minute
    ago, like an open-ended commitment. I do not believe any of us
    have thought of an open-ended commitment to Iraq. But we are,
    at least a lot of us, are committed to making sure that General
    Petraeus and our troops have every opportunity to succeed that
    is to bring stability, with the surge in the next few months.
        I believe September, maybe it is October or November, but
    not much later than that, we are going to know, as we keep
    talking, is the surge working or is it only marginally so? But
    a lot of us have patience and we support our troops. I support
    our troops, period. But we have to I think remember one thing
    as we debate all this. Our troops have not been defeated on the
    battlefield, and their morale and their material is very
    important. You two know this very well and a lot of us do, too.
        So the next few months are important months. A lot of us
    met with General Petraeus, talked with him about this. We
    talked with him in January. We know that the clock is ticking
    there. A lot of things are broken in Iraq and we are there, and
    we can debate all day how we got there and where we should
    stay, but I do not think we should stay forever, but I think we
    should try to succeed in what we are doing now, as you do, Mr.
    Secretary.

                            UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

        Mr. Secretary, I want to digress just a little bit and talk
    to you about unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs. As you well know,
    the Army conducts right now in Iraq about 80 percent, and the
    marines I am sure has too, of the current UAV operations. Yet
    it does so with less than 20 percent of the DOD's UAV budget.
        There has been movement lately again by the Air Force to
    try to become the executive agency for medium and high altitude
    UAVs. This is--I think the Army and perhaps the marines have
    serious concerns about this. In other words, they deal with the
    tactical things. They deal with the medium range. I have voiced
    this with them. A lot of them have talked with me.
        You are the Secretary of Defense, you are the Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Have you thought about that? Has it
    bubbled up to your desk yet?
        Secretary Gates. The issue has certainly come to my
    attention. I would say that the issue is bubbling toward my
    desk, and right now it is on the chairman's desk, so I will
    invite him to comment.
        General Pace. Sir, thank you.
        Several levels here. First of all, just from the simple
    standpoint of air space deconfliction, we have more than 700
    unmanned aerial vehicles in Iraq today being flown by marines,
    Army, and Air Force. So we certainly need a deconfliction
    mechanism, and the Air Force has been the mechanism that we
    have used in the past to deconflict air space.
        On the other hand, you have the tactical needs of the
    soldiers and marines on the ground, who want to make sure that
    they have their vehicle overhead when they need it----
        Senator Shelby. Immediately.
        General Pace [continuing]. In the right space, at the right
    time. And you have spectrum management. UAVs use a lot of
    bandwidth and when there is x hundred of them in the air at any
    given time you have spectrum management.
        Put simply, this is a very complex problem.
        Senator Shelby. It is.
        General Pace. Everyone in the Air Force, Army, Navy, and
    Marine Corps who is working this problem are doing so in good
    faith. The Joint Requirements Oversight Committee underneath Ed
    Giambastiani has been tasked by me to get this thing sorted
    out. It consists of the Vice Chiefs of Staff of each of the
    services and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I
    think they are big enough fellows to be able to figure this
    thing out and come back in to me so I can get to the Secretary
    with a recommendation about the best way to align the needs for
    air space control and tactical use in a way that gives the
    troop on the ground--at the end of the day it is about does PFC
    Pace have the support he needs from the aerial vehicle
    overhead. That is going to be my measure of effectiveness when
    the recommendation comes to me, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Well, I hope so, and I hope it is the right
    thing for the fighting man.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, you need to know you really have every day
    been winning my respect, not only for the institutional role,
    but I really certainly have appreciated your responsiveness to
    issues raised by us and your desire it seems to have really
    candid information on which to guide you as the Secretary of
    Defense.
        Your prompt response to the Walter Reed crisis was really
    appreciated, the commission that you appointed and now your
    steadfast follow through I think is an example of what I am
    talking about. I believe that if we have this candor we can
    really work together for the good of the Nation.
        This takes me to one issue related to the National Guard. I
    think the fact that almost four Senators have raised this shows
    what we are hearing in our own States. But know when General
    Blum was here he told us the state of the National Guard as he
    saw it. At that hearing he told me that Maryland was 35 percent
    ready, and I am going to come to the money issue in a minute.
        That put me on the edge of my chair, because Maryland is in
    the national capital region, we are in a hurricane zone. I went
    to our National Guard and also to Governor O'Malley and our
    Lieutenant Governor, who happens to be an Iraq war veteran and
    a colonel in the Army Reserve. Briefly, the results came back
    and they were quite alarming. What we were told was that the
    Maryland National Guard faces serious equipment shortfalls and
    that in the event of a natural disaster or an attack in the
    national capital region they did not feel that they would have
    the operational capability to respond the way they should, that
    what they give the bosses is the best case scenario.
        I could go through this: 14 percent helicopters, 36 percent
    of what we need for Humvees, only 32 percent of what we need
    for generators, only 58 percent of what we need for
    communication equipment. This is quite serious.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like the report from Governor
    O'Malley and General Tuxill entered into the record.
        Senator Inouye. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
                                     State of Maryland,
                                           Military Department,
                                      Baltimore, Maryland, May 9, 2007.
    The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski,
    509 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.
        Dear Senator Mikulski: Thank you for your recent inquiries
    regarding the inventory of National Guard equipment as it relates to
    the homeland mission in our great State of Maryland. It is my duty to
    provide you with an honest and forthright evaluation and you may find
    such data as attached in Enclosures 1 and 2.
        I respectfully stated in a letter to you dated April 16, 2007, that
    the Maryland National Guard remains ready to answer the call for any
    mission which we may be called to perform and expressed my support as
    in years past of the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account
    (NGREA) as a source by which to provide our National Guard with funding
    to address our most critical nationwide equipment needs outlined by the
    Chief of the National Guard Bureau. Maryland experiences similar needs
    with equipment such as Humvees, Generators, SINCGARS Radios, updated
    Army National Guard rotary wing assets, C-130J aircraft, military
    construction needs and LITENING pods for A-10C aircraft.
        As a follow on request, you asked that we show the operational
    impact of the raw data we provided to you. The most useful way to
    illustrate this was to measure the equipment remaining in our state
    after we fully deployed the 1,400 men and women of the Maryland Army
    National Guard this summer against known metrics of previous state
    missions we have supported. In a full evaluation of the data in early
    February of this year we found that the Maryland National Guard could
    meet its mission if faced with repeat storms of either: the President's
    Day Snow Storm, Hurricane Isabel or if asked to repeat our
    contributions to support relief efforts from Hurricanes Katrina/Rita. A
    second review of this data displayed the same results. However, today's
    environment does not allow me to plan for a ``best case'' scenario. It
    is my responsibility to provide leadership for an ``All Hazards''
    approach to emergency planning. Therefore, I directed my staff to plan
    for notional Category I and Category II Hurricanes to measure how we
    would respond. The results are found in Enclosure 1 and highlight the
    National Guard Bureau's message that our National Guard must now be
    fully resourced for our homeland mission after many years of chronic
    under-resourcing with obsolete equipment.
        My legislative priorities for this year which were submitted in
    February and directly affect our collective ability to respond to the
    needs of our citizens include: re-basing of eight newly procured C-130J
    aircraft in Maryland, a new fire station at Martin State Airport to
    provide support of military and civilian flight operations at a base we
    would utilize as a pre-staging and distribution point of relief
    supplies, and restoring national funding from $200 million to $375
    million for the Emergency Management Performance Grant. We appreciate
    your steadfast support of these items and the National Guard
    Empowerment Bill and look forward to continued efforts until each is
    fully resolved.
        While it is critical that all our deploying troops are fully
    equipped, the nation can't afford to ignore equipping the Guard for
    defending the homeland or responding to domestic emergencies. Saving
    lives and protecting property is what America expect us to do. The
    American people deserve our attention as do our citizen soldiers
    whether executing their federal and state mission or training for same.
    As always, we appreciate your support of the National Guard.
                Very respectfully,
                                               Bruce F. Tuxill,
                            Major General, MDANG, The Adjutant General.
                     Maryland Army National Guard Equipment
                                                           May 9, 2007.
                                    summary
        The Maryland National Guard (MDNG) could face potentially critical
    equipment shortfalls to meet its domestic homeland security mission,
    including serious potential deficiencies in an array of basic, multi-
    purpose items whose utility is clear for responding to incidents
    ranging from hurricanes to acts of terrorism. These gaps will be
    increased due to the recent mobilization of 1,400 Maryland Guardsmen to
    support the overseas war fight and could provide a response deficit in
    the ability to meet demands during a natural or human-induced emergency
    event. In addition, units in surrounding states face potentially
    parallel equipment shortfalls. Therefore, due to this shortfall, the
    State of Maryland may not be able to respond adequately as part of
    regional response to a Katrina-scale event that could impact the U.S.
    Mid-Atlantic Region. While resourcing our Active and Reserve component
    troops for the overseas war fight is critical, the National Guard must
    be fully prepared for our dual mission to protect the homeland.
        The accompanying data identifies specific shortfalls in four areas:
    ground vehicles (particularly Humvees); power generation equipment, air
    assets, and communications equipment. The Governor and the Lieutenant
    Governor, working with the Adjutant General, stand ready to work with
    the Maryland Congressional Delegation on this matter and will provide
    regular updates to the Members and staff on its efforts to deal with
    this challenge.
        We are also working with Congress to address critical Air National
    Guard needs with respect to: re-basing of C-130J aircraft in Maryland,
    Military Construction requirements for a new Fire Station at Martin
    State Airport to support operations at a base we would utilize to pre-
    stage and distribute relief supplies to Marylanders and a full
    inventory of nine LITENING pods for our A-10C aircraft.
                                 ground assets
        Humvees and Other Vehicle Shortfalls.--Although the MDNG is
    authorized to have 781 High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles,
    only 537 are actually assigned to Maryland. Following mobilization, the
    State will have only 279 vehicles, or about one-third of the State's
    authorized strength.
        Impact on Maryland: The Guard's fleet of vehicles includes
    ambulances, equipment and personnel movers, and other vehicles that
    have been used in past MDNG activations to move sick and elderly
    persons to high ground during flood events, dialysis patients and
    medical personnel to hospitals during snow events, and first responders
    to incident scenes when roads are impassable. With the decrease in
    available vehicles, MDNG's ability to respond to a natural or man made
    disaster or even a significant snow event would be seriously hampered
    putting lives at risk.
        For example, the MDNG estimates that if Maryland were struck by a
    Category II hurricane, approximately 335 Humvees would be required to
    respond adequately to provide essential services in support of State
    and local first responders. Based on these estimates, the Guard would
    be short 76 Humvees, due to the recent mobilization, making its
    response inadequate and putting Maryland citizens' lives in jeopardy.
        During the 2003 President's Day Snow Storm, the MDNG utilized 228
    Humvees to provide transport to medical care and other vital services
    to Marylanders and local first responders. Following the Guard's
    upcoming deployment abroad, it will have only 279 Humvees available in
    the State, stretching its ability to respond to a similar event.
                           power generation equipment
        Multi-Purpose Generators Shortfall.--MDNG is authorized to have 396
    multi-purpose generators, but in fact only 127 generators, or 32
    percent, are actually currently in the Guard's inventory.
        Impact on Maryland: The Guard's generators are used to provide
    emergency backup power to hospitals and medical facilities; to power
    and recharge critical field equipment including radio communication and
    medical gear; and to provide light and power to first responders in the
    field, distribution points for emergency medical and other supplies and
    24/7 emergency response centers.
        The MDNG estimates that it would require 130 generators to provide
    services during response and recovery from a Category II hurricane in
    Maryland. With only 127 generators on hand, the Guard is barely capable
    to respond to this level of event, and would fall below its equipment
    needs with any equipment damage or with a larger event.
                                 communications
        Radio and Communications Equipment Shortfall.--The MDNG currently
    has only 1,581 of the 2,737 pieces of radio and other communications
    equipment authorized for Maryland (approximately 57 percent).
        Impact on Maryland: Radio and communications equipment are among
    the most critical items needed by first responders and supporting
    agencies. The Guard's communications gear provides critical capability
    to communicate in any environment, the core command and control network
    for the Guard when called to state service, field capabilities for
    interoperable communications and to link communications from air assets
    to ground-level incident commanders, and backup AM radios when FM units
    and repeaters are damaged. The inability of Guard units to communicate
    with each other during a disaster event due to an inadequate inventory
    of communication's gear puts lives at risk.
                                   air assets
        Air Assets Shortfall.--The Maryland Army National Guard currently
    maintains a variety of air assets, including a fleet of nineteen
    Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters. Although the Army Guard is currently
    close to its authorized total of twenty-two Chinooks and Blackhawks,
    following mobilization by September 2007 the Guard will have no
    Chinooks in the state, and only thirteen Blackhawks. Similarly,
    although the Guard currently has eight C-130J Cargo Aircraft, due to
    realignment, Maryland will lose all of its C-130J's over the coming
    years.
        Impact on Maryland: The Guard's air assets provide the ability to
    move personnel and emergency supplies rapidly and into areas which are
    inaccessible by ground, and serve a variety of missions including
    search and rescue, patrol and security, damage assessment, and
    operating as air ambulances. Following mobilization, the Guard will
    have only thirteen Blackhawks available, to assist in various emergency
    operations. Again, faced with a significant weather event or man-made
    disaster, the Guard's ability to respond would be seriously hampered.
        For example, the Guard estimates that if Maryland were struck by a
    Category II hurricane up to 44 Chinooks and Blackhawk helicopters would
    be required for the Guard to perform its required emergency functions.
                                   personnel
        With the imminent deployment of more than 1,400 Maryland National
    Guardsmen overseas, the Guard will lose almost a fifth of its most
    important resource, the men and women of the Guard themselves.

                     NATIONAL GUARD EQUIPMENT AND READINESS

        Senator Mikulski. Picking up on the questions of both
    Senator Leahy and Senator Domenici, we need to talk about
    money. When you say that there is $22 billion between now and
    2013, are you talking about $22 billion a year? Are you talking
    about $22 billion for 5 years? What are we talking about and
    what do your people--like Ms. Jonas--say we really do need for
    combat readiness to answer the call over there, but also
    homeland security, civil, natural disaster response back here.
        Secretary Gates. First of all, the $21.9 billion is a 5-
    year figure, from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013.
    What I am told is that that will take the national average of
    equipment on hand from about 56 percent today to about 76
    percent. The norm historically for States has been about 70
    percent.
        So we are willing to sit down with you and look at the
    specifics of this, but the point is that is a substantial
    figure. That figure is for the Army Guard alone.
        Senator Specter. And we have to look at the Air Force and
    then the Guard, the marines.
        Secretary Gates. And also the Army Reserve.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Secretary Gates. So there is additional money in for that.
    So the total, I do not have the breakdown, but the total----
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, not to interrupt you, but
    national averages, I mean, if you look at national averages,
    you put me next to Jay Rockefeller, Senator Rockefeller, the
    average height of the Senate would be 5 foot 10 and I would be
    worth several million dollars. And I will not even talk about
    if you compare Senator Feinstein and myself.
        So national averages I do not think cut it, with all due
    respect to you, because the Guard is essentially a State
    operation. That is why it has such vitality, why it has such
    support from not only the men and women who serve, but
    employers who back them up under this incredible call-up tempo
    that they have.
        So my concern is that this is not an accurate number. This
    is not finger-pointing here, but I think it is time to
    pinpoint. I would very strongly recommend two things: number
    one, an additional $5 billion for this year, and that we
    consider supplementing that; number two, when you look at
    allocation, that it be on the basis of risk. Some States have
    greater homeland security demands, like we in the capital
    region, Virginia as well as ourselves. As you know, we support
    the Pentagon in this.
        Then the other issue is what I call the culture of yes. I
    think that our military has and needs to have a culture of yes.
    They must repeat and report in the chain of command. But when
    they are asked what they need, what they get from the Guard is,
    oh, we can do it, sir; we will make it work, sir. And you get
    the yes and you get the best answers.
        I would strongly recommend that you or your designee meet
    with the National Governors Association and ask these Governors
    what they see and have their generals talk to you, and do the
    same type of truth to power that you so wonderfully have then
    opened up so that we could get to the bottom of military
    medicine. We need to know what the Guard needs to defend the
    homeland against hurricanes, wildfires, or whatever. Then we
    want to work with you because, while they are fighting there,
    they have other issues that they will be fighting here.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Gregg.
        Secretary Gates. Mr. Chairman, could I just respond very
    quickly?
        I did meet with the adjutants general of all of the States
    when they were meeting here in Washington. I have accepted and
    am going to promulgate 20 of the 23 recommendations of the
    national commission on the National Guard, including
    recommending elevating the head of the Guard Bureau with a
    fourth star.

                                   LEADERSHIP

        Senator Mikulski. I think that is terrific.
        Secretary Gates. And trying to deal with some of these
    Guard problems, and we will be more than happy to work with
    you, with the Governors Association, with the adjutants
    general, to get at this problem.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
        General Pace. If I may, sir, I apologize----
        Senator Inouye. Senator Gregg.
        General Pace. Mr. Chairman. May I, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator, I agree with every point you said we need to look
    at. I just want to make sure that you know and that the Nation
    knows that the National Guard leadership has told us in great
    detail how they would spend $40 billion over the next 5 years
    to get up to 100 percent of equipment, and that the decisions
    have been made collectively to get it up to 76 percent, but
    that the leadership in the Guard has been very forthcoming with
    what their deficiencies are. They have laid it out very
    specifically. Lieutenant General Blum and all of his TAGs (the
    adjutant general) have been very precise in saying this is what
    we need.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, General Pace, I appreciate that.
    Let us move forward. It is a big difference between $40 billion
    and $22 billion, Mr. Chairman, and let us see what we need to
    do.
        General Pace. Yes, ma'am.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inouye. Senator Gregg.

                  EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TROOP SURGE

        Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to return to this issue that was raised I believe by
    Senator Leahy, because I am not sure I understood the specifics
    of the answer. In this Post article today, and maybe the quotes
    are inaccurate, but General Odierno said: ``The surge needs to
    go to the beginning of next year for sure.'' Then he went on to
    say: ``What I am trying to do is to get until April so we can
    decide whether to keep it going or not.'' And since we are in
    May, I presume he is talking about April of next year.
        So I guess that does not really--I do not understand how
    that meets with the theory that in September we are going to
    have a review, when you have got the General who is on the
    ground and in command saying he has got to go through next year
    for sure and he is trying to get to next April. I guess my
    question is how do those two positions correlate?
        Secretary Gates. I think the candid answer is they do not,
    that this is--it is General Petraeus who has said, who has told
    us that he owes us an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
    surge and how things are going in Iraq in September. The fourth
    brigade of the surge is now just on the ground in Iraq. The
    fifth brigade will go in in early June. So that will give them
    about 3 months with the full size of the surge.
        As I suggested in an earlier answer, I think what we are
    going to be looking at, what General Petraeus is going to be
    looking at, is not is the job done, but what are the trend
    lines and what are the implications of the trend lines and the
    progress or lack thereof in terms of our strategy and how we
    resource this.
        I go back to my comment, though, in response to an earlier
    question. Regardless of time lines or anything else, the
    consequences of leaving Iraq in chaos have enormous national
    security consequences for the United States.
        Senator Gregg. But it does seem to be an inconsistency here
    when the general on the ground who is in command is saying,
    well, basically we have got to go until next year, and the
    general who is in charge of the general on the ground is saying
    we are going to take a look in September and reevaluate. But I
    appreciate your forthrightness and your answer.

                   APPROACH FOR COMBATING FUTURE ADVERSARIES

        Going on to another issue because our time is obviously
    limited here, I am presuming and hoping and I think all America
    is that at some point we are going to withdraw from Iraq fairly
    significantly in our troops on the ground there, and that we
    will have a stable Iraq hopefully when we do that, as you have
    outlined, and it will not be a seeding ground for other people
    who want to do us harm.
        But after we have done that, have you been thinking about
    the terms of how you fight this war as we go into the future
    and whether or not it is really a boots on the ground war or an
    intelligence war and whether or not our resources in this
    country are being focused correctly--you are asking for $500
    billion in the core defense budget--focused correctly relative
    to the fact that the threat is a disparate and spread threat,
    that is not a nation state threat; it is a threat that
    sometimes comes down to individuals, but obviously comes down
    to functioning small units across the globe, who can only be
    confronted if we have the intelligence capability to find them
    to begin with. And to what extent are you thinking in--what is
    the term of thought as we move forward? Is it still a large
    military, boots on the ground approach, or is it more of an
    aggressive intelligence, structured, targeted military
    approach? I'm addressing Iraq.
        Secretary Gates. Senator, I think it is all of the above. I
    think that one of the reasons why the sum of money is as large
    as it is, because we need to be in a position to deal with the
    challenges potentially posed by other large states. We need to
    be in a position to deal with the threat posed by proliferating
    medium-sized states like North Korea and Iran. And we need to
    be prepared to deal with this global war on terror that is
    going to be with us for a very long time, and that is a war
    that in some places will involve boots on the ground of regular
    Army and other places it will require special forces, and in
    all places it will require an extraordinary level of
    intelligence to guide that conflict, and it will involve a lot
    of partnerships with other countries and their military and
    their intelligence services.
        So I would say that one of the reasons you have a $481
    billion budget in front of you is because the United States
    needs to be prepared to deal with this full spectrum of
    potential challenges to our national security and, I might add,
    deal with the National Guard and domestic capabilities here as
    well, homeland security capabilities here as well. But clearly,
    intelligence has got to play an important role.
        Senator Gregg. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I have two areas and I want to go fast. Welcome, gentlemen.
        With respect to everything I have heard so far, correct me
    if I am wrong in summing it up that September is some kind of
    point of decision with respect to the effectiveness of the
    surge, but it is not necessarily dispositive with respect to
    policy.

                               END STATE FOR IRAQ

        The thing that concerns me, and directly following Senator
    Gregg's questions, is whether this country is really able to
    take on a non-state enemy in a way that makes sense in the
    future and whether we are doing the kind of planning for future
    non-state major military problems. I think the answer is no,
    that we are not ready for this, and I also want to ask this
    question. If, Mr. Secretary, you determine that in September
    the surge has not been viable in terms of securing Baghdad and
    reducing terror, what would your recommendation to the
    President be? And is there any truth to something that appears
    in David Ignatius's column this morning that says the ferment
    in the region is driven partly by the perception that United
    States troops are on the way out no matter what the Bush
    administration says? To dampen such speculation, Bush is said
    to have told the Saudis that America will not withdraw from
    Iraq during his presidency. ``This gives us 18 months to
    plan,'' said one Saudi source.
        Secretary Gates. I think it is our view, Senator, that the
    end state--and Senator Judd alluded to this a little bit--that
    the end state for some period of time after we conclude major
    combat operations in Iraq is that there will be a continuing
    need for a U.S. presence and a relationship, security
    relationship, with the Iraqis for some period of time.
        What that number of troops involves precisely I have no
    idea, because it will depend on their needs and the situation.
    Again, though, let me go back. The goal in September is not
    whether the violence has been significantly reduced or
    stability has been brought, it seems to me, but rather whether
    it has been reduced to a level that the political
    reconciliation process is moving forward in some meaningful
    way.
        But I think we will have a presence in that area. We
    certainly will have a naval presence. That was one of the
    reasons I recommended and sent a second carrier strike group
    there, was to reassure our friends and allies in the region
    that the United States is going to have a continuing presence.
    But my view would be that it is very likely the United States
    will be required to have some level of troop presence in Iraq
    for some period of time, but it has to be at a level in my view
    that can attract bipartisan support.

                          RELIABLE WARHEAD REPLACEMENT

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. That is very helpful.
        Let me move on if I might to a program that has a 370-
    percent increase in your budget, and that is the Reliable
    Warhead Replacement Program. The 2007 continuing resolution has
    $24.8 million and the request is split this year between the
    National Nuclear Security Administration, $88.8 million, and
    the Department of Defense, $30 million.
        Now, a December 2006 request by the national laboratories
    found that the plutonium pits have a life span of at least 85
    years. And as we know, the warheads are certified as safe
    virtually every year.
        I believe very strongly that in order to move ahead with
    RRW, Defense must be clear about long-term stockpile needs,
    including size, weapons characteristics, and diversity. The
    proposal before us does not do this. Many of us believe that we
    ought to carry out a comprehensive assessment of United States
    nuclear weapons policy, and that is Secretary Kissinger,
    Secretary Schultz, who I think have been, Senator Nunn, have
    been very definitive, and the impact on national security goals
    and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
        Do you agree with this or not?
        Secretary Gates. Well, I do not know if a national
    commission is required or a major study. We certainly owe you
    answers to the questions that you have posed in terms of
    stockpile and reliability and so on, and we are certainly
    willing to have a dialogue with you about the path forward on
    this. I think there have been a number of diplomatic
    interactions both with our allies and with the Russians and the
    Chinese about it, so it is not like we are trying to do
    something behind the curtain, as it were.
        I think the key here is ensuring that we have, in a world
    where a growing number of nations seem to be interested in
    having nuclear weapons, that we have a reliable stockpile and
    that we can count on the reliability and safety without testing
    and that it can be done through technical means and not actual
    tests. But we certainly, as a starting point, owe you answers
    to the questions you ask.
        Senator Feinstein. I know my time is up. I think that would
    be appreciated. I have had the classified briefing on the
    changes to be made and essentially, in my judgment at least,
    the changes to be made constitute a new nuclear warhead and I
    think it is not just safety. I think we have to come to grips
    with that and what this does to nonproliferation efforts.
        So I would certainly welcome that discussion. I do not
    believe I am the only one here that feels that way.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Gates, General Pace, I appreciate your honesty
    with us today in all of your comments so far.
        Secretary Gates, I want to ask you about the budget
    request; it includes $4.7 billion to train and equip security
    forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Can you tell me how much of
    that is for Iraqi security forces?
        Secretary Gates. $2 billion.

                             IRAQI SECURITY FORCES

        Senator Murray. $2 billion. Our troops have been training
    forces now for more than 4 years in Iraq. In your opinion,
    where are we in having an Iraqi security force that is able to
    stand up on its own?
        Secretary Gates. I think we have made a good deal of
    progress. The numbers of troops that have been trained--I am
    just searching for the information here. We have--the
    authorization for the Army is 175,000. We have trained and
    equipped 144,000, so we are at 82 percent, with the completion
    date scheduled for December.
        Senator Murray. We have been hearing those numbers for
    several years. Is this more accurate than it used to be?
        Secretary Gates. No, I think these are--I do not know that
    there is a change in the numbers.
        General Pace. If I may help, sir.
        Secretary Gates. Yes.
        General Pace. Senator, if I might help, we originally had a
    plan to have 325,000 total Iraqi armed forces, both police and
    military, trained by December 2006. That goal was reached. In
    the process of getting to that goal, Mr. Maliki's government
    wanted to increase the size of its armed forces by another
    40,000, partially to build 2 more divisions, go to 12 divisions
    instead of 10, and partially to man his current units at 110
    percent so that he can have an effective force in the field.
        Senator Murray. But what is the date that you expect this
    to be completed? When will we reach this goal?
        General Pace. We will reach the completion of the current
    proposed size of the Iraqi army by the end of this year, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. By the end of this year.
        General Pace. And for the first time this year--correction.
    This is the second year in a row now where the Iraqi government
    has put more money into building their army than we have.

                        PROGRESS ON POLITICAL BENCHMARKS

        Senator Murray. Secretary Gates, I agreed with your
    comments that you made during your trip to Baghdad last month
    where you said that the U.S. military commitment in Iraq is not
    open-ended and the clock is ticking. I wanted to ask you if you
    have seen any progress on the political benchmarks that have
    been set for the Iraqi government, the oil revenue sharing,
    national reconciliation, new elections? Have you seen any
    progress at all?
        Secretary Gates. There has been some movement on some of
    the legislation. It clearly has not moved as far or as fast as
    we would like. I think that there are some things that are
    happening in the political arena that do not go directly to
    legislation, but that are encouraging. There was a report in a
    Baghdad newspaper just a couple of days ago that Prime Minister
    Maliki is going to begin consulting with the Presidential
    council. He has clearly taken it aboard on a regular basis,
    including Vice President Hashemi, a Sunni, where there has not
    been as much dialogue there as we would like.
        Clearly, we have, a variety of us, have made clear to the
    Iraqis that it would be a very bad idea for the council of
    representatives to take a recess in July and August. I will be
    blunt. I told some of the Iraqis with whom I met that we are
    buying them time for political reconciliation and that every
    day we buy them, we buy it with American blood, and that for
    this group to go out for 2 months, it would in my opinion be
    unacceptable.

                              TROOP MENTAL HEALTH

        Senator Murray. Well, September is not very far away to see
    improvements from here. So I think we are all looking very
    carefully at that, and I appreciate your honesty on that.
        I also wanted to just bring up an issue quickly. According
    to the Defense Department's Task Force on Mental Health, more
    than one-third of our troops and veterans suffer from TBI and
    post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Last Friday the task
    force reported that the system of care for psychological
    healthcare that has evolved in recent decades is not sufficient
    to meet the needs of today's forces and their beneficiaries and
    will not be sufficient to meet the needs in the future.
        I have been out to our military hospitals and, Secretary
    Gates, I have been very concerned because I have been hearing
    directly from soldiers that they feel that the effects of PTSD
    are being dismissed by military care providers as being all in
    their head. I heard that over and over again. I want your
    assurance today that we would make sure that that was not being
    told--it is stigma enough and it is difficult enough for these
    soldiers. We want them to get the care they need, and I hope
    that you can put some focus on that throughout the system.
        Secretary Gates. Senator, I can assure you that the senior
    leadership of, and particularly the medical leadership, of the
    Army has taken this aboard, is very serious about it. One of
    the suggestions that I have had--I am worried that when they do
    these surveys with soldiers that come off of a deployment they
    are so eager to get home they are going to check all the right
    boxes so that they can get home. One of the things that I have
    suggested is that they give each returning soldier just a piece
    of paper that lists all of the symptoms, that basically says:
    This is a common problem and it is not a sign of weakness; a
    lot of your buddies have this problem; here are the symptoms
    and here is who to call if you have these symptoms, in addition
    to whatever review there is at 3 months and 6 months and before
    redeployment and so on.
        One of the recommendations of the internal review group
    that just reported to me last week was the creation of a center
    of excellence for both TBI and for post-traumatic stress. That
    is something I take very seriously. I just was at the center
    for the Intrepid last week and I think it is a great model for
    what we might be able to do here in terms of both patient care
    and combining private and public research and treatment.
        So I think that this is taken very seriously by the
    leadership of the Department and by the military leadership. It
    is not a sign of weakness. It is not all in their heads. It is
    real and we need to get them the treatment they deserve.
        Senator Murray. Well, I really appreciate that answer and
    would hope that I can talk to you later, because I am concerned
    that we do have some people in the military closer to the
    ground level who have a macho attitude that it is all in your
    head. I think that is very dangerous. So I do appreciate your
    comments.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        The vote has started. Senator Dorgan

                        APPREHENDING AL-QAEDA LEADERSHIP

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, let me ask a question I have asked
    previously, on the issue of the threat to our country. The
    Director of Intelligence recently said, and I think I am
    quoting him accurately: ``The greatest terrorist threat to our
    country is the threat from the al-Qaeda leadership and its
    network around the world.''
        As you know, the al-Qaeda leadership boasted about carrying
    out the attacks on our country and they still exist apparently
    somewhere in northern Pakistan or somewhere near some border
    area. Some years ago I was in Afghanistan. I know that there
    was an interdisciplinary military unit interested in
    apprehending the al-Qaeda leadership. Are there military
    missions prosecuting that action as well at this point?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. We are still going after al-
    Qaeda leadership. It is in a difficult area both in terms of
    terrain and in terms of the politics, in terms of our ability
    to range freely in that area. Most of it is in, as I indicated
    earlier, in the western part of Pakistan in the federally
    administered territories. But we do have military operations
    that are planned both in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, not
    just in North Waziristan and Iraq, but in other places as well,
    to go after al-Qaeda leadership.
        Senator Dorgan. And that remains a priority?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask a question that my colleague
    from Alabama had asked about. Some years ago when I came to the
    Congress I joined something called a defense reform caucus
    because I was interested and dismayed in some respects at
    seeing the intramural politics in the Department of Defense,
    with every branch of the service wanting to do everything. For
    example, every branch wants to fly, every branch wants to do
    this and that.

                       UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE OVERSIGHT

        With respect to UAVs, it occurred to me that it is quite
    clear that the Army would want to have low-level UAVs over a
    battlefield that they can control from a tactical standpoint.
    It is not clear at all why the Army has been spending money
    designing a Warrior to fly at 20,000 feet that looks exactly
    like and I think will perform exactly like the Predator, which
    is the Air Force mission.
        So it appears--and I asked General Schoomaker about this
    and he sent me what I would expect to be a typical response:
    This is something the Army wants to do. But it appears to me
    that we have duplicated the investment in research and
    development of two UAVs that the Air Force has on the Predator
    and the Army wants of its own with the Warrior. It makes no
    sense to me. Would you look into that? Or maybe one of you can
    tell me why we are duplicating these efforts.
        Secretary Gates. Sir, a fair point, and we are looking into
    this. That is exactly what I have tasked the Joint Requirements
    Oversight Committee to get back to me on, because you are
    right, we have had over time more than 100 different variants
    of unarmed aerial vehicles. The two you are talking about are
    made by the same company, and we need to get it right with
    regard to how many different variants we need and how we
    control the air space and how we deliver product to the soldier
    and marine on the battlefield, sir. And you are right to be
    concerned about duplication.
        Senator Dorgan. UAVs are very important. I think they are
    going to play a significant role. I just do not want the
    services duplicating research and development. The taxpayer
    ends up paying for that.

                                     B-52S

        A quick question. B-52s. The U.S. House last year in its
    deliberations said that you shall not reduce the number of B-
    52s below 76. The Senate agreed with that and yet the budget
    reduces them to 56. As you know, the earliest possible date we
    might have a new bomber would be 2018. I do not think that will
    happen, but it might be the earliest possible date. We used
    over 80 B-52s in the most recent Iraq war, 140 in the gulf war
    before that.
        I do not understand the recommendation here and I think the
    Congress likely will keep 76 B-52s so that we do not put 20 in
    the bone yard and then hear there is a bomber gap very quickly.
    If that is the case, how do we pay for that?
        General Pace. Senator, I need to get back to you, sir. I do
    not have that in my head. I do know the recommendation was
    made. I do know it was based on projections of x amount of
    ordnance being delivered over y amount of time. But I do not
    have a precise answer for you yet, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        It is particularly challenging to manage an aging bomber
    fleet while simultaneously transforming to face emerging
    threats. We are pursuing a balanced approach that focuses on
    transformation and recapitalization while managing operational
    risk.
        An important component of our Nation's security is the
    operational ability to project combat power over long distances
    and long durations with adequate payloads. To meet this
    requirement, the Air Force's three-phase strategy for long-
    range strike modernizes current bombers, develops a
    complementary capability fielding in 2018 and continues
    technology development for a transformational capability in
    2035. Integral to the three-phase long-range strike strategy is
    divestiture of 20 B-52s as reflected in the fiscal year 2008
    President's budget. The 56 B-52s funded in the program of
    record are capable of meeting any single combatant commander
    requirement, but provide an estimated $1.44 billion cost
    avoidance across the Future Years Defense Plan.

        Senator Dorgan. Well, let me thank both of you. These are
    difficult times and all of us want the same for our country. We
    want our country to succeed. We have got people strapping on
    body armor this morning, going out and facing live ammunition.
    This Congress is going to provide the funding that is necessary
    and some more for MRAPs and some more for medical,
    hospitalization, and so on. We have an obligation to do that
    and from my standpoint we will do that.
        Secretary Gates. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for being here, and
    General Pace, and discussing your budget request for the next
    year.
        There was some disturbing news this morning that I heard
    about alleged or suspected terrorists in the United States
    getting armaments and weapons to attack military forces here in
    the United States. It reminded me that we have a new Department
    of Homeland Security, still relatively new. Is there a degree
    of cooperation between our military forces, the Department of
    Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security to
    successfully discover things like this and then deter an
    attack.

                                    FORT DIX

        Secretary Gates. Let me give a quick answer and then ask
    General Pace to follow up. The answer to your question is yes.
    I think that this operation relating to Fort Dix was an
    extraordinary piece of law enforcement work by the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation (FBI). We work closely, particularly in
    the National Counter-Terrorism Center, with the Bureau, with
    Homeland Security, with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
    and the other parts of the intelligence community. So I think
    some of the changes that have been made in the restructuring
    and the creation of that group by the Congress has contributed
    to that kind of sharing of information and working together.
        General, do you want to add anything?
        General Pace. Sir, there has been good progress there, a
    very good relationship between the Department of Defense,
    Department of Homeland Security, exceptional relationship with
    Northern Command underneath Admiral Renuart now. Example is
    exactly what you pointed out, Fort Dix, and when that
    information was put into the system not only did it result in
    the actions taken at Fort Dix, but also nationally with regard
    to all of our military bases being alerted and taking a look
    and scrubbing their current procedures.
        One additional factor is that Secretary Chertoff right now
    has a team that he has put together to see for the kinds of
    things that the Department of Homeland Security would need to
    do internal to the United States, what kinds of capacities do
    we need that agency to have, and of those what do they not
    have, and of those which should the Department of Defense be
    looked to provide. So we are working very carefully with them
    to make sure that our Guard and Reserve forces have the
    capacity needed to be able to respond in support of a civilian
    lead inside the United States.

                            RECRUITING AND RETENTION

        Senator Cochran. I realize that during a time of war it
    might be natural to resist a call to serve in the military
    forces. But it reminds me that we do not have a draft in place.
    We do not have conscription. We are operating, with your
    leadership, on an all-volunteer force. I know in the budget
    request you have money that you request in order to carry out
    recruiting and retention efforts. What is the status of that?
    Is there enough money requested in your budget to address this
    and to assure that we are going to have the troops that we need
    in the future to not only wage war on terror internationally,
    but to protect our security interests across the board?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. There is about I think $4.3
    billion or $4.4 billion in the budget for recruitment and
    retention. I am happy to report to you that the active
    component, that all the active components of the military, met
    their recruiting targets in April. The Army National Guard is
    at about 94 percent for April, but they are over 100 percent
    year to date. The Army Reserve is struggling a little bit, but
    I think in part it is because they are competing with the Army
    National Guard and the Active Army in recruiting from the same
    pool of young men and women.
        The Marine Corps has exceeded their recruitment objectives.
    The first--in terms of retention, the first reenlistment, we
    are over 100 percent of the goals. We are about 94 percent of
    the goal for the second reenlistment.
        So I would say--and these are people who are enlisting
    knowing exactly what they are getting into and knowing exactly
    where they are going to end up having to fight. So these are
    young people who are signing up knowing the challenges that
    they are going to face, and it is an extraordinary tribute to
    the quality of these young people in America today that are
    willing to do this.

                                MISSILE DEFENSE

        Senator Cochran. We appreciate your leadership and
    management of the Department of Defense and the
    responsibilities that go with that. I notice in your budget
    request you also have a substantial request for additional
    funds for a missile defense program continued to develop and
    deploy those resources. Connected with that, I saw the Patriot
    missile system mentioned, and also was reminded of the fact
    that when we had the service chiefs before our subcommittee the
    other day they talked about the success of the program to
    develop a capability to defend troops against missile attack
    and our national interests against the emerging threats.
        Are you concerned that we have enough of a robust missile
    defense initiative included in this budget to meet our goals
    and to further strengthen our ability to protect ourselves in
    these situations?
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir, I think that the program is
    quite adequately funded. It is about $8.9 billion for missile
    defense and about another billion for the Patriots. I think the
    general feeling in the Department is that that is an
    appropriate level.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Stevens [presiding]. The Senator from New Mexico,
    do you wish to be recognized?
        Senator Domenici. Yes. Thank you very much. I did not think
    I was going to get back in time, and I know time is short.

                          RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD

        Mr. Secretary, I understand you answered a question from
    Senator Feinstein regarding our reliable replacement warhead
    (RRW). I have another question on the same subject that I will
    submit and ask that you answer it.
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Second, I submitted on April 17 a letter
    to you about the position, your position on the RRW, the new
    potential warhead. I would greatly appreciate it if you would
    give us some idea of when that might be answered. We need to
    know whether the people in the administration and in the
    Department of Defense support this. It has been presented by
    less than a hierarchy for us to review in committees, and we
    need to know if you and the various secretaries support it.
        Secretary Gates. Senator, we clearly somehow have a failure
    to communicate. I think I signed that letter out to you last
    week, and we will follow up with your staff and find out where
    it is.

                             CANNON AIR FORCE BASE

        Senator Domenici. Very good.
        My last question has to do with the city of Clovis and the
    base there, Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, New Mexico. It is
    now waiting to be equipped so that it can become a new kind of
    base. As you know, it was put in kind of a wait and see
    position. When they finished all of the work on determining the
    closures, they decided it should not be closed, but it should
    be used for a new kind of Air Force special operations base,
    with all kinds of equipment.
        I need to know whether you are going to support that,
    because we need to get the money to do the things that will
    make it a fully operational base, and that is terribly
    important for the future of Cannon. If you would look into
    that, I submit a question to you on that subject.
        Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you. And I am sorry I am so mumbo-
    jumbo, but we are out of time. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Mr. Secretary, General Pace, we
    appreciate your testimony today as we begin to formulate our
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 defense appropriations
    bill. We hope we can call upon you for additional advice.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        The chairman has questions he will submit for the record,
    and maybe other members also.
        [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. Robert M. Gates
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                           executive agency for uavs
        Question. Secretary Gates, the Air Force has developed a proposal
    to be designated the Executive Agent for all medium- and high-altitude
    unmanned aerial vehicles. Some believe that an Executive Agent for UAVs
    would increase efficiency, but others are concerned about an impact on
    specialized roles and missions for UAVs in other services. What is your
    view?
        Answer. The subject of an executive agent for all medium- and high-
    altitude UAVs is currently under review, but has not yet been
    completely evaluated. This impartial review will determine whether the
    designation of a single military department as executive agent for UAVs
    for the Department of Defense would serve as the best means of
    eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort and increase
    efficiencies.
                   army guard and reserve mobilization policy
        Question. Secretary Gates, in January you announced that the Army
    Guard and Reserve will transition from 18 to 12 month mobilization
    periods. The Guard and Reserve plan to perform a significant portion of
    the pre-deployment training at home station or at nearby facilities so
    that reservists will be able to be deployed in theater for 10 months
    out of their 12 month mobilization period. What steps are being taken
    to provide the Guard and Reserve with the equipment, personnel, and
    facilities needed to train their soldiers prior to mobilization?
        Answer. With respect to equipment: In preparing the Guard and
    Reserve components for deployment, the Army has an equipping strategy
    that utilizes the Army Force Generation model in determining readiness
    requirements as well as the Army Resource Priority Listing process in
    determining equipment priorities within the Army. All units will have
    the necessary equipment for training prior to ``Boots on the Ground.''
    With the four transitional Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) currently
    identified for deployment in 2008 (39th Infantry BCT--AR, 45th Infantry
    BCT--OK, 76th Infantry BCT--IN, 37th Armored BCT--OH), a hybrid
    solution is required. The equipment will be provided at each of their
    annual training site, pre-mob training site, and post-mobilization
    training site.
        With respect to facilities: In order to shorten the training time
    at the mobilization sites, it is imperative to have facilities that
    support that effort. The highest priority for the Reserve components is
    where they work and train. Although BRAC 2005 attempts to consolidate
    the Reserve Centers, this effort will not be completed until 2011.
    Nevertheless, we are focusing construction dollars remaining, after
    BRAC, for pre-mobilization training requirements. Facilities are being
    designed that incorporate training spaces, classrooms, and electronic
    infrastructure, to include modern computer and video capabilities.
    These facilities, when completed will be a mobilization enabler for the
    Reserve components.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the new mobilization policy was put into
    effect immediately following your announcement, even though there were
    still a large number of details to resolve. Are you concerned that
    implementing this policy before a system has been put in place could
    compromise the readiness of deploying guardsmen and reservists?
        Answer. The Army strives to ensure every deploying unit and each
    guardsmen and reservists that deploys is certified to be combat ready.
    The new mobilization policy allows the Reserve component service member
    the predictability to know that he/she will be away from work, school
    and family for no more than 12 months and does not sacrifice the
    deployment standards for any unit.
                                 strategic lift
        Question. Secretary Gates, the Department may be at a crossroads in
    its strategic lift plans. Costs for the C-5 reliability and re-engining
    program have grown significantly and, while the C-5 situation is
    unclear, the C-17 Globemaster production line will start shutting down
    in fiscal year 2008. At the same time, Army and Marine Corps increases
    in force structure could increase the demand for lift. What actions are
    you taking to refine your strategic lift strategy--and will we be
    updated prior to July 2007?
        Answer. Our next planned update to the Mobility Capabilities Study
    will commence in 2008. Any changes to the Defense Strategy that may
    affect strategic airlift will be assessed at that time. The current
    Department assessment is that the demand on strategic airlift resources
    is not affected by the growth in land forces for rotational employment,
    but is rather driven by the Defense Strategy. Therefore, current and
    programmed C-17 buys and C-5 upgrades continue to provide the
    Department with sufficient assets to carry out today's Defense Strategy
    with acceptable risk.
        Question. Secretary Gates, the Air Force has briefed staff on a
    ``30/30'' plan to retire 30 C-5As and buy 30 C-17s. What are your views
    on this plan?
        Answer. The Air Force has not presented its ``30/30'' plan to my
    staff for review. While there may be advantages associated with this
    concept, the Department needs to evaluate it, as well as other options,
    prior to deciding on a course of action.
                              mental health issues
        Question. Secretary Gates, recent findings by the Mental Health
    Advisory Team show that multiple and longer deployments result in more
    mental health problems for soldiers and Marines such as combat trauma,
    anxiety and depression, and cause more marital distress within military
    families. It also found that soldiers and Marines with mental health
    problems were more likely to violate ethical rules. How do you balance
    and reconcile these results with the recent decision to increase the
    length of Army deployments from 12 to 15 months?
        Answer. Repeated and longer deployments in combat environments are
    inherently stressful. While the Army advisory team noted a correlation
    between combatants surveyed for mental health symptoms and ethical
    behaviors, it did not establish causality of the association. It is not
    clear at this point whether behaviors in combatant activities result in
    mental health symptoms or mental health symptoms result in ethical
    violations. We intend to conduct further research and in-theater field
    investigations to better understand and treat these issues.
        Psychological injuries during combat operations are one of the
    inevitable costs of war and must be considered in the same fashion that
    physical injuries are considered. We grieve every injury and
    aggressively identify and treat such injuries to the best of our
    abilities.
        Question. What steps would the Pentagon take to improve junior-
    level leadership and increase psychological training for military
    personnel?
        Answer. Steps to improve psychological training for all Service
    members are continuous. In addition to training received in
    professional leadership development courses and suicide prevention
    programs, the Department of Defense (DOD) rolled out the Front Line
    Supervisors course in March 2007 by training trainers for all Services.
    It is a half-day course that sharpens supervisors' skills to better
    know their subordinates and to identify signs of psychological stress
    and appropriately respond to them.
        In addition to the Front Line Supervisors' course, the three
    branches have fully implemented the Leaders Guide for Personnel in
    Distress, with the Marine Corps currently preparing their version of
    the program. These programs are formatted for both the web and compact
    disk. The Marine Corps also developed a small book for leaders. They
    cover 30 categories of stressful events commonly encountered by Service
    members; describe behaviors of concern for each, recommended responses
    and questions, and the specific actions to take within each Service,
    including appropriate referrals.
        Looking to the future, a peer support system is being further
    developed for implementation across the DOD. In addition, the DOD is
    considering the development of a career path for military occupational
    psychologists who would be assigned to units, not just to medical
    programs. They would provide consultation to leaders, assist in the
    development of training programs to enhance resiliency, make
    recommendations regarding organizational employment of its human
    assets, and provide a dedicated professional sensor for those in
    trouble within such units.
        Question. Secretary Gates, I am told that you have an on-going
    review with the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell,
    concerning the possible dual-hatting of the Under Secretary of Defense
    for Intelligence to report to both you and the Director. What are your
    views on this idea and the balance of authorities between the Director
    of National Intelligence and you, the Secretary of Defense?
        Answer. I fully support the idea. Director McConnell and I signed a
    Memorandum of Agreement dual-hatting the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Intelligence as the Director of Defense Intelligence under the Director
    of National Intelligence. This reflects our collective strong
    commitment of cooperation and shared goal of improving the intelligence
    community. The agreement recognizes the crucial importance of
    coordinated intelligence efforts to the national security of the United
    States. The Defense Intelligence Components provide a full range of
    intelligence products and analysis to a broad spectrum of consumers
    from military forces in the field to senior policy makers across the
    federal government. These efforts are intertwined with the National
    Intelligence efforts overseen by the Director of National Intelligence.
        As the Director of Defense Intelligence, Mr. Clapper will report
    directly to the DNI and serve as the principal advisor to the Director
    of National Intelligence regarding Defense Intelligence matters. The
    Director of Defense Intelligence will have responsibilities as
    determined by the Director of National Intelligence in consultation
    with me and promulgated separately.
        As the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Mr. Clapper
    will report directly to me and retain the responsibilities and exercise
    the authorities as assigned by me and his focus will remain on
    providing the best intelligence possible to the warfighter.
                               u.s. space policy
        Question. Mr. Secretary, in August 2006 the President released an
    updated policy on space, which keeps the doors open to offensive space
    capabilities. The United States continues to reject United Nations
    negotiations that would prevent the militarization of space. Indeed, in
    this year's budget request, the Missile Defense Agency has a request
    for $10 million for a space-based test bed. Against this backdrop, in
    January the Chinese destroyed one of its own satellites with an anti-
    satellite weapon. While we decry the Chinese action what direction is
    the Department of Defense heading in, with regard to the weaponization
    of space?
        Answer. Space capabilities have become integrated into our daily
    lives and are vital to our national security and the global economy. At
    the same time, potential adversaries continue to seek means to counter
    the advantages we obtain from space and to use space capabilities
    against us. Our space capabilities face a wide range of threats
    including radio frequency jamming, laser blinding and anti-satellite
    systems. The maturation of these threats, including China's anti-
    satellite capability, will require a broad range of capabilities, from
    diplomatic to military, to continue to protect free access to and
    peaceful use of space for all space-fairing nations.
        The United States does not agree that new legal regimes or arms
    control agreements related to space ``weaponization'' would be helpful
    in protecting U.S. national security interests. None of the last five
    Administrations have been able to overcome the complexities of defining
    a ``space weapon,'' or to identify meaningful verification and
    compliance mechanisms without artificially limiting peaceful and
    practical uses of space.
        The U.S. approach to meeting these challenges is guided by the
    National Space Policy signed in August 2006. The new policy is
    consistent with long standing principles that were established during
    the Eisenhower Administration, such as the right of free passage and
    the use of space for peaceful purposes. The policy does not endorse,
    direct or prohibit the use of weapons in space. It acknowledges that
    space is vital to U.S. national security and directs the Department of
    Defense to develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom
    of action in space, and if directed, deny such freedom of action to
    adversaries. Our investment strategy for space and space-related
    activities is a balanced approach to achieving these capabilities. Our
    space control investment strategy, for example, balances the need for
    space situational awareness, protection of our space capabilities and
    protection of terrestrial forces and the homeland from threats posed by
    adversary use of space.
                            national guard equipment
        Question. Secretary Gates, we have heard concerns that part of the
    problem is that funds intended for Guard equipment are sometimes
    diverted to other purposes. What can be done to insure that the funds
    intended to equip the National Guard actually reach their destination?
        Answer. Although the President's budget request segregates funding
    in the Military Construction, Operations and Maintenance, and Personnel
    accounts by Reserve component, the Reserve component procurement
    accounts are consolidated within the Active component funding. While
    separate appropriations would provide Congress the transparency and
    accountability it seeks, it would also restrict the Department's
    ability to respond to dynamic and emergent requirements.
        The Department can track Reserve component appropriations and
    execution internally without separate appropriations as we have done in
    the 2007 and 2008 Supplemental requests.
        The Department executes the Congressional National Guard and
    Reserve Equipment Appropriation to the fullest extent possible. These
    funds, provided by Congress are above the President's budget request
    and are specifically for Reserve component's equipment procurement.
    Also, these funds are managed independent of the Active components'
    procurement accounts.
                              deployment policies
        Question. Secretary Gates, recently you announced that Army
    deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan will be extended to 15 months. This
    policy will also affect soldiers currently in theater who had planned
    on returning home three months earlier. How do you think this will
    affect morale, considering that Marines will continue 7 month
    deployments and Army guardsmen and reservists 10 month deployments?
        Answer. I have directed our Active component Army soldiers to
    temporarily extend in Theater for three months in order to allow them
    to remain at home for a minimum of 12 months. This commitment provides
    predictability for the soldier who now knows when he/she will deploy
    and when he/she will return home. I believe the soldier and families
    understand the need to temporarily extend Army deployment times and
    appreciate the predictability it present.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, do you believe that it will be problematic
    to deploy Army guardsmen and reservists for a different duration than
    active soldiers?
        Answer. The Services have all maintained different deployment
    durations as part of their force generation model and have been able to
    meet deployment requirements. My commitment to have a 12 month
    mobilization for the Reserve component recognizes the different
    characteristics of the Reserve component and Active component. There
    may be challenges associated with the new deployment duration in
    rotation planning but nothing that cannot be overcome.
                         science and technology funding
        Question. Secretary Gates, the fiscal year 2008 request for science
    and technology funding represents only 2.2 percent of the total DOD
    budget. This is down from 2.5 percent in fiscal year 2007. Is this
    level of funding sufficient to maintain our leading technological edge
    in the future?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2008 Science and Technology (S&T) request
    is 2.24 percent of the DOD Total Obligational Authority. This apparent
    reduction from last year's percentage is the result of an fiscal year
    2008 top line increase to support procurement and operations and
    maintenance costs, primarily for the Army and Navy Departments in
    support of the ongoing war on terrorism.
        Our S&T investment is properly sized to support fundamental
    technology development. It retains sufficient flexibility to realign
    funding to address new technology areas, as demonstrated by our ability
    to reshape the S&T program to address transformational gaps outlined in
    the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. The fiscal year 2008 request
    represents a stable investment, balanced with other Departmental
    priorities.
        Question. Secretary Gates, how can we attract and retain the next
    generation workforce of scientists and engineers in an era of
    constrained resources?
        Answer. The technological superiority enjoyed by our armed forces
    on the battlefield today is not a product of short-term investment.
    Rather it is the culmination of decades of accrued Research and
    Development (R&D) investment in a broad spectrum of fundamental areas.
    The next generation of science and engineering talent, their number,
    educational levels, skills, and capability to perform defense work is
    the direct result of efforts and investments already made over the last
    10 to 20 years. Thus, any measurable impact on the next decade should
    demand a similar, continuing, multi-point investment such as that found
    in the National Defense Education Program (NDEP). NDEP's investment
    approach is in concert with the 2006 National Academy of Sciences'
    ``Rising Above the Gathering Strom'' report recommendations (A-3 and C-
    2) for K-20-based approaches to national workforce challenges. Under
    NDEP, DOD provides stimulation, encouragement, exposure, incentives,
    and financial support to middle school, high school, undergraduate,
    graduate, and faculty levels.
        The Department has unique requirements for clearable, high-quality
    scientists and engineers who are educated in the physical sciences,
    facile with technology, and employed in DOD programs. The DOD Science,
    Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) program (one part
    of NDEP) supports advanced education of qualified people. SMART
    requires a post-graduation civil service agreement commensurate with
    the financial support provided. This agreement is directly analogous to
    Service academy agreements for post-graduation active duty and its
    service condition is not onerous. In the current cycle, more than 1,200
    fully qualified people applied for approximately 60 SMART awards. In
    budget-constrained times, providing targeted, educational assistance
    that secures a guaranteed payback service period is a sound policy that
    will help build the clearable future workforce we need to maintain our
    technological superiority.
        Retaining these valuable people in today's intensive, high-
    technology environment is a continuing mission that depends on multiple
    factors such as adequate compensation, intelligent management, modern
    facilities, tools, and state-of-the-art equipment. In the end,
    retention may hinge primarily on the work itself. Defense science and
    engineering work that is directly connected to national security,
    mission-oriented, well managed, and appropriately funded should create
    an environment in which the workforce becomes self-retaining.
                           tricare efficiency wedges
        Question. Secretary Gates, the fiscal year 2008 budget for the
    Defense Health Program assumes $507 million in savings in military
    treatment facilities from so-called ``Efficiency Wedges''. In light of
    the recent problems at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which
    showed a clear funding shortfall in the current health system, and with
    the anticipated increase in the number of injured service members
    returning from the battlefield with severe injuries, why is DOD
    mandating savings in this critical area at this particular time?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2006 Defense Health Program Budget was
    reduced by $94 million in anticipation of efficiencies accomplished by
    the Services that would decrease costs. During the execution of the
    fiscal year 2006 budget, efficiencies were achieved through a
    combination of implementing the TRICARE Uniform Formulary, which
    decreased drug expenditures in the direct care system for all three
    Services, and the following Service specific initiatives:
      --The Army Medical Department focused on increasing inpatient and
            outpatient market share, and rewarded successful facilities
            with additional resources earned through the Prospective
            Payment System.
      --Navy Medicine focused on the consolidation of dental activities
            into the organization structure of their MTFs, enabling
            elimination of duplicative overhead activities and the
            achievement of staffing efficiencies in dental and support
            areas.
      --The Air Force Medical Service focused on elimination of inefficient
            inpatient care facilities, with reinvestment of personnel at
            locations where significant workload recapture potential
            exists.
        For fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008, the focus is for the
    Services to continue to build on the fiscal year 2006 efficiencies that
    were initiated and to continue to realize savings in pharmacy
    expenditures produced by the TRICARE Uniform Formulary. In addition,
    the Director, TRICARE Management Activity and the Service Surgeons
    General are taking action to identify opportunities for efficiencies by
    identifying the most critical mission activities and then applying Lean
    Six Sigma methodology to achieve process improvements.
        Note the fiscal year 2008 incremental increase in the Efficiency
    Wedge was reduced from $248 million to $227 million to account for an
    overlap in cost reductions targeted for a different initiative.
        Question. What steps has DOD taken to improve current military
    treatment facilities and cut down bureaucratic paper work for injured
    service members?
        Answer. To date, the Department of Defense (DOD) has made the
    following operations and maintenance and military construction
    investments to improve current military treatment facilities: fiscal
    year 2003--$576.5 million; fiscal year 2004--$589.2 million; fiscal
    year 2005--$962.7 million; and fiscal year 2006--$1210.3 million.
        There is noted redundancy in many of the Disability Evaluation
    System forms utilized by the Military Departments. As such, the
    Military Departments are working to reduce and simplify forms required
    for the Medical Evaluation Board and Physical Evaluation Board ensuring
    that they are legally sufficient but not redundant or superfluous. The
    Military Departments are also examining various automation systems to
    enable electronic transfer of documents and case oversight.
                             supplemental budgeting
        Question. Secretary Gates, there used to be a more clear
    distinction between regular budgets and Emergency Supplementals. The
    delineation was understood--only true emergencies such as disaster
    relief and contingency operations were funded via supplemental
    appropriations. Today, the distinction is blurred. Could you tell us
    your views on the distinction between what should be funded in the
    regular budget versus supplemental budgets?
        Answer. I agree generally that supplementals ought to be reserved
    for true emergencies such as disaster relief and contingency
    operations. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request is
    consistent with that idea--in that he included estimated incremental
    costs for the Global War on Terror.
                               army modernization
        Question. Secretary Gates, while the Army is fully committed to
    operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is also addressing major
    institutional challenges to transform. Is the Army adequately resourced
    to successfully reconstitute, transform and sustain readiness? How have
    you assessed the risks to readiness at the projected funding levels?
        Answer. Throughout the year, the Department continues to evaluate
    the readiness of the military for both near and long-term missions.
    Yes, I believe the Army is adequately resourced. Regarding readiness, I
    believe our requested funding will support prudent readiness levels for
    our armed forces.
               defense advanced research projects agency (darpa)
        Question. Secretary Gates, we understand that funding for the
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been reduced in support
    of other, higher priority research initiatives. DARPA is supposed to be
    at the forefront of technological challenges facing the Department.
    Does this shift in funding imply that DARPA's efforts have not
    addressed essential DOD priorities?
        Answer. DARPA's priorities and focus have not changed, and DARPA
    continues to address DOD high priority areas. As such, DARPA supplies
    technological options for the entire Department and is designed to be a
    specialized ``technological engine'' for transforming DOD.
        Question. Secretary Gates, which metrics do you apply in measuring
    how much of DARPA's efforts ``graduate'', if you will, into Service
    programs?
        Answer. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has
    instituted an approach that links a Service transition partner with the
    program manager early in the development process. As a major factor in
    his decision to fund or not fund a program, the Director of DARPA
    considers the existence of a written Service commitment early in the
    Advanced Technology development. This is a document that is signed by
    the Director and by one or more of his equivalents in the accepting
    Service.
        This method of transition has been effective, and it also provides
    a measurable metric. At the time of the fiscal year 2008 President's
    budget submission, over 85 percent of DARPA's Advanced Technology
    Development programs were covered by either signed commitments, or
    commitments in some stage of preparation.
                                  f-22 raptor
        Question. Mr. Secretary, what are your views on the sufficiency of
    the F-22 Raptor buy and the need for two fifth-generation aircraft in
    the Air Force inventory (the F-22 and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter).
        Answer. The F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II bring unique and
    complementary fifth generation tactical air capabilities to the modern
    battlespace. The Raptor achieves and maintains Air Dominance by
    focusing on air-to-air and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD)
    missions. The Lightning II adds a variety of advanced air-to-ground
    munitions and brings fifth generation attributes to fulfill missions
    such as Close Air Support (CAS), Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
    (SEAD), DEAD, and Interdiction in high threat environments. Combined,
    these two platforms enable joint operations in environments that would
    be considered denied, ``anti-access'' air space to earlier fourth
    generation tactical aircraft. The F-22, which is now operational, has
    demonstrated superior operational capabilities over previous generation
    aircraft. The 2005 Joint Air Dominance study and the Quadrennial
    Defense Review substantiated the need for a minimum of 183 F-22s. While
    the Air Force has consistently stated that a requirement for 381 to
    meet national security requirements with an acceptable level of risk,
    it is the Department's position that the current program of record
    provides an affordable balance of tactical air capability.
                             satellite acquisition
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the Air Force has yet to demonstrate that
    it has schedule, costs, and quality under control when building
    satellite systems. When systems seem on the verge of recovering from
    years of challenges, DOD reduces the number of satellites and begins
    new, more high tech satellites as replacements to systems that haven't
    launched yet. In this environment, how can the Air Force bring
    stability to space programs and get cost and schedule under control?
        Answer. The Department is committed to the stability of space
    program acquisitions and has taken several measures to improve
    management of these acquisitions. These include implementation of best
    practices such as those recommended by the Young panel and by the
    General Accountability Office (GAO) to separate technology discovery
    from acquisition, following an incremental path to meeting user needs,
    matching resources and requirements at program start, and using
    quantifiable data and demonstrable knowledge to make rigorous decisions
    to move to the next phase of the acquisition process.
        The development of space systems presents special challenges, and
    the Department is addressing these through process improvements. A
    large space system typically takes seven to eight years to develop from
    the time of contract award to launch. In the past, the maturity of the
    technologies that will be relied upon was estimated only at the
    beginning of the development. DOD now re-evaluates these technologies
    for actual maturity prior to committing to the design and development
    phase to ensure risk is minimized. Also, it is natural for requirements
    to adjust and mature over the course of time. In order to stabilize
    requirements so design work can begin, the Department is adopting a
    block approach to satellite development. This approach provides for
    stability in requirements and design in an ongoing development block
    while allowing new capability to be added in future blocks. Finally,
    the Department is stressing the use of management metrics and recurring
    senior level reviews during the execution phase. Closely monitoring
    performance against established metrics provides early notification of
    potential problems at a point when action can be taken at the most
    appropriate time.
        The Department is directly addressing several of the identified
    causes of cost and schedule growth. National Security Space (NSS)
    Acquisition Policy Directive 03-01 mandates an Independent Cost
    Estimate as part of the criteria for progression to each Key Decision
    Point of space programs. NSS 03-01 also requires an Independent Program
    Assessment with increased focus on technical baselines and risk
    assessments. In addition, DOD is taking measures to renew the focus on
    program management, including keeping program managers in place for
    longer periods, development of a space cadre to ensure that
    knowledgeable leadership will be in place for space acquisitions, and
    encouraging development of robust engineering and cost estimating
    expertise in our workforce.
                                  shipbuilding
        Question. Secretary Gates, this subcommittee has long been
    concerned with the state of Naval shipbuilding. The fiscal year 2008
    budget request provides funding to procuring seven new ships. Is that a
    build rate that in your view will maintain a fleet that is adequate to
    the nation's needs?
        Answer. The PB08 budget supports the Navy's PB08 Long Range Plan
    for the Construction of Naval Vessels, which outlines the procurement
    of 67 ships over the Future Years Defense Program (fiscal year 2008-
    2013). Although the Navy has averaged a build rate between 6 and 7
    ships per year over the past several years, there are an average of 11
    ships per year procured across the FYDP in the Navy's Long Range Plan,
    to include DDG 1000, CG(X), Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), T-AKE, VIRGINIA
    Class SSN, CVN 21, MPF(F), LPD 17, JCC(X), JHSV, and LHA(R). The Navy
    is committed to average annual funding over the long term of $13.4
    billion (fiscal year 2005 dollars). The Navy's yearly budget
    submissions will vary above and below that $13.4 billion average line
    as year to year requirements differ in the production of a balanced
    force structure mix. The procurement profile is designed to minimize
    capability risk and industrial base risk, and pace the threat while
    emphasizing affordability.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
        Question. Secretary Gates, in the past you have suggested that the
    Department of Defense should be funded at a level of approximately 5
    percent of the Gross Domestic Product. The Congressional Research
    Service has suggested that in constant 2007 dollars, DOD funding,
    including the Global War on Terror, is at or near its highest level at
    any time since 1950. In addition, the growth of the Department of
    Defense budget continues to constitute a larger and larger portion of
    the discretionary budget. How do you justify your claim to such a large
    and growing percent of the Gross Domestic Product? How would such a
    level of funding for the Department of Defense affect the U.S. economy
    and other government-funded programs?
        Answer. The justification for any level of defense spending should
    always be what is needed to safeguard America and its vital interests.
    My responsibility is to recommend a prudent and feasible national
    defense program for achieving that aim. The President and the Congress
    share the heavy responsibility of evaluating America's defense needs
    and deciding what is an acceptable level of security and what is an
    acceptable level of funding given our nation's other needs and possible
    impacts on the U.S. economy.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question. Is there a discrepancy between the support our guard and
    reservists receive when they return home and are deactivated compared
    to regular active duty troops? If so, what are we doing to fix it?
        Answer. While National Guard and Reserve members are eligible for
    the same benefits, privileges, and support as regular active duty
    troops upon deactivation, there has long been a concern that these
    members may not have easy access to them due to geographical separation
    from military installations once they return to their home communities.
    The Department and other agencies have initiated many programs to allow
    these Guard and Reserve members and their families to have more access
    to benefits and support services without traveling to a military
    installation. These programs include:
      --The Department of Defense (DOD) Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
            was designed by the DOD to smooth the transition of military
            personnel (and family members) leaving active duty. TAP is a
            partnership among DOD, the Department of Labor, and the
            Department of Veterans Affairs.
        --The Official Transition Assistance Program Website,
                www.transitionassistanceprogram.com, includes a section
                that specifically addresses the transition needs for
                demobilizing Guard and Reserve members.
        --Information is available 24/7 and mobilizing and deploying Guard
                and Reserve members are encouraged to use the information
                prior to, during, and after mobilization and deployment.
        --Also provided on the Website are links to Transition Assistance
                Offices, a program to allow a member to develop an
                Individual Transition Plan, a newly developed Pre-
                Separation Guide for Guard and Reserve members, and
                includes a new Employment Hub.
        --There are also 207 community-based Vet Centers located in all
                fifty states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico
                and the United States Virgin Islands.
        --Additionally, the National Guard has provided a full-time
                Transition Assistance Advisor in each of the 54 states and
                territories.
      --DOD has established a 24-hour, 7-day a week toll free telephonic,
            internet and e-mail Quality of Life assistance service
            (Military One Source), which is designed to help members and
            families balance the competing demands of work, deployments and
            family/personal life.
      --Military Family Life Consultants (MFLCs) are another resource
            available to National Guard and Reserve families. The goal of
            the MFLC is to prevent family distress by providing on-site
            education and information on family dynamics, parent education,
            available support services, and the effects of stress and
            positive coping mechanisms.
      --The Department is working with the Services and Reserve components'
            family support activities to reduce stress on members and
            families, such as: integrating family support programs into
            more of a total force effort, thereby increasing mutual support
            across component and Service lines; surging the distribution of
            information materials, making families more aware of benefits
            and resources; and, increased emphasis on return and reunion
            programs.
      --Over 600 family assistance centers around the world (approximately
            340 of them sponsored by the National Guard and managed by the
            State Family Program Coordinators in each of the 54 States and
            Territories) are providing support services.
      --The Department has taken positive steps to ``get the word out''
            about entitlements and benefits available to the reserve
            community. We are capitalizing on technology by using the
            internet to provide information:
        --Benefits.--We have published several documents which are
                available on line to members and families while the
                military member is mobilized/deployed:
          -- 8th Edition of the Guide to Reserve Family Member Benefits
                (March 2007) as well as the Guard and Reserve Family
                Readiness Toolkit (January 2006)
          -- A Mobilization Information and Resources Guide (October 2001.
                last updated May 2007)
          -- A Family Separation and Readiness Training Guide (Partnered/
                linked from Air Force Crossroads November 2002)
        --Deployment Information.--The Department developed and implemented
                publicly accessible ``Deploymentconnections.org,''
                ``Military Homefront,'' ``America Supports You'' and other
                websites to make available current information on
                deployments, support and other information of interest to
                members, families and extended families.
      --A Regional Joint Family Support Assistance Program is being
            designed as required by the fiscal year 2007 National Defense
            Authorization Act. Critical components of the program involve
            building coalitions and connecting Federal, state, and local
            resources and non-profit organizations to support Guard and
            Reserve families. Best practices learned from more than 30
            Inter-Service Family Assistance Committees and the Joint
            Service Family Support Network will guide the planning process.
            The Minnesota program, as well as programs from several other
            states, will serve as models.
        Question. What are you doing to help diagnose, treat, and
    rehabilitate traumatic brain injuries and PTSD? What are the schedules
    for screening after soldiers and Marines return from combat
    deployments? Are family members or other loved ones contacted as part
    of post deployment screening?
        Answer. Diagnoses of traumatic brain injuries (TBI) are usually
    made at the time of head trauma, such as being injured or affected by
    an explosion. Some Service members may have manifestations not
    initially appreciated after head injury such as fatigue, irritability,
    or subtle cognitive impairment. For this reason, questions assessing
    potential TBI have been added to the post-deployment health assessment,
    post deployment re-assessment and periodic health assessment.
        While most patients with mild TBI symptoms spontaneously recover
    without treatment, for some patients symptoms persist. Symptoms of TBI
    often respond to medical treatment. Implementation of a process to
    establish a neurocognitive baseline for Service members may be useful
    for comparison of performance after any subsequent injuries. The
    Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center Working Group has created
    clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for the acute
    management of military TBI in military operational settings. The
    finalization and dissemination of these guidelines is pending.
        Symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are assessed during both
    the Post Deployment Health Assessment five days before redeploying from
    theater, and again, 3-6 months after returning home as part of the post
    deployment health reassessment. Like all the conditions included on
    these assessments, each Service member has a private encounter with a
    medical health care provider to discuss any mental health concerns.
    Appropriate referrals are made according to the type and severity of
    physical or mental health concern that the Service member indicates
    verbally and/or in writing.
        Family members are strongly encouraged to participate in family
    support functions and groups during deployments, such as the Army's
    Family Readiness Groups. Those who participate often engage in the same
    kinds of reintegration/reunion preparation processes their spouses are
    experiencing in theater prior to returning. Family members are strongly
    encouraged to participate, though as civilians they cannot be required
    to do so.
        In addition, many support systems exist for families, including
    installation family support services, and the online MilitaryOneSource
    program. In addition to online education related to deployment
    challenges, confidential free counseling is available both by phone
    (24/7) and face-to-face counseling, up to 6 sessions per identified
    problem. Mental health screening/education is available to all Service
    and family members online at www.militarymentalhealth.com.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
            sale of shadow unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) to poland
        Question. Background: The United States approved the sale of 2 UAV
    systems to Poland in Fall 2006. And while the Polish government has had
    the Letter of Agreement (LOA) since January 2007, they have not signed
    it yet because they wish to make some changes. Specifically, they want
    the LOA amended to include NATO-compliant up-armored Humvees. These
    vehicles are needed to support the UAV systems, and Poland is preparing
    to take leadership of the NATO mission in Afghanistan in July 2007.
    Unfortunately, American production lines for Humvees are not making
    NATO-compliant trucks because they are not needed in Iraq. Even if
    Poland's request for NATO Humvees could be granted today, there might
    not be enough time to deliver the system and train Polish forces before
    they take over the NATO mission in July 2007.
        What is the status of the sale of Shadow UAV systems to Poland?
        Answer. There are a few inaccuracies in the background data that
    accompanied the question. The correct information is incorporated in
    the following response.
        Congress approved the proposed sale of 2 Shadow UAV systems to
    Poland in August 2006. U.S. Army briefed the program and presented a
    draft Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) to the Poles in September
    2006. Since that time, the Poles have forwarded multiple rounds of
    questions and have requested several changes to the program (including
    nonstandard HMMWVs that include EU requirements). In February 2007, the
    Poles indicated that further program changes might be forthcoming, but
    so far none have been requested. The U.S. Army responded to Poland's
    latest set of questions on May 15, 2007 and is waiting for Poland's go-
    ahead to proceed with the program.
        DOD could provide the LOA for final signature (in its current form)
    within two weeks. If there are additional changes, it will take
    additional time to rework the LOA and validate the pricing, but we will
    expedite the process to the maximum extent possible. We expect a
    decision from the Poles in mid-June.
        Poland does have troops in Afghanistan, but is not scheduled to
    take over the NATO mission. That said, we cannot guarantee at this time
    that a Shadow UAV system could be provided during Poland's deployment
    to Afghanistan.
        Question. What can we do to help Poland complete this sale in time
    for them to take over leadership of NATO mission in Afghanistan in
    July?
        Answer. Although Poland is not scheduled to take over the NATO
    mission, it does have more than 1,000 troops currently deployed to
    Afghanistan.
        Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide Shadow 200 UAV systems
    to Poland by July 2007. The estimated production lead-time of 31 months
    is driven by the availability of all items and subsystems that make up
    the Shadow UAV system--not only the air vehicles produced by AAI, but
    also U.S. Government Furnished Equipment such as HMMWVs and radios
    (which are in very short supply).
        Once Poland signs a Foreign Military Sales case to purchase the
    UAVs, U.S. Army personnel will make every effort to expedite delivery.
    An expedited solution, if feasible, may require the Poles to accept
    U.S.-standard HMMWVs (instead of HMMWVs that incorporate EU
    requirements) or supply their own radios on an interim basis. But even
    with extraordinary efforts, we cannot guarantee at this time that a
    Shadow UAV system could be provided during Poland's Afghanistan
    deployment.
        Question. Did Secretary Gates address this during his recent trip
    to Warsaw?
        Answer. This subject did not arise.
        Question. What did the Polish government say about the importance
    of this sale?
        Answer. We understand the program currently has the personal
    attention of the Polish Minister of Defense and the Chief of Defense.
    However, the Ministry of Defense has so far been unable to reach a
    decision on whether to proceed. The Poles have expressed urgency in
    receiving the UAVs in support of their Afghanistan mission, yet
    continued inquiries and requests for changes have delayed the program
    and precluded the U.S. Army from finalizing the Letter of Offer and
    Acceptance (LOA).
        In recent weeks, there have been indications that the Poles are
    considering canceling or delaying the UAV program in favor of other
    emerging requirements that urgently require Foreign Military Financing
    (FMF) funding. The Poles are evaluating several options: (1) proceeding
    with the current program, (2) deferring the procurement until future
    years, (3) purchasing one Shadow system instead of two, or (4)
    canceling the program in favor of a direct commercial purchase. We
    expect a decision in mid-June.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
        Question. Mr. Secretary, you may know that Cannon Air Force Base
    was placed in enclave status as a result of the 2005 BRAC process, and
    the Department of Defense was instructed to seek a new mission for
    Cannon. Last June, the Department decided Cannon will be home to a new
    Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) wing, but I am concerned
    about a lack of plans to build up the base to meet AFSOC's needs in the
    near term. Why aren't Special Operations Command's $72 million in
    fiscal year 2008 Cannon unfunded MILCON requirements budgeted for by
    the Department, what will it mean in terms of operational capabilities,
    personnel, and assets at Cannon if these unfunded requirements remain
    unfunded, and what does the Department need from Congress to make sure
    that Cannon has the assets and facilities it needs as AFSOC stands up
    its Western base on October 1, 2007?
        Answer. Requirements for the Special Operations Facilities at
    Cannon Air Force Base are funded in the FYDP, primarily in fiscal year
    2011-2013. A complete infrastructure plan, reflecting the new mission
    at Cannon, was not finalized and approved before the fiscal year 2008
    President's budget was lacked and submitted to Congress. Consideration
    of accelerating the build-up of infrastructure did not materialize
    until after the budget was submitted. Now that plans are more concrete,
    the Department can reevaluate the timing and the funding of the
    military construction projects to support this initiative. So
    accelerate the projects from the out-years, USSOCOM needs $72 million
    in fiscal year 2008. Accelerating the funding would enable USSOCOM to
    start the projects at Cannon much earlier. There is an AFSOC team at
    Cannon that is working with the Air Force to ensure a smooth transition
    plan. The AFSOC ownership date remains October 1, 2007, and unit
    standups at Cannon in fiscal year 2008, fiscal year 2009, and fiscal
    year 2010.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, with the fiscal year 2007 supplemental
    appropriations request still pending in Congress, I'd like to talk
    about your efforts in and needs for the Global War on Terror. What are
    your plans for the U.S. military if the Iraqi government does not take
    responsibility for establishing a self-sufficient and stable government
    and honor the commitments it's made to the United States, like taking
    responsibility for security in all provinces and providing $10 billion
    for reconstruction efforts, by this fall?
        Answer. We should never forget that the Iraqi leadership is
    operating in very difficult and dangerous circumstances and is facing a
    very complicated political, military and economic situation. Indeed, it
    is hard for those of us who have lived all our lives under a stable
    constitutional order to imagine the types of challenges faced by the
    top officials of the Iraqi government.
        We remain confident that the Iraqi government will make progress
    with respect to the issues you mention. Obviously, it is unreasonable
    to impose a hard-and-fast deadline on a government that is operating in
    such a fluid and complex situation.
        The New Way Forward, announced by the President in January,
    continues to guide our actions in Iraq. The initial signs are
    encouraging, but it is too soon to infer trends.
        Question. As you know, Holloman Air Force Base has some amazing
    assets to offer the Air Force, including air space and nearby training
    capabilities at White Sands Missile Range. Your budget proposes
    retiring the remaining Holloman F-117s in fiscal year 2008. While I
    understand that a transition plan is in place to bring F-22s to the
    base, I am interested in other ways your Department might use
    Holloman's assets. Is the Department looking at other missions that
    could benefit from Holloman's air space and other assets, including
    working with other Services on joint missions, and has the Department
    considered what other Services might utilize Holloman, possibly for
    unmanned aerial vehicles because of the installation's proximity to
    vast training areas and its ability to readily interact in a joint
    training and development environment with the Army at Fort Bliss, Texas
    and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico?
        Answer. Yes, as a result of the F-22 basing decision, the Air Force
    is working closely with the Army to expand the use of White Sands
    Missile Range (WSMR)-Holloman airspace for supersonic and defensive
    training. This training will take advantage of existing joint air and
    missile defense training of PATRIOT crews and their command and control
    on the WSMR.
        In the future, Air Force special operations forces (SOF) stationed
    at Cannon Air Force Base, NM will utilize the WSMR-Holloman training
    complex for joint conventional-SOF integration training. As part of
    this move, Cannon Air Force Base, NM is scheduled to receive the 3rd
    Special Operations Squadron, currently flying Predator unmanned aerial
    vehicles at Nellis Air Force Base, NV in the summer of 2008, but there
    are currently no other plans to station additional unmanned aerial
    vehicle assets in New Mexico.
        Aside from these requirements, there are currently no other
    missions being considered for Holloman Air Force Base.
        Question. Members of the New Mexico National Guard have raised
    serious allegations that racism may have played a role in a 2006 Army
    investigation relating to National Guard gang activity in Kuwait. Such
    allegations would be concerning to any member of Congress, but are
    especially so for me since I represent a State where a majority of the
    population is Hispanic. I've asked Army Secretary Geren to promptly and
    fully investigate these claims, but I'd like to know what you can do to
    also help us get to the bottom of this problem.
        Answer. Senator, as you stated, the Army is currently reviewing
    this matter. I would prefer to not interfere or comment until the
    Acting Secretary of the Army's review is complete and we know all the
    facts. You may be assured that we will work with the Army on this
    issue, and ensure that you are notified of the results of the Army's
    review upon completion. Racism should have no place in our Armed
    Forces.
        Question. A recently released General Accountability Office report
    indicates that as of November 2006, non-deployed Army National Guard
    forces in New Mexico ranked last in the nation regarding equipment
    readiness, with less than 40 percent of the total amount of dual-use
    equipment they are authorized to have for war-fighting missions. What
    actions is the Department taking to ensure that New Mexico's National
    Guard has the equipment it needs for missions at home?
        Answer. The Department of the Army is investing approximately $24
    billion in Army National Guard (ARNG) equipment from fiscal year 2007
    to fiscal year 2011 and another $6 billion in fiscal year 2012 and
    fiscal year 2013. Much of this equipment will have utility for both
    domestic and war fighting missions. If executed as planned, this
    funding will bring ARNG equipping levels to 77 percent by fiscal year
    2013-15.
        The ARNG leadership is sensitive to the fact New Mexico is below
    the national average and ranks near the bottom in critical dual use
    equipment. The ARNG leadership briefed a New Mexico delegation on
    Capitol Hill this past spring and discussed the various causes for New
    Mexico's low percentage of equipment. New Mexico is among the smallest
    force structures in the ARNG. This small structure allows deployed or
    Theater Provided Equipment (TPE) to significantly affect their
    equipment on hand percentages. New Mexico left 13 percent of its
    equipment in theater and has an additional 6 percent currently deployed
    with activated units. Furthermore, New Mexico recently reorganized from
    air defense to infantry and engineers resulting in an increase in
    equipment requirements.
        The Army National Guard is currently sending engineer equipment to
    New Mexico from other deactivating units. State representatives
    mentioned on May 21, 2007 that the equipment is coming in faster than
    expected and in good condition. This month New Mexico received 99 High-
    Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) from the ARNG RECAP
    program. In addition to these programs New Mexico's fiscal year 2007
    and fiscal year 2008 programmed equipment deliveries are 2,108 pieces
    of equipment valued at $20.2 million.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
        Question. Are there any plans under consideration to transport
    hydrolysate from the Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky to another state
    as was recently undertaken in Indiana? If so, in what manner would the
    Congress and the affected local communities be consulted ahead of time
    (vice informed)?
        Answer. In 2003, the Department of Defense (DOD) selected
    neutralization destruction technology to destroy the chemical weapons
    stockpile located at the Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, followed by
    on-site supercritical water oxidation to treat the neutralization by-
    product, hydrolysate. The DOD, through the Assembled Chemical Weapons
    Alternatives (ACWA) Program, is currently researching and developing
    initiatives for greater efficiency. One such initiative includes the
    option to ship and treat hydrolysate off-site to a commercial
    treatment, storage and disposal facility. Such an option may accelerate
    the schedule as well as reduce program costs.
        Since the ACWA Program's inception in 1996, community involvement
    has played a significant role. The DOD has consistently considered the
    community's concerns when making technology decisions on the program.
    Such public involvement will continue as we seek to eliminate the risk
    to the public and the environment from continued storage of the
    chemical weapons stockpile quickly and reduce costs without
    compromising safety and the environment. In Kentucky, the primary
    public involvement mechanisms are the governor-appointed Kentucky
    Chemical Demilitarization Citizens' Advisory Commission and its
    independent subcommittee, the Chemical Destruction Community Advisory
    Board, known as the CDCAB. The CDCAB is composed of a diverse group of
    community leaders, including Congressional staff, organized to
    represent the views and concerns of all sectors of the local community
    on issues regarding the Kentucky chemical weapons disposal program.
        If the DOD considers transporting hydrolysate off-site for
    treatment and disposal, the Congress and the affected local communities
    will be briefed on the various options considered to seek their views
    and concerns. After review and assessment of these views and concerns,
    the DOD will make the decision on whether to treat the hydrolysate on-
    site or transport off-site.
        Question. It has come to my attention that some operations at
    military installations are encumbered by the need for compliance with
    Davis-Bacon. How much would you estimate the Department of Defense
    would save annually if it did not have to comply with Davis-Bacon?
        Answer. We do not collect data that would provide an estimate of
    how much the Department of Defense (DOD) would save annually if it did
    not have to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. What our contract data
    reporting system does tell us, however, is that the Davis-Bacon Act was
    reported as applying to approximately 2.5 percent (or $7.5 billion) of
    DOD's $295 billion fiscal year 2006 acquisition dollars spent.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted to General Peter Pace
                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                           executive agency for uavs
        Question. General Pace, are there other ways to gain efficiencies
    in the development of UAVs while taking into account service-specific
    needs?
        Answer. In 2005, in response to a previous Air Force executive
    agency initiative, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)
    established two organizations for the purpose of gaining efficiencies
    in development of UAVs and the joint tactics, techniques and procedures
    (TTP) that guide their employment. The Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems
    Center of Excellence (JUAS COE) at Creech AFB, NV, is an operationally
    focused, joint organization tasked with developing joint TTPs and
    doctrine as well as facilitating integration of UAV capabilities into
    joint and component training and exercises among the Armed Services.
    The JUAS COE is currently led by an Army brigadier general; but June
    19, Air Force Brigadier General Charles Shug will take command. The
    other organization formed in 2005 by the JROC is known as the JUAS
    Materiel Review Board (MRB). Its mission is to provide a forum to
    identify or resolve requirements and corresponding materiel issues
    regarding interoperability/commonality and the prioritization of
    potential solutions. Both the MRB and COE work together closely and
    coordinate their activities. Currently, there are several multi-Service
    collaborative efforts that offer programmatic efficiencies: the Army
    and Navy have coordinated on the FIRESCOUT program, the Army and Marine
    Corps have cooperated on the SHADOW program, and the Army, Marine
    Corps, and USSOCOM have all cooperated on the RAVEN-B program.
        Question. General Pace, the Air Force has asserted that they can
    shorten fielding times, focus research and reduce logistics costs.
    These assertions may argue for centralized procurement but not
    centralized operational control. Has the Air Force presented a business
    case for review?
        Answer. We have not seen an Air Force business case for review with
    respect to their assertions. Quantitative data for further evaluation
    is still required and is being developed. Air Force assertions and
    proposals for executive agency (EA) are also being considered within
    the context of a larger effort to determine whether the designation of
    a military department as UAV executive agent for the Department of
    Defense would serve as the best means of eliminating unnecessary
    duplication of effort.
        Question. Secretary Gates, has success in moving towards joint
    operations and net-centric warfare blurred the traditional lanes of
    Service responsibilities--and is it time for another broad look at the
    Services' roles and missions?
        Answer. The Department has continued to progress in moving toward
    joint operations and joint net-centric warfare. We continue to
    transform our equipment, our forces, and our cultures to embrace joint
    net-centric operations. Movement toward joint net-centric operations
    has not blurred the traditional lanes of our Services.
        As transformation efforts mature, fundamental changes in process,
    policy, and culture will occur. The Services still provide unique core
    competencies: The Army continues to lead our land warfare efforts; the
    Navy leads our maritime and littoral water efforts; the Marines lead
    our amphibious and littoral land operations efforts; and the Air Force
    leads our air and space efforts. These core competencies are packaged
    to provide joint capabilities for conducting the full spectrum of
    military operations. As efforts to transform to a net-centric force
    improve, joint warfare concepts and operations become further
    institutionalized and the timing to conduct such a review may be
    appropriate. Joint net-centric operations have given the joint force
    commander more options to employ force packages composed of Service
    elements. These can be quickly tailored to any specific mission. This
    has allowed us to use Service trained and equipped forces in broader
    ways than traditional lanes allowed. The result is a more efficient and
    effective force that can operate jointly at a much closer and lower
    level than we ever envisioned. This has not so much blurred the lanes
    between the Services, as it has allowed us to maximize the capabilities
    that the Services collectively bring to the table.
        Our advances in joint operations and net-centric warfare have
    identified new capabilities in areas where roles and missions have not
    been established. A recent example of this is the approval of the
    National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations. This strategy
    highlights the need for addressing joint and Service war fighting roles
    and missions in cyberspace. Given the emerging nature of cyberspace
    operations, we are assessing the roles and responsibilities required to
    operate in this domain. However, it is premature to recommend changes
    until the joint community is allowed to constructively debate the
    complex issues involved with building the capacity to conduct
    cyberspace operations.
                                 strategic lift
        Question. General Pace, strategic lift is an enabling capability
    that is critical to U.S. military activities. Has your staff assessed
    the strategic lift requirement in light of end-strength increases and
    wear on the current lift aircraft?
        Answer. Yes, our assessment is the end-strength increases should
    not substantially affect surge lift requirements. The Army and Marine
    Corps position is that the end-strength increases dwell time to
    deployment only. Given that position, projected end strength increases
    should not substantially affect surge lift requirements. Further
    analysis will occur during the next Mobility Capability Study, which
    will fully incorporate any changes in plans and requirements because
    the Services' force structure end-strength increases.
        From 2001 to 2006, the C-17 fleet has over-flown its service life
    by over 159,000 hours. The over-fly can be attributed to the GWOT and
    the lack of proper basic aircraft inventory (BAI) resulting in
    additional aircraft wear and tear. Congress added 10 additional C-17s
    to the established 180 purchase, of which 7 will be used to correct the
    BAI shortfall and 3 will go toward recovering the wear and tear caused
    by the GWOT. An additional 2 C-17s are required to recover the
    remaining capability lost due to wear and tear caused by the GWOT for a
    total of 12 additional C-17s.
        Question. What are your views on the strategic lift posture of the
    force today and for the foreseeable future?
        Answer. The Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) determined our
    projected capabilities are adequate to achieve the National Military
    Strategy into the next decade with ``acceptable risk.'' However, some
    of the MCS findings require reassessment in the next mobility study
    planned in 2008, including: No increase in airlift demand from a
    revised strategy/planning construct, no program growth associated with
    Defense of the Homeland Defense mission, and no significant increase in
    intratheater demand.
        On the airlift side, though we do not have our full complement of
    airlifters, we anticipate receiving our 190th C-17 by the end of 2009.
    Those C-17s, coupled with fully modernized C-5's, allow us to maintain
    the proposed 299 strategic airlift aircraft as stated in H.R. 5122 Sec.
    132, which is near the bottom of the MCS strategic airlift range of 292
    to 383 aircraft. Additionally, the dual-mission KC-10 along with our
    viable CRAF partners, will significantly contribute to our success,
    both today and well into the future.
        On the sealift side, the follow-on study, MCS-06, expected to be
    completed in the fall of 2007, is reviewing the adequacy of the
    department's pre-positioning forces and tanker sealift capabilities.
                                  dual hatting
        Question. General Pace, do you have any thoughts on dual hatting
    the USD(I) and the effect it may have on the warfighter?
        Answer. [Deleted.]
                            national guard equipment
        Question. General Pace, in this year's budget plan, the Army
    National Guard would be equipped to have 77 percent of its authorized
    equipment on-hand by fiscal year 2013. Given the important role of the
    Army Guard in fighting the war on terrorism and preparing for domestic
    emergencies, aren't you concerned that, five years from now, the
    National Guard may still be short by nearly a quarter of its authorized
    equipment?
        Answer. There is no question that there has been a drawdown of
    equipment in the National Guard. As of May 2, 2007, the Army National
    Guard (ARNG) had an average equipment on-hand of 49 percent across the
    Nation. For equipment on-hand most suitable for State emergency
    purposes the equipment is at 53 percent across the Nation. Prior to 9/
    11, the ARNG was at 75 percent equipment on-hand across the country. We
    feel that 75-80 percent is the ideal range for equipment on-hand, but
    it must be the most modern and up to date and not outdated/in-lieu of
    and ``cascading'' equipment that the Active Component has already used
    up.
        We feel that 75 percent equipment on-hand is about right for a few
    reasons. First, this is the historical level of on-hand equipment for
    the ARNG. Second, with a consistently changing mission requirements,
    constraining the Guard with equipment that may be mission obsolete in a
    year or two is not fiscally or mission responsible. Third, the
    maintenance on 100 percent authorized equipment would severely strain
    Guard resources and the DOD budget.
        The Department of Defense currently has about $22 billion budgeted
    for the period fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2013 just for the Army
    Guard, and we have money in the budget for both the Army and Air
    National Guard in the fiscal year 2008 GWOT, as well as the fiscal year
    2007 supplemental before the Senate.
        But clearly, we need to follow through with this program to rebuild
    the stocks of equipment that are available to the National Guard.
                                   readiness
        Question. General Pace, Army and Marine leadership continue to
    confirm to us that readiness of deployed forces is at the highest
    levels. However, this readiness often comes at the expense of non-
    deployed forces. What policies are being implemented to ensure that our
    non-deployed forces are no longer the bill-payers for the readiness of
    others?
        Answer. The readiness challenges faced by our non-deployed units
    are particularly acute in the Army and Marine Corps. The Services must
    prioritize the readiness of deployed or deploying forces and accept
    some degradation of readiness in recently returned units as part of the
    deployment cycle. The current demand for forces amplifies the effect of
    this cyclic process and there are few policy options available that
    would alleviate the burden on non-deployed units. This is due to the
    scarcity of resources faced by the Services as they attempt to meet
    current requirements.
        There are processes that help minimize the burden on non-deployed
    forces. Over the past two years, we have used the Global Force
    Management process to ensure the deployment burden is equitable and
    shared through global sourcing of units and in-lieu-of sourcing. The
    Army conducts Force Feasibility Reviews on the highest demand systems
    to determine the acceptable number of systems that can be fielded to
    units. This allows greater distribution of high-demand items across the
    force. Supplemental funding is being directed to improving personnel
    readiness and addressing equipment shortages in units that have been
    employed in the harsh operating environments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
                           future combat system (fcs)
        Question. General Pace, the Army is undertaking a massive effort to
    modernize its force for the future, while at the same time struggling
    to sufficiently resource its current needs. In light of sizeable
    current requirements, there are some suggestions that investments in
    the future force should be deferred. In your opinion, what is the risk
    of deferring Army modernization?
        Answer. The Army is modernizing for the first time in decades
    through its Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Our Army must deploy
    quickly and transcontinently, fight upon arrival, and prevail even in
    chaotic urban settings. That's why the Army must continue to modernize
    now to build a more agile, versatile, mobile, lethal, and self-
    sustaining force that will move as fast as 21st century conflicts
    demand. The Cold War Army is too heavy and too slow for today's fights.
    In fiscal year 2008, the Army is requesting $3.7 billion for FCS
    modernization and $4.2 billion for aviation modernization. This is a
    significant amount of money; however, it represents 3.7 percent of the
    Army's total budget request of $213.5 billion. This figure includes a
    $83.4 billion supplemental to prosecute the GWOT.
        Soldiers and units used to wait decades for new and more modern
    equipment, but not anymore. With FCS, the Army is fielding prototype
    modern capabilities today. Moreover, new capabilities are being ``spun
    out'' incrementally to Soldiers at least every two years. The risk of
    deferring Army modernization is reducing the protection of our
    Soldiers. Precursor FCS technologies already are saving Soldiers' lives
    in Iraq and Afghanistan. Examples are the PackBot, which is a
    forerunner of the FCS's small unmanned ground vehicle; and the micro
    air vehicle, which is the prototype for the Class I UAV. This system is
    being used by 4th Brigade 2d Infantry Division (Stryker) as they train
    up for their deployment to Iraq.
        Question. General Pace, what added value does the Future Combat
    System bring to the warfighter in addressing likely future threats?
        Answer. The Army is modernizing so that our Soldiers retain a
    decisive-technological advantage over America's enemies. The Army has
    not modernized comprehensively in decades. However, America's enemies
    are innovative and resourceful, and they are not standing still.
    Technology, meanwhile, is advancing and proliferating at a rapid pace.
    That's why the Army is now modernizing to protect the Soldiers. FCS is
    designed to protect Soldiers against improvised explosive devices
    (IEDs), which are causing more than half of all American fatalities in
    Iraq and Afghanistan. The FCS vehicles are being designed with a full
    suite of active and passive protection systems for full-scale, 360
    degree protection. The current Army vehicles will be upgraded with new
    FCS capabilities for enhanced troop and vehicular protection. When our
    Soldiers are in harm's way, we must do everything possible to equip and
    protect them. Further, in the past the military modernized large scale
    systems in the past--nuclear weapons, ships, aircraft carriers--that
    empowered commanders at higher echelons--divisions, corps and theaters.
    With FCS, the Army is modernizing precisely to empower the individual
    Soldier so that he or she will have more capabilities and greater
    protection for irregular, asymmetric warfare in the 21st century.
                                    training
        Question. General Pace, what are the risks associated with the
    focused emphasis that we currently have on training our troops for
    operations in the Global War on Terror? Aren't training activities for
    other possible contingencies suffering?
        Answer. The primary risk associated with focusing our training on
    current operations is a degradation of our ability to perform all
    missions across the spectrum of conflict. If we need to quickly shift
    to a significantly different operational environment we would confront
    a new set of challenges (e.g., cold weather, tropical, major theater
    war). The Marine Corps and Army are the most challenged in training for
    the full spectrum of operations. This is evidenced by degradation in
    their readiness ratings, to include training ratings. In contrast the
    Navy and Air Force are less strained by current operations and have
    been able to effectively maintain readiness for contingencies across
    the entire spectrum. This is partially due to the fact that many of the
    tasks they perform in GWOT operations directly translate to skills
    required in a major theater war. While it is critical to remain focused
    on providing the best training for the current contingency, where
    possible, we are ensuring that we build strategic depth and train to
    maintain our readiness to respond to other critical operations.
                               army modernization
        Question. General Pace, what are your primary concerns about Army's
    efforts to reconstitute and modernize?
        Answer. My main concern is the Army's ability to do all that is
    asked of them within the resources allocated. The most significant
    challenge to accomplishing reconstitution and modernization for the
    Army is the receipt of timely, predictable, and adequate funding.
        The funds Congress has provided have substantially addressed the
    $56 billion Army equipping shortfall that existed at the beginning of
    the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Today, only a $9 billion shortage
    remains from the original $56 billion ``Holes in the Yard.'' Further,
    the availability of the $17.1 billion for Reset at the beginning of
    fiscal year 2007 allowed the Army to synchronize resources, people and
    materiel to align with the flow of equipment from returning units into
    the Reset process.
        However, the Army is challenged to respond to the changed
    conditions of warfare, which dictate that they can no longer accept
    risk in how the Army equips its Reserve Component (RC) and support
    units of all components. An additional $43 billion is needed to bring
    all Army units to a consistent level of modernization, including all RC
    units to ``Active Component-like'' levels of modernization. Of the $43
    billion required, $24 billion would be for the Army National Guard, $10
    billion for the Army Reserve, and $9 billion for the Active Component.
        The entire requirement of $52 billion--which includes the $9
    billion remaining from the beginning of GWOT plus $42 billion to
    complete modernization--is in addition to the funds requested in the
    fiscal year 2007 supplemental, the fiscal year 2008 base and GWOT
    request, and the Future Years Defense Plan. Under the current program,
    the Army would not be able to address this shortfall. With an
    additional $10 billion per year for each year remaining in the program
    (fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2013), the Army would be able to
    ``fill the holes.''
                                  f-22 raptor
        Question. General Pace, the F-22 Raptor program is currently funded
    to buy 183 fifth-generation fighters. Do you believe that this
    acquisition objective is adequate and will meet the future needs of the
    nation?
        Answer. Air Force and independent analysis have substantiated that
    381 is the minimum requirement to meet the National Military Strategy
    (NMS). The Office of the Secretary of Defense-led 2006 Quadrennial
    Review Joint Air Dominance study revealed two key points: first, the
    United States has a critical requirement to re-capitalize tactical air
    forces; and two, with sufficient 5th generation fighters, especially
    the F-22, joint air forces win the first major combat operation (MCO)
    with enough forces left to win the next MCO. Insufficient numbers of F-
    22s result in unacceptably high attrition using a legacy-heavy force
    and jeopardizes the follow-on win. Meeting the requirement of 381 F-22s
    means fewer mobility assets are required for smaller force packaging
    and lower combat attrition as well providing a sustainable operations
    tempo. Finally, 381 RAPTORS is the minimum essential number to meet NMS
    requirements with reasonable risk and provides a sustainable operations
    tempo.
                           individual equipment load
        Question. General Pace, in testimony provided earlier this year,
    the Commandant of the Marine Corps told this subcommittee that the
    equipment the Marines carry into combat weighs about 80 pounds. That
    places quite a load on each individual. Has the Department challenged
    industry to come up with equipment that is just as effective but would
    take the weight burden off each individual?
        Answer. The Marine Corps continues to actively challenge industry
    to design equipment that can perform at least as effectively as today's
    gear, but with reduced weight and volume. The Marine Corps has also
    been working closely with the Army to present our common requirements
    to industry, to include a recently concluded annual Joint Industry Day
    sponsored by Army and Marine Corps program offices that was attended by
    over 400 industry representatives. Dialogue with our vendors and
    potential vendors continues to involve discussions about ways to
    decrease the burden on the individual Marine.
        In addition to our links with industry, the Marine Corps is also
    involved with the science and technology communities and is funding
    research efforts designed to yield material solutions that can reduce
    the weight and volume of equipment being used today while also
    increasing performance. Inclusive in these studies are projects being
    sponsored under the DOD Small Business Innovative Research program, as
    well as Marine Corps funded projects through the Naval Research Labs
    and the Office of Naval Research.
        Question. General Pace, because of the heavy load imposed by
    individual equipment on the troops, have you heard of any instances
    where soldiers or Marines are forgoing protection because the weight is
    too much to carry over a period of time?
        Answer. There are currently no indications that individual Marines
    are forgoing protection due to the load they are carrying. The load
    carried by the individual Marine in combat is based upon the mission,
    the enemy threat, and the operating environment. The Marine Corps has
    fielded items that enhance our commanders' ability to scale loads to
    best suit the situation. The load carriage system, for example, can be
    configured with a full pack for extended operations or reduced to a
    small assault pack for more limited missions.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
        Question. Secretary Gates, when a deadly tornado struck Kansas
    recently, the Kansas governor was hamstrung. The Governor rightly
    complained that the Kansas National Guard was forced to leave its
    emergency equipment in Iraq after a recent tour of duty. Equipment that
    used to be positioned throughout the state for responding to tornados
    and other crises was sitting thousands of miles away in Iraq. In the
    supplemental appropriations bill that the President just vetoed,
    Congress approved $1 billion for Guard and Reserve Equipment. Mr.
    Secretary--in light of the President's veto, what are you doing to make
    sure that Guard and Reserve units across this nation are getting the
    equipment they need here in America?
        Answer. All 54 State's/Territory's aggregate Equipment on Hand
    (EOH) has increased from 40 percent in January 2007 to currently, an
    overall average of 49 percent (as of May 2007). During this same
    period, Kansas' EOH has increased from 43 percent to 52 percent.
        Funding for National Guard equipment has increased over 500 percent
    since fiscal year 2001 ($1.2 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $7.4
    billion requested in fiscal year 2008).
        The Army's current plan is to budget $21.9 billion from fiscal year
    2008-2013 (not including future Supplemental requests). This investment
    if sustained by the Army provides the Army National Guard (ARNG) with
    approximately 76 percent EOH as required in the Army's Modified Table
    of Organization & Equipment. The caveat to this funding is that it
    takes about two years from funding to procurement to have the equipment
    produced and delivered.
        The Army continues to work through and complete equipment payback
    plans (Department of Defense Directive 1225.6) for equipment that the
    States lost either through Stay Behind Equipment, Destroyed equipment
    and modernization and reset of equipment; is providing $1.76 billion of
    the $17.1 billion fiscal year 2007 supplemental for reset funding of
    equipment to the ARNG.
        The latest Equipment in States Possession brief released by the
    Army National Guard in May 2007 shows Kansas' EOH has increased from 43
    percent to 52 percent since the last brief dated January 2007. In
    addition, equipment programmed for delivery to Kansas since fiscal year
    2006 through fiscal year 2008 is valued at over $52 million.
        Question. General Pace, are there unfunded requirements from the
    services involving individual, unit and force protection equipment that
    might prove useful in Iraq? For example, in fiscal year 2007, the
    President requested only $1.8 billion for purchasing Mine Resistant and
    Ambush Protected vehicles. The supplemental appropriations bill that
    the President vetoed would have increased that amount by $1.2 billion
    to purchase an additional 2,000 vehicles. At what level, DOD or OMB,
    are the decisions made not to fund the requirements for this equipment?
        Answer. The Joint Chiefs and I are committed to obtaining the best
    available force protection equipment for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
    and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MRAP vehicles have been
    particularly effective in protecting our personnel from the roadside
    IED threat and the Department amended the original fiscal year 2007
    supplemental request to obtain an additional $500 million for MRAP than
    originally requested. As well, we are reprogramming currently available
    funds to accelerate and expand this important program.
        Service Chiefs, Service Secretaries, the Secretary of Defense, and
    the Administration work diligently to provide Congress a budget that
    wisely invests the Nation's resources for National Security. Their
    decisions work to achieve a balanced investment in current and future
    requirements based on combatant commander priorities. Nevertheless, as
    the threat facing our warfighters changes, we doggedly pursue new
    technologies and platforms that will protect our personnel and defeat
    the enemy. We will continue to work closely with the Congress to
    articulate our needs and stress emergent areas that require additional
    investment.
            sale of shadow unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) to poland
        Question. General Pace, we have heard from several commanders that
    as a result of the war in Iraq, many units are not able to participate
    in combined forces training while in the United States. This suggests
    that there is inadequate equipment available to participate in another
    conflict involving U.S. national security interests, should one arise.
    What is the impact of the war in Iraq on the availability of equipment
    and personnel to defend the United States should another conflict arise
    or should it be necessary to utilize the military for homeland defense?
        Answer. [Deleted.]
        Question. General Pace, what is the total value of equipment lost,
    decommissioned, and left behind in Iraq? Further, what do you estimate
    that the cost of redeployment from Iraq will be?
        Answer. The Army does not use the terms ``lost,''
    ``decommissioned,'' and ``left behind'' to account for equipment. The
    Army accounts for all equipment lost through battle damage or
    negligence with a Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (
    FLIPL). For the period January 6 to May 7, $195.4 million in equipment
    has been accounted for under FLIPL. This number also includes $12.9
    million of property Multi-National Force-Iraq has transferred to the
    Government of Iraq. To redeploy 160,000 troops from Iraq back to the
    CONUS would cost approximately $114 million.\1\ To redeploy the
    equipment listed in the Modified Table of Organizational Equipment
    (MTOE) for 20 Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) (18 Army and 2 Marine
    Corps equivalents) to the CONUS is approximately $105 million.\1\ (The
    actual combat force on the ground in Iraq is a mixture of heavy,
    medium, and light units; the Heavy Brigade Combat Team equivalent is
    used as a planning factor.) These costs do not include MTOE equipment
    for Army units above the BCT level (including aviation, logistics, and
    support forces), additional equipment acquired by Army and Marine
    combat units beyond the MTOE, or Air Force and Navy equipment. Due to
    the dynamic nature of troop and equipment levels in Iraq, it is
    difficult to accurately determine the cost of a future redeployment
    from Iraq. In addition to specific numbers of troops and equipment, an
    accurate estimate must take into account any contractor-operated,
    government furnished equipment, amount of equipment transferred to the
    Government of Iraq (either through foreign military sales or donation),
    and unserviceable equipment that would be disposed of. Finally, any
    estimate would have to make assumptions about the final destination of
    troops and equipment; whether back to the United States, in-theater, or
    some other location. With these caveats, it is possible to provide the
    rough estimates given above based on assumptions about current force
    levels, and assuming 100 percent efficient utilization of transport.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Planning factors used are $0.10 per seat mile for passengers
    and $70,000 per day for roll-on/roll-off ships for equipment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. General Pace, experts have observed the strain of
    supporting the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. based
    active duty, Reserve and National Guard units. Can you speak to the
    impact that supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has had on
    active duty forces stationed at overseas locations? Have these units
    received all the training and new equipment they were scheduled to
    receive? Have any of their assignments, rotations or tours of duty been
    extended or changed as a result of the operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan?
        Answer. Forces stationed outside OCONUS share the same force
    management challenges as units based within the CONUS. Units are
    sourced globally for Iraq and Afghanistan deployments so the deployment
    burden is equitably shared across the force. Services prioritize the
    training and equipping of deploying units and accept some degradation
    in recently returned units as part of the deployment cycle.
    Prioritizing resources in this fashion ensures deploying units are at
    high-readiness levels. This prioritizing of resources is applied to
    both CONUS-based units and OCONUS-based forces selected to deploy.
        Equitable burden sharing also applies to tour lengths and dwell
    time policies. No force, whether based domestically or overseas, is
    deployed without meeting specific training requirements for their
    assigned mission/operation as directed by the Service provider.
    Deployment extensions in support of wartime operations can and do
    affect both CONUS-based and OCONUS-based forces. Furthermore, the dwell
    policies governing them are the same. In support of the recent increase
    in forces in Iraq, both CONUS-based and OCONUS-based forces have
    experienced deployment extensions.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question. How is pre-deployment training accomplished for National
    Guard units who lack the equipment that they will be operating with
    once they arrive in Iraq?
        Answer. As we continue fighting the War on Terrorism, the Active
    Component, National Guard and Reserve are all facing some equipment
    challenges. We have made the commitment that no unit, Active, Guard, or
    Reserve will deploy into actual mission areas in Iraq and Afghanistan
    without prior training (and sourcing) on equipment either in the
    continental United States or in-theater.
        Specific to the National Guard, each State/unit develop their
    training cycle on three criterias; the time available, equipment
    availability, and training areas/ranges available. The States/units
    also provide a ``list of needs and shortages,'' which is programmed
    before deployment. If required equipment is not available during either
    the pre- or post-mob training cycle in the United States, it is planned
    and sourced in-theater prior to onward movement in the area of
    operations.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Feinstein. The subcommittee stands in recess until
    May 16, when we will receive testimony from outside witnesses.
    Thank you all very much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., Wednesday, May 9, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., May 16.]

           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2007

                                           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. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Inouye and Stevens.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

    STATEMENT OF SHAWN O'NEAIL, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT,
                NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. This is our last meeting of the
    subcommittee before we markup the fiscal year 2008 Department
    of Defense appropriations bill. This morning, we'll receive
    testimony, not from agency officials, but from the general
    public. Those who have petitioned us to be heard. As you know,
    we have many competing witnesses, many members and other
    committees, so by consent, all of your full statements will be
    made a part of the permanent record of the subcommittee, and I
    can assure you, they will be read or studied.
        And each witness or group will have 4 minutes to present an
    oral presentation, and we appreciate all of you who have taken
    time to be with us this morning. Your involvement helps ensure
    that our democracy functions as it should, and it was designed
    by our Founding Fathers, that it was of the people, for the
    people, and by the people. Unfortunately, this morning, there
    will be a series of votes, beginning at about 10:45, so at that
    time, I will have to call a recess, about an hour.
        But, I can assure you that I will be back, and I will hear
    every witness, even if it means depriving a little lunch, and
    for me, it might help.
        So, I would like to call upon the first witness, and the
    first witness today is Mr. Shawn O'Neail, the Associate Vice
    President of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
        Mr. O'Neail. Thank you, Chairman Inouye, for allowing me to
    provide testimony at this hearing. My name is Shawn O'Neail, I
    work with the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and I am
    here today on behalf of more than 400,000 Americans and nearly
    26,000 veterans, who live with the devastating effects of
    multiple sclerosis, or MS. Together, we ask for your help to
    fund MS research through the congressionally directed medical
    research programs (CDMRP).
        Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, unpredictable, often
    disabling disease of the central nervous system. It interrupts
    the flow of information from the brain to the body, and stops
    people from moving. Every hour, someone new is diagnosed.
        MS is the most common neurological disease leading to
    disability in young adults. But, despite several decades of
    research, the cause remains unclear, and there is no cure.
        The symptoms of MS range from numbness and tingling, to
    blindness and paralysis. These problems can be permanent, or
    they can come and go. In either case, MS requires lifelong
    therapy, and unfortunately, the cost is often financially
    prohibitive. The Food and Drug Administration approved drugs
    for MS range from $16,000, to more than $25,000 annually.
        Testimony from U.S. veterans, along with evidence from
    recent studies, suggests that combat veterans could have an
    increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Dr. Mitch
    Wallin is a neurologist who is currently treating veterans with
    MS at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), MS Centers of
    Excellence in Baltimore, and is a professor at Georgetown
    University.
        Dr. Wallin recently published a formal professional
    hypothesis, stating that gulf war veterans were at an increased
    risk for developing MS, because of their exposure to
    neurotoxins. Dr. Wallin hopes to explore this hypothesis
    through research at the VA. Dr. Wallin also authored a letter
    to the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee on
    March 12, urging you to support funding for MS research,
    through the CDMRP.
        Other evidence of note includes, the annals of neurology
    recently identified 5,345 cases of MS among U.S. veterans, that
    was deemed ``service connected'' and the congressionally
    mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans
    Illness (RAC), found evidence that supports a probable link
    between exposures to neurotoxins and a development of
    neurological disorders. Further, RAC recommended more Federal
    funding to study the negative effects of neurotoxins on the
    immune system.
        Before I close, I want to share a story of one veteran.
    Paul Perrone is a 42-year-old father from New Hampshire, a
    retired U.S. Air Force sergeant, and veteran of the Persian
    Gulf war. Paul was diagnosed with MS in August 1998. Initially,
    Paul was diagnosed by the military with chronic fatigue
    syndrome--many people with MS are often misdiagnosed. However,
    after developing optic neuritis, a civilian doctor recommended
    an MRI, which led to his current MS diagnosis.
        It has been Paul's absolute conviction that an
    environmental agent triggered his MS, either through
    inoculations, or exposure to neurotoxins during his combat
    service. Paul is just one of the many veterans who are fighting
    on this personal battle. There is not time this morning to
    outline all of the stories we have learned over the past
    several months, but the cases of MS among U.S. veterans are
    certainly evident, and now emerging evidence supports this
    potential link. Now, we just need to provide the necessary
    resources.
        The DOD has a responsibility to identify and research all
    of the diseases that could be related to military service,
    including MS. On April 5, Senators Obama and Coleman sent the
    subcommittee a letter with 21 of your colleagues' signatures,
    urging you to support a $15 million appropriation for MS,
    through the CDMRP. The cause, progress, or severity of symptoms
    related to MS cannot yet be predicted or cured, but advances in
    research and treatment can help. With your commitment to more
    research, we can move closer to a world free of MS. Thank you
    for your consideration.
        Senator Inouye. Do you believe that with continued
    research, we may be able to find a cure for MS?
        Mr. O'Neail. We're very hopeful. There has been some
    progress in regards to the treatments, but they still remain
    very difficult to tolerate themselves, and as I mentioned,
    very, very expensive.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Neail.
        Mr. O'Neail. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Shawn O'Neail
                                  introduction
        Thank you Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Stevens and distinguished
    Members of the Committee, for allowing me to provide testimony at this
    hearing.
        My name is Shawn O'Neail and I work with the National Multiple
    Sclerosis Society. I am here today on behalf of the more than 400,000
    Americans and nearly 26,000 U.S. veterans who live with the devastating
    effects of multiple sclerosis or MS. Together, we ask for your help to
    fund MS research under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
    Programs (CDMRP).
                         no cure for multiple sclerosis
        Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, unpredictable, often-disabling
    disease of the central nervous system. It interrupts the flow of
    information from the brain to the body and stops people from moving.
    Every hour someone new is diagnosed. MS is the most common neurological
    disease leading to disability in young adults. But despite several
    decades of research, the cause remains unclear, and there is no cure.
        The symptoms of MS range from numbness and tingling to blindness
    and paralysis. MS causes loss of coordination and memory, extreme
    fatigue, emotional changes, and other physical symptoms. These problems
    can be permanent, or they can come and go.
        The National MS Society recommends treatment with one of the FDA-
    approved ``disease-modifying'' drugs to lessen the frequency and
    severity of attacks, and to help slow the progression of disability.
    But unfortunately, the cost is often financially prohibitive. The FDA-
    approved drugs for MS range from $16,000 to $25,000 a year, and the
    treatment will continue for life.
                      multiple sclerosis and u.s. veterans
        Testimony from individual veterans, along with evidence from recent
    studies, suggests that Gulf War veterans could have an increased risk
    of developing multiple sclerosis.
        Dr. Mitch Wallin is a neurologist who currently treats veterans
    with MS at the Department of Veterans Affairs' MS Center of Excellence
    in Baltimore and is a professor at Georgetown University. Dr. Wallin
    recently published a formal professional hypothesis stating that
    deployed Gulf War veterans are at an increased risk for developing MS
    because of exposure to neurotoxins.
        Dr. Wallin plans to explore this hypothesis through research at the
    VA. Based on existing research and his work with veterans living with
    MS, Dr. Wallin authored a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
    this subcommittee urging you to support funding for MS research in the
    CDMRP. Some of the research includes:
      --The Annals of Neurology recently identified 5,345 cases of MS among
            U.S. veterans that were deemed ``service-connected.''
      --The Congressionally-mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf
            War Veterans' Illnesses (RAC) found evidence that supports a
            probable link between exposures to neurotoxins and the
            development of neurological disorders. Further, RAC recommended
            more federal funding to study the negative effect of
            neurotoxins on the immune system.
      --A recent epidemiological study found an unexpected, two-fold
            increase in MS among Kuwaiti residents between 1993 and 2000.
            This rapid increase in an area of the world with previously low
            incidence rates for MS further suggests an environmental
            trigger for MS. Possible triggers include exposure to air
            particulates from oil well fires, vaccines, sarin, or
            infectious agents.
        As news circulates of a potential link between MS and military
    service, more and more veterans have been coming forward with their
    stories and symptoms. They uncover a unique health concern among our
    veterans, and they represent the possibility that something in the
    environment could trigger this disease--which could unlock the mystery
    of MS.
                         sergeant paul perrone's story
        Paul Perrone is a 42-year-old father from New Hampshire. A retired
    U.S. Air Force Sergeant and veteran of the Persian Gulf War, Paul was
    diagnosed with MS in August 1998.
        Initially, Paul was diagnosed by the military with chronic fatigue
    syndrome, asthma, and rhinitis. Many people with MS often are
    misdiagnosed at first. However, his symptoms worsened. He had extreme
    fatigue and vertigo. Although Paul loved his work with the Air Force,
    he no longer felt healthy enough to remain on active duty. Paul asked
    for an Air Force medical evaluation board and eventually was medically
    retired from the Air Force in 1994.
        Then, after developing optic neuritis in one eye, a civilian doctor
    recommended an MRI, which led to his current MS diagnosis. Paul is a
    passionate and extremely well-informed veteran on nearly every aspect
    of the military, gulf-war syndrome, veterans' benefits--and MS. It has
    been his absolute conviction that an environmental agent triggered his
    MS either through inoculations or exposure to neurotoxins during his
    combat service.
        Paul is just one of many veterans who are fighting this personal
    battle. Many more stories are untold, or many individuals might not
    want to come forward. But the cases of MS among U.S. veterans are
    certainly evident. And now emerging research supports this potential
    link.
        For the nearly 26,000 veterans, and for many more individuals with
    MS nationwide, more research is critical. Dr. Wallin and others might
    be on the heels of identifying an environmental trigger. Now we just
    need to pinpoint what and how.
                         the need for more ms research
        Given all the evidence, we strongly believe that the Department of
    Defense (DOD) has a responsibility to identify and research all
    diseases that could be related to military service, including MS. On
    April 5, Senators Obama and Coleman sent the subcommittee a letter with
    21 of your colleagues' signatures urging you to support this $15
    million appropriation for MS research under the Congressionally
    Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP).
        The cause, progress, or severity of symptoms in any one person
    living with MS cannot yet be predicted or cured. But advances in
    research and treatment can help. We appreciate your consideration. With
    your commitment to more research, we can move closer to a world free of
    MS. Thank you.

        Senator Inouye. May I now call upon Dr. Chuck Staben of the
    University of Kentucky.
    STATEMENT OF DR. CHUCK STABEN, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE VICE
                PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND ACTING HEAD,
                OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH,
                UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY ON BEHALF OF THE
                COALITION OF EPSCoR/IDEA STATES
        Dr. Staben. Thank you, Senator, and any members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Chuck Staben, and I am the acting head
    of the Office of the Vice President for Research at the
    University of Kentucky.
        Today I am testifying on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR
    States, a nonprofit organization that promotes the importance
    of a strong science and technology infrastructure and works to
    improve the research competitiveness of States that have,
    historically, received the least amount of Federal research
    funding, including States that the subcommittee members
    represent.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, regarding
    the DOD Science and Engineering Basic Research Program budget,
    and more specifically, a critical component of that budget,
    EPSCoR.
        Members of this subcommittee, thank you for your past
    support of the DEPSCoR Program, I express the support of the
    coalition for returning funding for this very successful
    research program to the $20 million of several years ago.
        Furthermore, on behalf of our 21 States and two
    territories, I ask the members of this subcommittee to reject
    the administration's proposed plan to terminate the DEPSCoR
    Research Program. DEPSCoR States represent 20 percent of the
    U.S. population, 25 percent of the research and doctoral
    universities, and 18 percent of the Nation's scientists and
    engineers.
        With the support of this subcommittee, DEPSCoR has provided
    critical, competitive support to research which satisfies peer
    review requirements to proposals that address priorities
    identified by the DOD through their broad agency announcements
    for the program.
        In Kentucky, which is a leading State in the aluminum
    industry, researchers on a recent project worked closely with
    the Navy on aluminum alloys and fabrication techniques,
    critical to shipbuilding. We fully anticipate that the methods
    they developed will be used by the Navy in its ship programs.
        Research in Kentucky, and other EPSCoR States can lead
    directly to deployed improvements, but without the impetus that
    DEPSCoR provides, we may not make the advances required, or
    contribute as fully as we are capable to supporting DOD.
        Last year, the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget
    proposed a budget for DEPSCoR for fiscal year 2008 of $9.8
    million, reflecting the administration's commitment to
    continuing the DEPSCoR Program. This year, the administration,
    instead, proposed to begin a 3-year sunset of the program, by
    reducing DEPSCoR from $9.4 million in fiscal year 2007, to $5.8
    million in fiscal year 2008.
        This decrease will not reduce spending, the administration
    proposes to move the funding from the DEPSCoR Program to the
    National Defense Education Program. No spending reduction, or
    cost saving is captured under the administration's planned
    DEPSCoR sunset, but the funds will further centralize to non-
    DEPSCoR States.
        The administration stresses the need for research to
    support the warfighter, and challenges DEPSCoR's contribution
    to this effort. DEPSCoR grants support the warfighter, because
    they are competitively chosen to respond to the DOD's announced
    needs and priorities from the Air Force Office of Scientific
    Research, the Army Research Office, and the Office of Naval
    Research. This research has produced many deployable advances,
    even from a relatively small program. These advances include:
    design of more efficient helicopter rotors, securing critical
    software security, better wireless communication for
    warfighters, and many more advances.
        Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask that you and the
    subcommittee fund DEPSCoR in fiscal year 2008 at the $20
    million level that sustained the program before the funding
    reductions. Prior to the decrease in funding, DEPSCoR produced
    many more research awards, benefiting DOD priorities. Between
    fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2001, 283 projects in 20
    States were funded. Since the program reductions, only 97
    projects have been funded in the past 4 years. This past year,
    only $7 million was granted to 13 academic institutions in only
    nine States.
        Funding reductions have already impacted DOD research in my
    home State of Kentucky. In the last 4 years, only three DEPSCoR
    projects have been funded, even as research in Kentucky
    tripled.
        Now, more than ever, we must invest in research programs
    that support national security, and improve our readiness and
    capability. Funding DEPSCoR in fiscal year 2008 at $20 million
    will return the program to the level necessary to achieve these
    objectives that were envisioned by the original authorizing
    legislation.
        Through the DEPSCoR Program, the DEPSCoR States continue to
    make significant research contributions, and this increased
    funding is required to sustain the program. Thank you very
    much.
        Senator Inouye. Well, Thank you very much, Dr. Staben.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Dr. Chuck Staben
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Chuck
    Staben and I am the Associate Vice President for Research and Acting
    Head of the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University
    of Kentucky. I am testifying on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR
    States, which is a non-profit organization that promotes the importance
    of a strong science and technology research infrastructure, and works
    to improve the research competitiveness of states that have
    historically received the least amount of federal research funding.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the
    Department of Defense science and engineering basic research program
    budget, and more specifically a critical component of that budget, the
    Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
    (DEPSCoR) \1\. I would like to sincerely thank the members of this
    Subcommittee for your past support of the DEPSCoR program, and secondly
    to express the support of the Coalition for returning funding for this
    very successful research program to the $20 million plus levels of
    several years ago. On behalf of our 21 states and 2 territories, I
    would ask the Members of this Subcommittee to reject the
    Administration's proposed plan to terminate the DEPSCoR research
    program and transfer funds to education activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
    Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
    Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode
    Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virgin Islands, West
    Virginia, and Wyoming.
        States in bold letters are eligible for the DEPSCoR program. All of
    the states listed above are also eligible for the EPSCoR program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Defense EPSCoR program was initially established in Public Law
    103-337 with two important policy objectives. First, DEPSCoR ensures a
    national research and engineering infrastructure by enhancing the
    capabilities of institutions of higher education in DEPSCoR states.
    Secondly, DEPSCoR develops, plans and executes competitive, peer-
    reviewed research and engineering work that supports the needs of the
    Department of Defense. Our battlefields, our intelligence gathering and
    analysis capacity, our procurements and maintenance activities are
    increasingly driven by and dependent upon advances in research and
    technology development.
        As the members of this Subcommittee know, EPSCoR states have a vast
    reservoir of talent and capacity. They represent 20 percent of the U.S.
    population, 25 percent of the research and doctoral universities, and
    18 percent of the nation's scientists and engineers. The EPSCoR program
    is critical to ensuring that we maintain a national infrastructure of
    research and engineering by providing much needed funding to these
    leading universities and scientists.
        Perhaps most importantly, DEPSCoR represents federal research money
    well spent. With the support of this Subcommittee, DEPSCoR has provided
    critical research dollars competitively to institutions which satisfy
    peer-review requirements in proposals that address priorities
    identified by the Department of Defense, through Broad Agency
    Announcements (BAAs) for this program.
        In Kentucky, DEPSCoR has funded 15 research projects since 1993. In
    a recent project, researchers worked closely with the Navy on aluminum
    alloys and fabrication techniques critical to shipbuilding. We fully
    anticipate this research and testing methods will be used by the Navy
    in its ship programs. Additionally, we have also participated in non-
    DEPSCoR funding, so we have expertise. DOD funded research developed an
    anti-sniper device now in the prototype stage under consideration by
    the Marine Corps. Research in Kentucky can lead directly to deployed
    improvements. However, without DEPSCoR, we cannot make the advances we
    want to make or contribute as fully as we are capable.
        I would now like to highlight a few DEPSCoR-funded success stories
    of research projects in other states that have, and are presently
    contributing to our National defense interests.
    Alaska
        Sea-Ice Upper Ocean Interactions: Observations and Modeling.--The
    University of Alaska, Fairbanks researchers are investigating the spin-
    up and spin-down of the upper ocean in response to storms. The
    observational system will measure surface-to-bottom and density
    structure, offering a unique opportunity to expand our understanding of
    how the ocean couples surface mesoscale variability and wave excitation
    to the underlying ocean on the intermediate depth continental shelves.
    This study, for the Navy, will improve real-time prediction systems for
    ship navigation and submarine surfacing in seasonally ice-covered
    regions, such as the Arctic and the Sea of Okhotsk in the Western
    Pacific and the Labrador Sea/Gulf of St. Lawrence in the northwestern
    Atlantic.
    West Virginia
        Intelligent Agents for Reliable Operation of Electric Warship Power
    Systems.--The objective of this Navy research is to design distributed
    intelligent control agents for reliable operation of integrated
    electronic power systems of modern electric warships. In the event of
    scheduled load changes or unforeseen disturbances, the power system is
    expected to operate at a minimum level of performance in areas that
    could be mission critical and thus result in saving lives. This system
    will consist of at least three layers: (i) an electrical network, (ii)
    a computer, control, and communication network, and (iii) a human
    operator. To make this critical infrastructure operational and
    efficient, one will have to develop tools and methodologies that
    combine information technology, control and communication and power
    systems engineering. Thus, an interdisciplinary team of investigators,
    with expertise in power, control, computer science, and mathematics
    will work together on these methodologies. The success of this research
    will have an impact on reliable operation of electric power systems of
    an electric warship, as well as on the education of the next generation
    of power system engineers.
        Fieldable Rapid Bioagent Detection: Advanced Resonant Optical
    Waveguide and Biolayer Structures for Integrated Biosensing.--This
    research for the Navy will direct detection strategies suitable for
    handheld unit implementation and applicable to a broad spectrum of
    agents are central to effective protection and response scenarios for a
    range of threats from sophisticated biowarfare agents to simple
    biocontamination of potable and domestic water supplies. Integrated
    optical techniques based on evanescent wave interaction have received
    considerable attention and study as a means to effectively interrogate
    biolayer surface target binding in direct detection devices. This
    proposal defines a balanced, tightly coupled interdisciplinary research
    program for modeling, analysis, and synthesis efforts to establish an
    analytical and experimental understanding of the interdependence of
    bio-layer and coupled resonant optical waveguide design necessary to
    quantify intrinsic limits of detection, optimize realizable extrinsic
    performance, and extend the versatility of this important new class of
    devices.
    Vermont
        Heterogeneous Catalysis of Chemical Warfare Agent Simulants Using
    Porous Inorganic Supports.--DEPSCoR-funded work in Vermont involves the
    development of catalysts that can decompose chemical warfare agents to
    non-toxic compounds. The University of Vermont has explored methods by
    which contaminated equipment could be treated in a non-destructive way
    so that the equipment could be returned to the battle area, which would
    minimize the downtime experienced due to a chemical attack. In
    particular, there are currently very few techniques available to treat
    the types of sensitive equipment (electronics, objects with complex
    geometries such as keyboards, etc.) on which the modern ``warfighter''
    has come to rely, and the university is specifically studying materials
    and methods for this application. Finally, protection (prior to an
    attack) and decontamination (after an attack) are often based on
    related technologies, and the university is also exploring the
    development of materials that could be incorporated into fabrics and
    polymers to be used for troop protection. The university has
    established several connections with industrial partners to discuss
    commercial development of our materials.
        Dispersed Microslug Formation for Discrete Satellite Microthruster
    Propellant Delivery.--DEPSCoR is funding the development of a
    miniaturized propulsion system which will be integrated into next-
    generation small satellites currently being developed by the Air Force
    and NASA. These satellites will have masses of under 20 kg and will
    operate in cluster formations (aka, ``formation flying'') and be
    capable of executing mission requirements not easily performed by a
    single satellite.
        The value of nanosats to the Department of Defense is derived from
    it ability to provide enhanced satellite capabilities for supporting
    ground-based troops, aircraft and naval vessels. This support will come
    primarily in the form of enhanced space-based reconnaissance and
    communications. Nanosats in particular offer the ability to quickly
    deploy large numbers of autonomous and effectively ``disposable''
    satellites into space at low cost. Reconnaissance nanosats may be
    deployed to provide detailed coverage of a particular combat theater
    for short periods of time (6-12 months).
        In addition to these projects, DEPSCoR research in other states has
    included: design of helicopter rotors (Alaska); prediction of river
    currents for Navy operations (Oklahoma); effect of DOD personnel
    exposure to universal military fuel (Oklahoma); improving prediction of
    atmospheric conditions to reduce weather related accidents (Oklahoma);
    securing critical software systems (Vermont & Oklahoma); nerve agent
    detection (Oklahoma); enhancing stored energy density for weapons
    (Idaho); development of small engines that operate on universal
    military fuel (Idaho); improving wireless communication for warfighter
    systems (South Carolina); acquisition and interpretation of sensor data
    (South Carolina); effect of exposure of military personnel to extreme
    physical and climatic conditions (Montana); preventing laser damage or
    destruction to aircraft optical guidance systems (Montana); increasing
    durability of lightweight composite materials (Montana); increasing
    information carried by radar signals (Montana); developing Air Force
    supported small plastic air-vehicles (Montana); and ultrafast optical
    communications and data processing (Vermont).
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Administration's
    budget proposes terminating the DEPSCoR program over the next three
    years and moving funds into education programs. The critical research
    conducted in DEPSCoR states, mentioned above, demonstrates why the
    Administration's proposal must be reconsidered by this Subcommittee.
        Last year, the Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal
    showed an out-year funding level for DEPSCoR in fiscal year 2008 of
    $9.839 million, thus reflecting the Administration's commitment to
    continuing the DEPSCoR program. This year, the Administration instead
    proposes to begin a three year sunset of the program by reducing
    DEPSCoR funding from $9.478 million enacted in fiscal year 2007 to
    $5.878 million in fiscal year 2008, far less than the $9.8 million
    contemplated for fiscal year 2008 in last year's budget submission.
        This decrease in funding is due to the Administration proposing to
    move funding from the DEPSCoR program to the National Defense Education
    Programs (NDEP). The budget justification for NDEP reflects this new
    money and in fact reflects significant out-year growth in the NDEP
    program. Thus, no spending reduction or cost-saving is captured under
    the Administration's planned DEPSCoR sunset. And more importantly, the
    plan simply moves money that was originally destined for critically
    underfunded states to a national program, thus abandoning one of the
    central policy objectives of DEPSCoR, which is to maintain a national
    research infrastructure.
        The Administration stresses the need for research to support the
    ``warfighter'' and challenges DEPSCoR's contribution to this effort. As
    noted in the research programs I listed earlier, DEPSCoR research
    clearly supports the warfighter and our national security needs by
    addressing weapon system improvement, chemical and biological agent
    detection, high-speed data and communication transmission, and physical
    condition studies critical to deployed military personnel. Furthermore,
    DEPSCoR grants necessarily support the warfighter because they are
    competitively chosen to reflect the Defense Department's announced
    needs and priorities. DEPSCoR supports specific research needs
    identified by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), the
    Army Research Office (ARO) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR).
        Mr. Chairman, every state has important contributions to make to
    the nation's competitiveness and every state has scientists and
    engineers that can contribute significantly to supporting the research
    needs of the Department of Defense. DEPSCoR ensures that every state
    does just that.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, on behalf of my
    colleagues in the coalition of EPSCoR states, I respectfully ask that
    you fund DEPSCoR in fiscal year 2008 at the $20 million level that
    sustained the program before the funding reductions of recent years.
    Prior to the decrease in funding, DEPSCoR was funded at a $20+ million
    level and produced many more research awards benefiting DOD priorities
    than it is able to support today, including many of the examples cited
    above. Between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2001, 283 projects in
    20 states were funded, 81 in fiscal year 2000 alone. However, since the
    program reductions, only 97 projects have been funded in the past four
    years. This past year, DOD awarded $7 million to 13 academic
    institutions in nine states to perform research in science and
    engineering, under the fiscal year 2007 DEPSCoR program. The
    constrained funding is severely limiting the ability of the EPSCoR
    states to contribute vital research that supports our national defense
    needs, and we have heard that DOD may start to restrict the number of
    proposals from each state for lack of funding.
        Funding reductions have impacted Department of Defense research, in
    my home state of Kentucky. In the last four years only three research
    awards have been funded (zero in the last two years) compared to
    sixteen awards between fiscal year 1998-fiscal year 2001.
        Mr. Chairman, these cutbacks have created a critical research
    shortfall. Now more than ever we must invest in research programs that
    will support our national security and will improve our readiness and
    defense capabilities in the future. Funding DEPSCoR in fiscal year 2008
    at $20 million will return the program to the level necessary to
    achieve the objectives envisioned by the original authorizing
    legislation--to build and sustain a national research and engineering
    infrastructure and to support critical Department of Defense
    priorities. Furthermore, the matching requirements actually bring more
    funds to bear from the states to these national programs than does
    regular funding.
        We are making significant research contributions but the budget
    cuts are wrecking the program.
        Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to testify before
    the Subcommittee.

        Senator Inouye. The vice chairman of the subcommittee
    wishes to----
        Senator Stevens. Well, I apologize, I had a meeting with
    the people from the War College, as a matter of fact. I don't
    want to make an opening statement.
        Thank you very much, sorry to miss your comments.
        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Dr. John Leland,
    Director of the University of Dayton Research Institute and
    Chair of ASME's DOD Task Force, representing the American
    Society of Mechanical Engineers.
    STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN LELAND, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
                UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND
                CHAIR, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL
                ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TASK FORCE
        Dr. Leland. Thank you, Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens,
    good morning. Again, I am John Leland, Chair of the American
    Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) DOD Task Force, and
    Director of the University of Dayton Research Institute. I'm
    pleased to have this opportunity to provide comments to this
    subcommittee on the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense
    budget request.
        The American Society of Mechanical Engineers is a 120,000
    member professional organization focused on technical,
    educational, and research issues. Our Nation's engineers play a
    critical role in national defense through research discoveries,
    and technology development for military systems. Therefore, my
    comments will focus on the DOD science and technology budget.
        The fiscal year 2008 request for defense, science and
    technology is $10.93 billion, which is $2.74 billion, or 20
    percent, less than the fiscal year 2007 appropriated amount.
        Under the requested DOD budget, science and technology
    funding would drop from 2.5 percent, to only 2 percent of the
    overall DOD budget, or total obligational authority. Clearly,
    this budget is inadequate to meet the needs of our Nation.
        At a minimum, $13.2 billion is required to meet the 3
    percent of total obligational authority guideline for science
    and technology. Six point one basic research funding supports
    science and engineering research and graduate technical
    education at universities in all 50 States.
        Technical leaders and corporations and Government
    laboratories developing current weapons systems were educated
    under basic research programs funded by the DOD. Failure to
    invest in sufficient resources in basic and applied research
    oriented toward education will reduce innovation and weaken the
    future scientific and engineering workforce of our country.
        Six point two applied research has also funded the
    education of many of our best defense industry engineers. As
    Director of the University of Dayton Research Institute, I
    understand full well the importance of these funds for
    developing our future scientists and engineers. More than 250
    students have the opportunity to work on defense research
    programs each year at the Research Institute, and many more
    enjoy opportunities through local defense-oriented companies.
        Failure to properly invest in applied research would stifle
    a key source of technological and intellectual development.
    Many proposed reductions to individual science and technology
    research programs are severe, and will certainly have negative
    impacts on future military capabilities.
        As an example, the Army's Materials Technology Program 2008
    request is only $18 million, compared to a 2007 appropriated
    amount of $60 million. Critical research will be halted if this
    70 percent reduction is enacted, because this program funds
    research to develop improved body armor and lightweight vehicle
    armor to protect troops against improvised explosive devices
    (IED).
        Fortunately, Congress has recognized that such budget cuts
    are not in the best interest of our country, and has
    appropriated additional resources to maintain effective science
    and technology programs.
        Investments in science and technology directly effect the
    future of our national security. We urge this subcommittee to
    support an appropriate amount of $13.1 billion, or 3 percent of
    total obligational authority, for science and technology
    programs.
        This request is consistent with recommendations contained
    in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and made by the Defense
    Science Board, as well as by senior Defense Department
    officials, and commanders from the Air Force, Army, and Navy
    who have voiced support for future allocation of 3 percent as a
    worthy benchmark for science and technology funding.
        The American Society of Mechanical Engineers appreciates
    the difficult choices that Congress must make in this
    challenging budgetary environment. I strongly believe, however,
    that there are critical shortages in DOD science and technology
    budget requests, specifically in those areas as for basic and
    applied research, and technical education are critical to the
    defense of our Nation.
        I thank the subcommittee for its ongoing support of Defense
    science and technology.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Doctor. I can assure
    you that the subcommittee agrees with you. We are concerned
    with the diminishing national pool of engineers, and at a time
    when we need them, we should be encouraging them. So, your
    words are well taken, sir.
        Dr. Leland. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Dr. John E. Leland
                                  introduction
        Good morning. My name is John Leland. I am the current Chair of the
    ASME DOD Task Force and Director of the University of Dayton Research
    Institute and I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide comments
    to this Subcommittee on the fiscal year 2008 budget request for the
    Department of Defense.
        ASME is a 120,000 member professional organization focused on
    technical, educational and research issues. Engineers play a critical
    role in research and technology development to address, and produce the
    military systems required for national defense. Therefore, my comments
    will focus on DOD's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)
    and Science and Technology (S&T).
                     dod request for science and technology
        The fiscal year 2008 budget request for Defense Science and
    Technology (S&T) is $10.930 billion, which is $2.74 billion less than
    the fiscal year 2007 appropriated amount of $13.677 billion and
    represents a 20 percent reduction. The S&T portion of the overall DOD
    spending of $481 billion would drop from 2.5 percent to 2 percent from
    the previous budget requested by the administration. Clearly, this
    budget request is inadequate to meet the country's need for robust S&T
    funding.
        The fiscal year 2008 request, if implemented, would represent a
    significantly reduced investment in Defense S&T. I strongly urge this
    committee to consider additional resources to maintain stable funding
    in the S&T portion of the DOD budget. At a minimum, $13.2 billion, or
    about $2.1 billion above the President's request is required to meet
    the three percent of Total Obligational Authority (TOA) guideline
    recommended by a National Academies study and set in the 2001
    Quadrennial Defense Review and by Congress.
        Basic Research (6.1) accounts would decrease from $1.56 billion to
    $1.42 billion, a 8.7 percent decline. While basic research accounts
    comprise only a small percentage of overall RDT&E funds, the programs
    that these accounts support are crucial to fundamental, scientific
    advances and for maintaining a highly skilled science and engineering
    workforce.
        Basic research accounts are used mostly to support science and
    engineering research and graduate, technical education at universities
    in all 50 states. Almost all of the current high-technology weapon
    systems, from advanced body armor, vehicle protection system, to the
    global positioning satellite (GPS) system, have their origin in
    fundamental discoveries generated in these basic research programs.
    Proper investments in basic research are needed now, so that the
    fundamental scientific results will be available to create innovative
    solutions for future defense challenges. In addition, many of the
    technical leaders in corporations and government laboratories that are
    developing current weapon systems, ranging from the F-35 Joint Strike
    Fighter to the suite of systems employed to counter Improvised
    Explosive Devices (IED's), were educated under basic research programs
    funded by DOD. Failure to invest sufficient resources in basic,
    defense-oriented research will reduce innovation and weaken the future
    scientific and engineering workforce. The Task Force recommends that
    Basic Research (6.1) be funded at a minimum level of $1.7 billion.
        Applied Research (6.2) would be reduced from $5.32 billion to $4.36
    billion, an 18 percent reduction. The programs supported by these
    accounts apply basic scientific knowledge, often phenomena discovered
    under the basic research programs, to important defense needs. Applied
    research programs may involve laboratory proof-of-concept and are
    generally conducted at universities, government laboratories, or by
    small businesses. Many of the successful demonstrations led to the
    creation of small companies, that were aided by the Small Business
    Innovative Research (SBIR) programs. Some devices created in these
    defense technology programs have dual use, such as GPS, and the
    commercial market far exceeds the defense market. However, without
    initial support by Defense Applied Research funds, many of these
    companies would not exist. Like 6.1 Basic Research, 6.2 Applied
    Research has also funded the educations of many of our best defense
    industry engineers. Failure to properly invest in applied research
    would stifle a key source of technological and intellectual development
    as well as stunt the creation and growth of small entrepreneurial
    companies.
        The largest reduction would occur in Advanced Technology
    Development (6.3), which would experience a 22.3 percent decline, from
    $6.436 billion to $4.999 billion. These resources support programs
    where ready technology can 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.
        Several of the proposed reductions to individual S&T program
    elements are dramatic and could have negative impacts on future
    military capabilities. An example is the reduction in the Army's
    Materials Technology program (PE0602105A). The fiscal year 2007
    appropriated amount was $60 million and the fiscal year 2008 request is
    for $18 million. Many worthwhile programs will not be funded if this
    two-thirds reduction is enacted. This line item funds research in a
    range of critical materials technologies, including improved body armor
    to protect troops against improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and in
    developing light weight armor for vehicle protection, such as is needed
    for the Future Combat System (FCS). With the problems faced in Iraq
    with IEDs and the need for lighter armor for the FCS it does not seem
    wise to cut materials research. Fortunately in the past few years the
    United States Congress has recognized that such cuts are not in the
    best interest of the country, and has appropriated additional resources
    to maintain healthy S&T programs in critical technologies.
                             dod request for rdt&e
        The Administration requested $78.996 billion for the Research,
    Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) portion of the fiscal year
    2008 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 $78.231 billion of about 1 percent.
    Therefore, when adjusted for inflation, this represents a reduction of
    about 0.8 percent percent in real terms. Funds for Operational Test and
    Evaluation (OT&E) function remain low, where the proposed funding of
    $180 million is little more than half of the 2005 appropriated amount
    of $310 million. The OT&E organization 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.
            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 $35
    million decrease from $281 million to $246 million in fiscal year 2008,
    a 14.5 percent reduction. Sufficient funding for the URI is critical to
    educating the next generation of engineers and scientists for the
    defense industry. Since the URI programs were developed, the services
    have not given a high priority to these programs. A lag in program
    funds will have a serious long-term negative consequence on our ability
    to develop a highly skilled scientific and engineering workforce to
    build weapons systems for years to come. While DOD has enormous current
    commitments, these pressing needs should not be allowed to squeeze out
    the small but very important investments required to create the next
    generation of highly skilled technical workers for the American defense
    industry. Although URI is reduced in the fiscal year 2008 request, the
    National Defense Education program (NDEP) is expected to increase from
    $19 million this year to $44 million.
           reduced s&t funding threatens america's national security
        Science and technology have played a historic role in creating an
    innovative economy and a highly skilled workforce. Study after study
    has linked over 50 percent of our economic growth over the past 50
    years to technological innovation. The ``Gathering Storm'' report
    places a ``special emphasis on information sciences and basic
    research'' conducted by the DOD because of large influence on
    technological innovation and workforce development. The DOD, for
    example, funds 40 percent of all engineering research performed at our
    universities. U.S. economic leadership depends on the S&T programs that
    support the nation's defense base, promote technological superiority in
    weapons systems, and educate new generations of scientists and
    engineers.
        Prudent investments also directly affect U.S. national security.
    There is a general belief among defense strategist that the United
    States must have the industrial base to develop and produce the
    military systems required for national defense. Many members of
    Congress also hold this view. A number of disconcerting trends, such as
    outsourcing of engineering activities and low participation of U.S.
    students in science and engineering, threaten to create a critical
    shortage of native, skilled, scientific and engineering workforce
    personnel needed to sustain our industrial base. Programs that boost
    the available number of highly educated workers who reside in the
    United States are important to stem our growing reliance on foreign
    nations, including potentially hostile ones, to fill the ranks of our
    defense industries and to ensure that we continue to produce the
    innovative, effective defense systems of the future.
                                recommendations
        In conclusion, I thank the committee for its ongoing support of
    Defense S&T. The ASME DOD Task Force appreciates the difficult choices
    that Congress must make in this tight budgetary environment. I believe,
    however, that there are critical shortages in the DOD S&T areas,
    particularly in those that support basic research and technical
    education that are critical to U.S. military in the global war on
    terrorism and defense of our homeland.
        The Task Force recommends the following:
      --We urge this subcommittee to support an appropriation of $13.1
            billion for S&T programs, which is 3 percent of the overall
            fiscal year 2008 DOD budget. This request is consistent with
            recommendations contained in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense
            Review and made by the Defense Science Board (DSB), as well as
            senior Defense Department officials and commanders from the Air
            Force, Army, and Navy, who have voiced support for the future
            allocation of 3 percent as a worthy benchmark for science and
            technology programs.
      --We also recommend that the committee support the University
            Research Initiative (URI) by restoring funds for the program to
            the fiscal year 2006 level of $272 million for fiscal year
            2008. A strong investment in advanced technical education will
            allow the Nation's armed services to draw from a large pool of
            highly-skilled, native-born workers for its science and
            engineering endeavors.
        This statement represents the views of the ASME Department of
    Defense Task Force of ASME's Technical Communities and is not
    necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Lieutenant General
    Dennis M. McCarthy, United States Marine Corps, retired,
    Executive Director of the Reserve Officers Association of the
    United States (ROA).
        General McCarthy.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DENNIS M. McCARTHY,
                UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS (RETIRED),
                NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE
                OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
        General McCarthy. Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, thank
    you very much for the opportunity to testify. I would just make
    four points this morning.
        We have long-advocated, and continue to advocate fully
    funding the training and equipment accounts of the Reserve
    components of all of the services. I think you--this
    subcommittee knows very well that this funding is essential,
    not just to the readiness, but to the recruiting and retention
    success that the Reserve components will have. The great young
    people that we've recruited, and the ones that we want to
    retain, will not sit around empty training centers, twiddling
    their thumbs because they don't have the right kind of
    equipment.
        Second, the Secretary of Defense has announced, and I think
    rightly so, a 1-year mobilization period for all components,
    but this really, mostly impacts the Army, which has previously
    used longer periods.
        To successfully deploy, these forces are going to have to
    be trained in advance of mobilization. This means they have to
    have the equipment in their home training centers, if they're
    going to be ready when they actually are mobilized and called
    to active duty. There will not be time for lengthy
    predeployment training on a 1-year cycle.
        Third, I believe that the subcommittee has seen, I believe
    history will support the idea that, if the Congress wants funds
    to go to the Reserve components to buy equipment that will stay
    with the Reserve components. The only successful way that we
    seem to have done that is through the National Guard, Reserve,
    and equipment account. That earmarks equipment, doesn't let it
    get lost, doesn't let it get subsumed into larger equipment
    accounts, keeps it identifiable with the Reserve components,
    and we urge the Congress to take steps to adequately fund the
    equipment accounts of the Reserve components through the
    National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriations (NGREA)
    process.
        Last, we have made a recommendation, a request of the
    subcommittee to consider funding for 1 year a--essentially,
    pilot project of a law center, that would enable use to
    continue what we've been doing--what ROA has been doing, out of
    its own budget, in providing guidance, education, counseling,
    referral services to service members who have employment-
    related legal problems. Service members who come back and find
    difficulties with their employers, and have to make a claim
    under the USERRA Act, and we have been, we've been trying to
    provide counseling services. If we had some funding in this, I
    believe we could do a substantially better job.
        I think the subcommittee knows that employers around the
    country have done an absolutely marvelous job, and the numbers
    of these cases are relatively small. But, if we think about it,
    with 600,000 Reserves, and members of the National Guard
    mobilized, if even 1 or 2 percent of them have problems with
    their employers, that's a significant number of cases that need
    to be resolved. And, we think we can do some real good with the
    Law Center.
        So, that's my fourth point, I thank the subcommittee for
    the opportunity to appear, and we appreciate the support that
    the Congress has provided.
        Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Inouye. I can assure you, General, that the
    subcommittee is very much concerned about, first, the training
    and properly equipping our Reserve officers and men. In fact,
    in the supplemental appropriation, provisions made for that.
        And, as for your project, we will give it our most serious
    consideration.
        General McCarthy. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Dennis M. McCarthy
        The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) is a
    professional association of commissioned and warrant officers of our
    nation's seven uniformed services, and their spouses. ROA was founded
    in 1922 during the drawdown years following the end of World War I. It
    was formed as a permanent institution dedicated to National Defense,
    with a goal to teach America about the dangers of unpreparedness. When
    chartered by Congress in 1950, the act established the objective of ROA
    to: ``. . . support and promote the development and execution of a
    military policy for the United States that will provide adequate
    National Security.'' The mission of ROA is to advocate strong Reserve
    Components and national security, and to support Reserve officers in
    their military and civilian lives.
        The Association's 70,000 members include Reserve and Guard
    Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen who frequently
    serve on Active Duty to meet operational needs of the uniformed
    services and their families. ROA's membership also includes officers
    from the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration who often are first responders during
    national disasters and help prepare for homeland security. ROA is
    represented in each state with 55 departments plus departments in Latin
    America, the District of Columbia, Europe, the Far East, and Puerto
    Rico. Each department has several chapters throughout the state. ROA
    has more than 505 chapters worldwide.
        ROA is a member of The Military Coalition where it co-chairs the
    Tax and Social Security Committee. ROA is also a member of the National
    Military/Veterans Alliance. Overall, ROA works with 75 military,
    veterans and family support organizations.
                   disclosure of federal grants or contracts
        The Reserve Officers Association is a private, member-supported,
    congressionally chartered organization. Neither ROA nor its staff
    receive, or have received, grants, sub-grants, contracts, or
    subcontracts from the federal government for the past three fiscal
    years. All other activities and services of the Association are
    accomplished free of any direct federal funding.
        President: CAPT Michael P. Smith, USNR (Ret.) (410-693-7377) cell.
    Staff Contacts:
        Executive Director: LtGen. Dennis M. McCarthy, USMC (Ret.) (202-
    646-7701).
        Legislative Director, Health Care: CAPT Marshall Hanson, USNR
    (Ret.) (202-646-7713).
        Air Force Affairs, Veterans: LtCol Jim Starr, USAFR (Ret.) (202-
    646-7719).
        Army, QDR/G-R Commission: LTC Robert ``Bob'' Feidler (Ret.) (202-
    646-7717).
        USNR, USMCR, USCGR, Retirement: Mr. Will Brooks (202-646-7710).
                                 roa priorities
        The Reserve Officers Association CY 2007 Legislative Priorities
    are:
      --Assure that the Reserve and National Guard continue in a key
            national defense role, both at home and abroad.
      --Reset the whole force to include fully funding equipment and
            training for the National Guard and Reserves.
      --Providing adequate resources and authorities to support the current
            recruiting and retention requirements of the Reserves and
            National Guard.
      --Support citizen warriors, families and survivors.
    Issues to help FUND, EQUIP, AND TRAIN
        Advocate for adequate funding to maintain National Defense during
    GWOT.
        Regenerate the Reserve Components (RC) with field compatible
    equipment.
        Fence RC dollars for appropriated Reserve equipment.
        Fully fund Military Pay Appropriation to guarantee a minimum of 48
    drills and two weeks training.
        Sustain authorization and appropriation to National Guard and
    Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) to permit flexibility for Reserve
    Chiefs in support of mission and readiness needs.
        Optimize funding for additional training, preparation and
    operational support.
        Keep Active and Reserve personnel and Operation & Maintenance
    funding separate.
        Equip Reserve Component members with equivalent personnel
    protection as Active Duty.
    Issues to assist RECRUITING AND RETENTION
        Support incentives for affiliation, reenlistment, retention and
    continuation in the RC.
        Fund referral recruiting programs for the National Guard and
    Reserve Services.
                Pay and Compensation:
        Differential pay for DOD federal employees.
        Professional pay for RC medical professionals.
        Eliminate the 1/30th rule for Aviation Career Incentive Pay, Career
    Enlisted Flyers Incentive Pay, Diving Special Duty Pay, and Hazardous
    Duty Incentive Pay.
                Education:
        Return MGIB-Selected Reserve to 47 percent of MGIB-Active.
                Health Care:
        Extend military coverage for restorative dental care for up to 180
    days following deployment.
                Spouse Support:
        Repeal the SBP-Dependency Indemnity Clause (DIC) offset for both AC
    and RC survivors.
            national guard & reserve equipment & personnel accounts
    Key Issues Facing the Armed Forces Concerning Equipment
        Procure the best quality equipment for fighting troops.
        Ensure that the right quantity is funded to avoid shortfalls.
        Make sure that new/renewed equipment reaches the warriors allowing
    them to: Fight, Train, Respond.
    Reserve Component Equipping Sources
        Funded Procurement.
        National Guard and Reserve Appropriations (NGREA).
        Supplemental.
        The above are preferred means to equip. Tracking of appropriated or
    supplemental funds are difficult for DOD to track. Dollars targeted to
    the Reserve Component don't always reach where intended. As NGREA is
    controlled by each Reserve Component (RC) Chief, NGREA funding does
    provide an audit trail.
      --Cascading of equipment from Active Component.
      --Cross-leveling.
        This type of equipment transfer provides some units with outmoded
    ``hand me down'' equipment. These are discredited processes that have
    failed in the past. Transfer of equipment downgrades readiness for some
    units to improve the readiness of other units.
      --Depot maintenance and overhaul of equipment.
        Most equipment being overhauled is combat damaged, or has fallen
    outside maintenance standards. Such equipment must be stripped down and
    rebuilt completely. The process is slow; almost as long as to build
    from scratch. Equipment is backlogged for units needing equipment for
    readiness. Costs are about 75 percent of replacement costs.
    Resetting the Force
        By resetting or reconstitution of the force, ROA means the process
    to restore people, aircraft and equipment to a high state of readiness
    following a period of higher-than-normal, or surge, operations.
        Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom are consuming the
    Active and Reserve Component force's equipment. Wear and tear is at a
    rate many times higher then planned. Battle damage expends additional
    resources.
        Many equipment items used in Southwest Asia are not receiving
    depot-level repair because equipment items are being retained in
    theater. The condition of equipment items in theater will likely
    continue to worsen and the equipment items will likely require more
    extensive repair or replacement when they eventually return to home
    stations.
        In addition to dollars already spent to maintain this well-worn
    equipment for ongoing operations, the Armed Forces will likely incur
    large expenditures in the future to repair or replace (reset) a
    significant amount of equipment when hostilities cease. The services
    are currently funding their reset programs in large part through the
    use of supplemental appropriations.
    Personnel
        Training.--When Reserve Component personnel participate in an
    operation they are focused on the needs of the particular mission,
    which may not include everything required to maintain qualification
    status in their military occupation specialty (MOS, AFSC, NEC).
        There are many different aspects of training that are affected:
      --Skills that must be refreshed for specialty.
      --Training needed for upgrade but delayed.
      --Ancillary training missed.
      --Professional military education needed to stay competitive.
      --Professional continuing education requirements for single-managed
            career fields and other certified or licensed specialties
            required annually.
      --Graduate education in business related areas to address force
            transformation and induce officer retention.
        Loss.--There are particular challenges that occur to the force when
    a loss occurs during a mobilization or operation and depending on the
    specialty this can be a particularly critical requirement that must be
    met.
      --Recruiting may require particular attention to enticing certain
            specialties or skills to fill critical billets.
      --Minimum levels of training (84 days basic, plus specialty
            training).
      --Retraining may be required due to force leveling as emphasis is
            shifted within the service to meet emerging requirements.
    End Strength
        ROA recommends a freeze on reductions to the Guard and Reserve
    manning levels. ROA urges this subcommittee to fund the following
    personnel levels.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army National Guard........................................      351,300
    Army Reserve...............................................      205,000
    Navy Reserve...............................................       71,300
    Marine Corps Reserve.......................................       39,600
    Air National Guard.........................................      107,000
    Air Force Reserve..........................................       74,900
    Coast Guard Reserve........................................       10,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In a time of war and the highest OPTEMPO in recent history, it is
    wrong to make cuts to the end strength of the Reserve Components. The
    Commission on National Guard and Reserve will be examining Reserve
    Force Structure, and will make recommendations as to size in its report
    to the Congress in October 2007.
    Readiness
        As the committee understands, readiness is a product of many
    factors, including the quality of officers and enlisted, full staffing,
    extensive training and exercises, well-maintained weapons and
    authorized equipment, efficient procedures, and the capacity to operate
    at a fast tempo. The pace of wartime operations has a major impact on
    service members.
        The Defense Department does not attempt to keep all active units at
    full wartime readiness. Units are rated at five different levels of
    readiness. Many are capable of meeting the bulk of wartime missions,
    where others can meet a major portion of the wartime tasking. The two
    lowest levels exist where units require resources and/or training to
    undertake wartime missions. The last group may require mission and
    resource changes and is not prepared to go to war.
        The risk being taken by DOD by not resetting the returning Active
    and Reserve units is that their readiness may be reduced because of
    missing equipment, and without authorized equipment their training
    levels will deteriorate. Loss of the ability to train also hurts
    retention efforts.
                           unfunded army requirements
        The Army National Guard and Army Reserve have made significant
    contributions to ongoing military operations, but equipment shortages
    and personnel challenges have increased and, if left unattended, may
    hamper the reserves' preparedness for future overseas and domestic
    missions.
        To provide deployable units, the Army National Guard and the Army
    Reserve have transferred large quantities of personnel and equipment to
    deploying units, an approach that has resulted in growing shortages in
    nondeployed units. Also, reserve units have left significant quantities
    of equipment overseas and DOD has not yet developed plans to replace
    it.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) faces the unprecedented challenge
    of sustaining large-scale, long-duration operations with an all-
    volunteer military force. In addition, DOD's homeland defense missions
    have taken on higher priority, and National Guard forces have state
    responsibilities for homeland security activities as well as their
    traditional roles in responding to natural disasters.
        The Army National Guard reports that its average units have about
    40 percent of their required equipment, and the Army Reserve reports
    that its units have about half of the modern equipment they need to
    deploy.
        Readiness challenges have occurred because the Army reserve
    components' role has shifted from a strategic reserve force to an
    operational force that is being used on an ongoing basis. However, DOD
    has not fully reassessed its equipment, personnel, and training needs
    and developed a new model for the Reserves appropriate to the new
    operational environment.
        The Army is implementing an Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model
    through which reserve units' readiness will be increased as units move
    closer to eligibility for deployment. However, the Army has not fully
    determined the equipment, personnel, and training that units will
    require at each stage of the cycle or fully identified the resources to
    implement its plans. Funding of $1.6 billion for modularity through
    ARFORGEN is required.
        Dual Use Equipment.--The tragedy in Greensburg, Kansas only
    highlights a problem faced by National Guard and Army Reserve units.
    Some Governors state that their disaster relief, following an
    emergency, is likely hampered because much of the equipment usually
    positioned around their states is in Iraq. Reserve Component units are
    being sent overseas with their equipment, but when they come home, the
    gear often stays in the war zones.
        During a disaster, the capability to respond is measured by the
    availability of equipment.
        Under DOD equipping plans, numerous items that are in the allowance
    from the Table of Organization and Equipment (T/O&E) have dual-use;
    intended for both overseas and homeland security purposes. These
    shortages could also adversely affect reserve units' ability to perform
    homeland defense missions and provide support to civil authorities in
    the event of natural disasters or terrorist attacks.
        As of June of last year, Army National Guard units had left more
    than 64,000 pieces of equipment worth more than $1.2 billion overseas.
        The Army Reserve has 14,000 items in need of inspection, repair and
    overhaul, and needs $742 million to replace stay behind equipment.
    Depot maintenance faces a $372 million shortfall.
        Compatible Equipment.--Much of the Guard and Reserve do not have
    priority for the newest and most modern equipment. Much of the
    equipment is older and not compatible with the Active Army. While the
    substitute items may be adequate for training, this equipment must not
    be allowed in the theater of operation as they might not be compatible
    to other operating units, and may not sustain logistically.
        75 percent of the Army Reserve's light medium trucks are not
    Modular Force compatible or deployable.
        50 percent of the medium line haul tractors do not support single
    fleet policy and aren't integral to training and operational
    efficiency.

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army Reserve Unfunded Modernization Vehicle Requirements--
     $1.826 Billion:
        Light-medium trucks (LMTV) 2.5 Ton Truck.............          425
        Medium Tactical Vehicle (MTV) 5.0 Ton Truck..........          761
        Truck Cargo PLS 10x10 M1075..........................          106
        PLS Trailer..........................................           25
        High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)..          304
        High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle, up-               133
         armored.............................................
        Truck Tractors Line Haul (M915A3)....................           71
    Army National Guard Top Equipment Shortfalls:
        HMMWV................................................        1,610.6
        Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles...................        5,198.1
        High Terrain Vehicles--HEMTT/LHS/PLS.................        1,201.2
        M916A3 Light Equipment Transporter...................          191.8
        Tactical Trailers....................................          137.9
        M917A2 Dump Truck....................................           67.4
        CH-47F Chinook Helicopter............................        6,678.0
        Communications Systems (JNN, SINCGARS, HF)...........        1,997.2
        UAV Systems (Shadow, Raven)..........................          270.0
        Small Arms...........................................          248.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         air force equipment priorities
        ROA continues to support military aircraft Multi-Year Procurement
    (MYP) for more C-17s and more C-130Js for USAF. The Air Force Reserve
    (AFR) mission is to be an integrated member of the Total Air Force to
    support mission requirements of the joint warfighter.

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Air Force Reserve Unfunded Requirements:
        C-5A Galaxy:
            Airlift Defensive System (ADS)...................           17.3
            Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM).           67.8
            Structural Repairs (2) aircraft..................           22.0
        C-130 Hercules:
            Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM)            56.6
             C-130H..........................................
            Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM)            22.2
             C-130J..........................................
            Secure Multi-Band Jam Resistant Radio AN/ARC-210.             .8
        C-17 Globemaster: Large Aircraft Infrared                       41.8
         Countermeasures (LAIRCM)............................
        F-16 Fighting Falcon: Secure Multi-Band Jam Resistant            6.0
         Radio AN/ARC-210....................................
        B-52H Stratofortress: Secure Multi-Band Jam Resistant            1.3
         Beyond Line of Sight Radio..........................
        Developing Airmen: Air National Guard/A.F. Reserve               1.4
         Test Center (AATC) support..........................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Air Force Reserve needs $10 million in unfunded depot purchased
    equipment maintenance. Funding to support restoration and modernization
    of facilities is $89 million per year.
    Air National Guard Unfunded Equipment Requirements
        Priority 1 equipment requirements by the Air National Guard total
    $500 million. This includes medical, communications, logistics,
    transportation, explosive ordnance, civil support teams, maintenance,
    security, and aviation requirements. Some examples are:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cell phone Restoral Small SATCOM for data and voice,                10.0
     first response..........................................
    Expeditionary Medical System (EMEDS) purchases...........           24.2
    SF Individual body armor (IBA) Helmets...................            1.7
    Night Vision equipment (PVS-14), security................            5.0
    HH-60 Panoramic Night Vision Systems.....................            1.3
    HC/MC 130 Multi Function Color Display...................            2.7
    EC-130J Commando Solo conversion.........................            1.0
    C-130 Virtual Electronic Combat System (VECTS) trainer...            1.0
    F-15 IC Central Computer (VCC+) upgrade..................            1.0
    Advanced Targeting Pods..................................            5.2
    Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS)......................            1.0
    Virtual Threat Recognition and Avoidance Trainer.........            1.0
    Senior Scout MCT.........................................            1.0
    C-40 C (Boeing 737)......................................           85.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       navy reserve equipment priorities
        The Active Reserve Integration (ARI) aligns Active Component and
    Reserve Component units to achieve unity of command. Naval Reservists
    are aligned and fully integrated into their AC supported commands.
    Little distinction is drawn between AC and RC equipment. Some unique
    missions remain that need support.
        C-40 A Combo cargo/passenger Airlift (4)--$330.0 million.
      --The Navy requires a Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift Replacement
            Aircraft. This aircraft was designated as the C-40A and needs
            to replace the aging C-9 fleet. The maximum range for the C-40A
            is approximately 1,500 miles more than the C-9.
      --The C-40A will accommodate 121 passengers, or eight 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. The
            Navy has a fleet 21 aging C-9; the Marine Corps has two C-9
            aircraft. The Navy has ordered nine C-40A's, seven of which
            were Congressional add-ons.
        Civil Engineering Support Equipment, Tactical Vehicles,
    Communications Equipment and other Table of Allowance items
    supporting--$38.0 million.
      --Naval Coastal Warfare (NCW) Units
      --Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Units
      --Naval Construction Forces (NCF)
      --Navy Equipment Logistics Support Groups (ELSG)
        C-130, C-9, and C-40A upgrades and spare equipment--$69.7 million.
                   marine corps reserve equipment priorities
        The Marine Corps Reserve faces two primary equipping challenges,
    supporting and sustaining its forward deployed forces in the Global War
    On Terrorism while simultaneous resetting and modernizing the Force to
    prepare for future challenges. Only by equally equipping and
    maintaining both the Active and Reserve forces an integrated Total
    Force will be seamless.
    Priorities to support and sustain USMCR forces:
        Obtain latest generation of Individual Combat and Protective
    Equipment including: M4 rifles, Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) scopes, Helmet
    pad systems, Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) plates, and Night
    Vision Goggles.
        Simulation Training Devises.
        Adequate funding to Operation and Maintenance accounts to sustain
    training and Predeployment operations.
    Priorities to reset and modernize USMCR forces:
        Procure principal end-items necessary to reestablish Training
    Allowance to conduct home training.
        Equip two new Light Armored Reconnaissance Companies.
        Procure satellite/long-haul communication equipment shortfalls.
        Update legacy aircraft.
        Deployed unit equipment readiness rates remain high (95 percent).
    Ground equipment mission readiness rates for non-deployed Marine Forces
    Reserve Units average 85 percent based on Training Allowance. Reduced
    readiness results from shortages in home station Training Allowance.
    There is approximately a 10 percent readiness shortfall across the
    Force for most equipment.
        Restoration and Modernization (R&M) funding continues to be a
    challenge for the USMCR, due to its $16.5 million backlog across the
    Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) and an overall backlog of $52.6
    million. More than 50 percent of USMC Reserve Centers are over 40 years
    old and 35 percent over 50 years old.
               national guard and reserve equipment appropriation
        Prior to 1997, the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Appropriation was a critical resource to ensure adequate funding for
    new equipment for the Reserve Components. The much-needed items not
    funded by the respective service budget were frequently purchased
    through this appropriation. In some cases it was used to bring unit
    equipment readiness to a needed state for mobilization.
        With the war, the Reserve and Guard are faced with mounting
    challenges on how to replace worn out equipment, equipment lost due to
    combat operations, legacy equipment that is becoming irrelevant or
    obsolete, and in general replacing that which is gone or aging through
    normal wear and tear. The Reserve Components would benefit greatly from
    a National Military Resource Strategy that includes a National Guard
    and Reserve Equipment Appropriation.
        To optimize the readiness of the Guard and Reserve it is also
    imperative to maintain separate Reserve funds from the Active duty.
                                 roa law center
        The Reserve Officers Association's recommends the development of a
    Servicemembers Law Center, tasked to advise Active and Reserve
    servicemembers who have been subject to legal problems that occur
    during deployment.
        Justification.--Recruiting of prior service members into the
    Reserve Component is on the decline because service members leaving
    active duty fear ramification of ongoing deployments on new civilian
    careers. A legal center would help:
      --Recruit.--Encourage new members to join the Guard and Reserve by
            providing a non-affiliation service to educate prior service
            members about USERRA and SCRA protections.
      --Retain.--Work with Active and Reserve Component members to counsel
            about Former Spouses Protection Act, USERRA and SCRA for the
            recently deployed facing legal problems.
    Law Center's Services
        Counseling.--Review cases, and advise individuals and their lawyers
    as to legitimacy of actions taken against deployed active and reserve
    component members.
        Referral.--Provide names of attorneys within a region that have
    successfully taken up USFSPA, USERRA and SCRA issues.
        Promote.--Publish articles encouraging law firms and lawyers to
    represent service members in USFSPA, USERRA and SCRA cases.
        Advise.--File Amicus Curiae, ``friend of the court'' briefs on
    servicemember protection cases.
        Educate.--Quarterly seminars to educate attorneys a better
    understanding of USFSPA, USERRA and SCRA.
        ROA could incorporate the legal center into the newly remodeled ROA
    Minuteman Memorial building. ROA would set-aside office spaces. ROA's
    Defense Education Fund would hire an initial staff of one lawyer, and
    one administrative law clerk to man the Servicemembers Law Center to
    counsel individuals and their legal representatives.
        Anticipated startup cost, first year: $750,000.
                           cior/ciomr funding request
        The Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) was
    founded in 1948, and its affiliate organization, The Interallied
    Confederation of Medical Reserve Officers (CIOMR) was founded in 1947.
    The organization is a nonpolitical, independent confederation of
    national reserve associations of 16 signatory countries of the North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), representing over 800,000 reserve
    officers.
        CIOR supports four programs to improve professional development and
    international understanding. Dues do not cover these programs and
    individual countries help fund the events. The Department of the Army
    as Executive Agent hasn't been funding these programs.
        Military Competition.--The CIOR Military Competition is a strenuous
    three day contest on warfighting skills among Reserve Officers teams
    from member countries. These contests emphasize military activities
    relevant to the multinational aspects of current and future Alliance
    operations.
        Language Academy.--The two official languages of NATO are English
    and French. As a non-government body, operating on a limited budget,
    the Academy offers intensive courses in English and French and affords
    national junior officer members the opportunity to become fluent in a
    second language.
        Partnership for Peace (PfP).--Established in 1994 with the focus of
    assisting NATO PfP nations develop reserve officer and enlisted
    organizations according to democratic principles. CIOR's PfP Committee
    supports the advancement of a balanced civil-military leadership. CIOR
    PfP Committee also assists participating countries in the Military
    Competition.
        Young Reserve Officers Workshops are arranged annually by the NATO
    International Staff (IS). Selected issues are assigned to joint
    seminars through the CIOR Defense and Security Issues (SECDEF)
    Commission, allowing junior grade officers to analyze Reserve concerns
    relevant to NATO in a combined environment.
                                   conclusion
        DOD is in the middle of executing a war and operations in Iraq are
    directly associated with this effort. The impact of the war is
    affecting the very nature of the Guard and Reserve, not just the
    execution of Roles and Missions. Without adequate funding, the Guard
    and Reserve may be viewed as a source to provide funds to the Active
    Component. It makes sense to fully fund the most cost efficient
    components of the Total Force, its Reserve Components.
        At a time of war, we are expending the smallest percentage of GDP
    in history on National Defense. Funding now reflects about 3.9 percent
    of GDP. ROA has a resolution urging that defense spending should be 5
    percent to cover both the war and Homeland Security. While these are
    big dollars, the President and Congress must understand that this type
    of investment is what it will take to equip, train and maintain an all-
    volunteer force for adequate National Security.
        The Reserve Officers Association, again, would like to thank the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to present our testimony. We are
    looking forward to working with you, and supporting your efforts in any
    way that we can.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Captain Marshall
    Hanson, of the United States Naval Reserve, Co-Director of the
    National Military and Veterans Alliance.
    STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARSHALL HANSON, UNITED STATES
                NAVY (RETIRED), CO-DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
                MILITARY AND VETERANS ALLIANCE
        Captain Marshall. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, the
    National Military and Veterans Alliance (NMVA) is very grateful
    for the invitation to testify to you about our views and
    suggestions concerning defense funding and issues.
        The NMVA is made up of 30 associations of serving members,
    veterans, families and survivors, that represent 3.5 million
    members. The alliance supports a strong national defense.
        While the NMVA recognizes that the subcommittee is working
    under budget restraints, the alliance urges the President and
    Congress to increase defense spending to 5 percent of the Gross
    Domestic Product during times of war to cover procurement, and
    prevent unnecessary personnel end-strength cuts.
        Further, the NMVA supports funding increases in support of
    the end-strength boost on the Active duty component to the Army
    and Marine Corps that has been recommended by defense
    authorizers. Current Army policy has changed a deployment from
    12 to 15 months, a larger force will help our young warriors
    have the ability to stay longer at home in between these
    deployments.
        Recruiting and retention is paramount in the global war on
    terrorism, and today's youth will be judging how our veterans
    of today's wars are treated. So, the NMVA supports bonuses and
    incentives to encourage people to join.
        One program that we would like the subcommittee to support,
    is a Guard recruiting program, where a Guardsman is paid $1,000
    referring a new member to a recruiter, and then paid another
    $1,000 if that individual goes to basic training. We think this
    is a very successful program, the Guard are very excited to be
    able to do their own recruiting, it's helped the Guard get the
    end numbers, and we'd like to see this program extended and
    funded to the rest of the Federal Reserve component.
        The last point that I want to touch upon, deals with the
    survivor benefit plan (SBP), and dependency and indemnity
    compensation (DIC) offset. Our widows of members who are killed
    in the line of service are still being penalized, and this
    offset is basically taking SBP funds away from them that their
    warrior purchases an annuity, because it's being displaced by
    the DIC payment.
        The alliance supports Senator Nelson's bill which would
    offset, and eliminate this injustice. But, if funding tends to
    be restricted, the alliance is also open to a phased-in
    implementation of a SBP/DIC offset that has been suggested in
    the House Armed Services Committee.
        The alliance thanks the subcommittee for our opportunity to
    testify before you. You continue to be leaders in the area of
    advocacy for Defense, and we applaud your nonpartisan approach
    that you take to these important issues.
        And, we stand by for any questions, or any way we can help
    the subcommittee.
        Senator Inouye. As you well know, Senator Stevens and I are
    the few remaining combat veterans of World War II, and as such,
    we appreciate your words. We'll do our very best.
        Captain Marshall. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Senator, can I ask--how many members are
    part of your association?
        Captain Marshall. My association--I represent the National
    Military and Veterans Alliance, and we represent 3.5 million
    members who belong to the 30 associations that make up the
    alliance.
        Senator Stevens. And what's their age bracket?
        Captain Marshall. Excuse me, sir?
        Senator Stevens. What is their age bracket?
        Captain Marshall. The age bracket goes from, from
    everywhere from age 18, to new recruits, all the way up to
    retirees that are veterans of World War II.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Captain Marshall Hanson
                    national military and veterans alliance
        The Alliance was founded in 1996 as an umbrella organization to be
    utilized by the various military and veteran associations as a means to
    work together towards their common goals. The Alliance member
    organizations are: American Logistics Association; American Military
    Retirees Association; American Military Society; American Retirees
    Association; American World War II Orphans Network; AMVETS (American
    Veterans); Armed Forces Marketing Council; Catholic War Veterans; Gold
    Star Wives of America, Inc.; Japanese American Veterans Association;
    Korean War Veterans Foundation; Legion of Valor; Military Order of the
    Purple Heart; Military Order of the World Wars; Military Order of
    Foreign Wars; National Assoc. for Uniformed Services; National Gulf War
    Resource Center; Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; Naval Reserve
    Association; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Reserve Enlisted
    Association; Reserve Officers Association; Society of Military Widows;
    The Retired Enlisted Association; TREA Senior Citizens League; Tragedy
    Assist. Program for Survivors; Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees;
    Veterans of Foreign Wars; Vietnam Veterans of America; Women in Search
    of Equity.
        These organizations have over three and a half million members who
    are serving our nation or who have done so in the past, and their
    families.
                                  introduction
        Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the
    National Military and Veterans Alliance (NMVA) is very grateful for the
    invitation to testify before you about our views and suggestions
    concerning defense funding issues. The overall goal of the National
    Military and Veterans Alliance is a strong National Defense. In light
    of this overall objective, we would request that the committee examine
    the following proposals.
        While the NMVA highlights the funding of benefits, we do this
    because it supports National Defense. A phrase often quoted ``The
    willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,
    no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they
    perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by
    their country,'' has been frequently attributed to General George
    Washington. Yet today, many of the programs that have been viewed as
    being veteran or retiree are viable programs for the young veterans of
    this war. This phrase can now read ``The willingness with which our
    young people, today, are willing to serve in this war is how they
    perceive the veterans of this war are being treated.''
        This has been brought to the forefront by how quickly an issue such
    as the treatment of wounded warriors can be brought to the national
    attention.
        In a long war, recruiting and retention becomes paramount. The
    National Military and Veterans Alliance, through this testimony, hopes
    to address funding issues that apply to the veterans of various
    generations.
                            funding national defense
        NMVA is pleased to observe that this year; the Congress is
    discussing how much should be spent on National Defense. The Alliance
    urges the President and Congress to increase defense spending to 5
    percent of Gross Domestic Product during times of war to cover
    procurement and prevent unnecessary personnel end strength cuts. In
    addition, while the debate on Iraqi policy is important, the Alliance
    would like to stress that resulting legislation should be independent
    and not included as language in Defense Appropriation bill. Supporting
    the troops includes providing funding for their missions.
                              pay and compensation
        Our serving members are patriots willing to accept peril and
    sacrifice to defend the values of this country. All they ask for is
    fair recompense for their actions. At a time of war, compensation
    rarely offsets the risks.
        The NMVA requests funding so that the annual enlisted military pay
    raise equals or exceeds the Employment Cost Index (ECI).
        Further, we hope that this committee continues to support targeted
    pay raises for those mid-grade members who have increased
    responsibility in relation to the overall service mission. Pay raises
    need to be sufficient to close the civilian-military pay gap.
        NMVA would apply the same allowance standards to both Active and
    Reserve when it comes to Aviation Career Incentive Pay, Career Enlisted
    Flyers Incentive Pay, Diving Special Duty Pay, Hazardous Duty Incentive
    Pay and other special pays.
        The Service chiefs have admitted one of the biggest retention
    challenges is to recruit and retain medical professionals. NMVA urges
    the inclusion of bonus/cash payments (Incentive Specialty pay IPS) into
    the calculations of Retirement Pay for military health care providers.
    NMVA has received feedback that this would be incentive to many medical
    professionals to stay in longer.
                           force policy and structure
    End Strength
        The NMVA supports funding increases in support of the end strength
    boosts of the Active Duty Component of the Army and Marine Corps that
    have been recommended by Defense Authorizers. New recruits need to be
    found and trained now to start the process so that American taxpayer
    can get a return on this investment. Such growth is not instantaneously
    productive.
        The NMVA would like to also put a freeze on reductions to the Guard
    and Reserve manning levels. With the Commission on the Guard and
    Reserve now active, it makes sense to put a moratorium on reductions to
    End Strength until after they report back to Congress with
    recommendations. NMVA urges this subcommittee to at least fund to last
    year's levels.
             survivor benefit plan (sbp) and survivor improvements
        The Alliance wishes to deeply thank this Subcommittee for your
    funding of improvements in the myriad of survivor programs.
        However, there are still two remaining issues to deal with to make
    SBP the program Congress always intended it to be: Ending the SBP/DIC
    offset and moving up the effective date for paid up SBP to October 1,
    2006.
        SBP/DIC Offset affects several groups. The first is the family of a
    retired member of the uniformed services. At this time the SBP annuity
    the servicemember has paid for is offset dollar for dollar for the DIC
    survivor benefits paid through the VA. This puts a disabled retiree in
    a very unfortunate position. If the servicemember is leaving the
    service disabled it is only wise to enroll in the Survivor Benefit Plan
    (perhaps being uninsurable in the private sector). If death is service
    connected then the survivor loses dollar for dollar the compensation
    received under DIC.
        SBP is a purchased annuity, available as an elected earned employee
    benefit. The program provides a guaranteed income payable to survivors
    of retired military upon the member's death. Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC) is an indemnity program to compensate a family for
    the loss of a loved one due to a service connected death. They are
    different programs created to fulfill different purposes and needs.
        A second group affected by this dollar for dollar offset is made up
    of families whose service member died on active duty. Recently Congress
    created active duty SBP. These service members never had the chance to
    pay into the SBP program. But clearly Congress intended to give these
    families a benefit. With the present offset in place the vast majority
    of families receive NO benefit from this new program, because the vast
    numbers of our losses are young men or women in the lower paying ranks.
    SBP is completely offset by DIC payments.
        Other affected families are service members who have already served
    a substantial time in the military. Their surviving spouse is left in a
    worse financial position that a younger widow. The older widows will
    normally not be receiving benefits for her children from either Social
    Security or the VA and will normally have more substantial financial
    obligations (mortgages etc). This spouse is very dependent on the SBP
    and DIC payments and should be able to receive both.
        Thirty Year Paid-Up SBP.--In the fiscal year 1999 Defense
    Authorization Act Congress created a simple and fair paid up provision
    for the Survivor Benefit Plan. A member who had paid into the program
    for 30 years and reached the age of 70 could stop paying premiums and
    still have the full protection of the plan for his or her spouse.
    Except that the effective date of this provision is October 1, 2008.
    Many have been paying for as long as 34 years.
        The NMVA respectfully requests this Subcommittee fund the SBP/DIC
    offset and 30 year paid-up SBP if authorized.
        current and future issues facing uniformed services health care
        The National Military and Veterans Alliance must once again thank
    this Committee for the great strides that have been made over the last
    few years to improve the health care provided to the active duty
    members, their families, survivors and Medicare eligible retirees of
    all the Uniformed Services. The improvements have been historic.
    TRICARE for Life and the Senior Pharmacy Program have enormously
    improved the life and health of Medicare Eligible Military Retirees
    their families and survivors. It has been a very successful few years.
    Yet there are still many serious problems to be addressed:
    Wounded Warrior Programs
        As the committee is aware, Congress has held a number of hearings
    about the controversy at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The NMVA will
    not revisit the specifics. With the Independent Review Group and the
    Dole/Shalala Commission recommending the closure of Walter Reed, an
    emphasis needs to be placed on the urgency of upgrades at Bethesda, and
    the new military treatment hospital at Fort Belvoir.
        The Alliance does support funding for the wounded warriors,
    including monies for research and treatment on Traumatic Brain Injuries
    (TBI), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the blinded, and our amputees.
    The nation owes these heroes an everlasting gratitude and recompense
    that extends beyond their time in the military. These casualties only
    bring a heightened need for a DOD/VA electronic health record accord to
    permit a seamless transition from being in the military to being a
    civilian.
    Full Funding for the Defense Health Program
        The Alliance applauds the Subcommittee's role in providing adequate
    funding for the Defense Health Program (DHP) in the past several budget
    cycles. As the cost of health care has risen throughout the country,
    you have provided adequate increases to the DHP to keep pace.
        Full funding for the defense health program is a top priority for
    the NMVA. With the additional costs that have come with the deployments
    to Southwest Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq, we must all stay vigilant
    against future budgetary shortfalls that would damage the quality and
    availability of health care.
        With the authorizers having postponed the Department of Defenses
    suggested fee increases, the Alliance is concerned that the budget
    saving have already been adjusted out of the President's proposed
    budget. NMVA is confident that this subcommittee will continue to fund
    the DHP so that there will be no budget shortfalls.
        The National Military and Veterans Alliance urges the Subcommittee
    to continue to ensure full funding for the Defense Health Program
    including the full costs of all new programs.
    TRICARE Pharmacy Programs
        DOD's rationalize for suggesting pharmacy fee increase as it costs
    the government twice as much for a drug through the TRICARE Retail
    Pharmacy program (TRRx) than it does for the same drug through the
    TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Program (TMOP). DOD believes the rise in
    the TRRx co-payments will increase revenue and force beneficiaries
    migrate to the TMOP program, where the costs for their prescriptions
    are lower.
        NMVA may understand the motives for this change, but has concerns
    about how it is being implemented. Often times the retail pharmacy
    network is the only source to immediately fill a prescription, as many
    pharmacy beneficiaries are unable to go to a military clinic for the
    initial prescription. To truly motivate beneficiaries to a shift from
    retail to mail order adjustments need to be made to both generic and
    brand name drugs co-payments.
        Ideally, the NMVA would like to see the reduction in mail order co-
    payments without an increase in co-payments for Retail Pharmacy, but
    NMVA suggests that if pharmacy co-payments are adjusted that: (1) the
    higher retail pharmacy co-payments not apply on an initial
    prescription, but on refills of a serial maintenance prescription, and
    (2) if co-payments must be raised on retail pharmacy, that both generic
    and brand name mail order prescriptions be reduced to zero dollar co-
    payments.
        The National Military and Veterans Alliance urges the Subcommittee
    to adequate fund adjustments to co-payments in support of
    recommendations from Defense Authorizers.
    TRICARE Standard Improvements
        TRICARE Standard grows in importance with every year that the
    Global War on Terrorism continues. A growing population of mobilized
    and demobilized Reservists depends upon TRICARE Standard. A growing
    number of younger retirees are more mobile than those of the past, and
    likely to live outside the TRICARE Prime network.
        An ongoing challenge for TRICARE Standard involves creating
    initiatives to convince health care providers to accept TRICARE
    Standard patients. Health care providers are dissatisfied with TRICARE
    reimbursement rates that are tied to Medicare reimbursement levels. The
    Alliance was pleased and relieved by the Administration's and Congress'
    recent corrections and improvements in Medicare reimbursement rates,
    which helped the TRICARE Program.
        Yet this is not enough. TRICARE Standard is hobbled with a
    reputation and history of low and slow payments as well as what still
    seems like complicated procedures and administrative forms that make it
    harder and harder for beneficiaries to find health care providers that
    will accept TRICARE. Any improvements in the rates paid for Medicare/
    TRICARE should be a great help in this area. Additionally, any further
    steps to simplify the administrative burdens and complications for
    health care providers for TRICARE beneficiaries hopefully will increase
    the number of available providers.
        The Alliance asks the Defense Subcommittee to include language
    encouraging continued increases in TRICARE/Medicare reimbursement
    rates.
    TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP)
        The focus of the TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP) is to maintain
    the dental health of Uniformed Services retirees and their family
    members. Several years ago we saw the need to modify the TRDP
    legislation to allow the Department of Defense to include some dental
    procedures that had previously not been covered by the program to
    achieve equity with the active duty plan.
        With ever increasing premium costs, NMVA feels that the Department
    should assist retirees in maintaining their dental health by providing
    a government cost-share for the retiree dental plan. With many retirees
    and their families on a fixed income, an effort should be made to help
    ease the financial burden on this population and promote a seamless
    transition from the active duty dental plan to the retiree dental plan
    in cost structure. Additionally, we hope the Congress will enlarge the
    retiree dental plan to include retired beneficiaries who live overseas.
        The NMVA would appreciate this Committee's consideration of both
    proposals.
                     national guard and reserve health care
    Funding Improved TRICARE Reserve Select
        It is being suggested that the TRICARE Reserve Select healthcare
    plan be changed to allow the majority of Selected Reserve participate
    at a 28 percent co-payment level with the balance of the premium being
    paid by the Department of Defense.
        NMVA asks the committee to continue to support funding of the
    revised TRICARE Reserve Select program.
    Mobilized Health Care--Dental Readiness of Reservists
        The number one problem faced by Reservists being recalled has been
    dental readiness. A model for healthcare would be the TRICARE Dental
    Program, which offers subsidized dental coverage for Selected
    Reservists and self-insurance for SELRES families.
        In an ideal world this would be universal dental coverage. Reality
    is that the services are facing challenges. Premium increases to the
    individual Reservist have caused some junior members to forgo coverage.
    Dental readiness has dropped. The Military services are trying to
    determine how best to motivate their Reserve Component members but feel
    compromised by mandating a premium program if Reservists must pay a
    portion of it.
        Services have been authorized to provide dental treatment as well
    as examination, but without funding to support this service. By the
    time many Guard and Reserve are mobilized, their schedule is so short
    fused that the processing dentists don't have time for extensive
    repair.
        The National Military Veterans Alliance supports funding for
    utilization of Guard and Reserve Dentists to examine and treat
    Guardsmen and Reservists who have substandard dental hygiene. The
    TRICARE Dental Program should be continued, because the Alliance
    believes it has pulled up overall Dental Readiness.
    Demobilized Dental Care
        Under the revised transitional healthcare benefit plan, Guard and
    Reserve who were ordered to active duty for more than 30 days in
    support of a contingency and have 180 days of transition health care
    following their period of active service.
        Similar coverage is not provided for dental restoration. Dental
    hygiene is not a priority on the battlefield, and many Reserve and
    Guard are being discharged with dental readiness levels much lower than
    when they were first recalled. At a minimum, DOD must restore the
    dental state to an acceptable level that would be ready for
    mobilization, or provide some subsidize for 180 days to permit
    restoration from a civilian source.
        Current policy is a 30 day window with dental care being space
    available at a priority less than active duty families.
        NMVA asks the committee for funding to support a DOD's
    demobilization dental care program. Additional funds should be
    appropriated to cover the cost of TRICARE Dental premiums and co-
    payment for the six months following demobilization if DOD is unable to
    do the restoration.
                           other reserve/guard issues
    MGIB-SR Enhancements
        Practically all active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted
    accessions have a high school diploma or equivalent. A college degree
    is the basic prerequisite for service as a commissioned officer, and is
    now expected of must enlisted as they advance beyond E-6.
        Officers to promote above O-4 are expected to have a post graduate
    degree.
        This makes the Montgomery G.I. Bill for Selective Reserves (MGIB-
    SR) an important recruiting and retention tool. With massive troop
    rotations the Reserve forces can expect to have retention shortfalls,
    unless the government provides incentives such as a college education.
        Education is not only a quality of life issue or a recruiting/
    retention issue it is also a readiness issue. Education a Reservist
    receives enhances their careers and usefulness to the military. The
    ever-growing complexity of weapons systems and support equipment
    requires a force with far higher education and aptitude than in
    previous years.
        The problem with the current MGIB-SR is that the Selected Reserve
    MGIB has failed to maintain a creditable rate of benefits with those
    authorized in Title 38, Chapter 30. MGIB-SR has not even been increased
    by cost-of-living increases since 1985. In that year MGIB rates were
    established at 47 percent of active duty benefits. The MGIB-SR rate is
    28 percent of the Chapter 30 benefits. Overall the allowance has inched
    up by only 7 percent since its inception, as the cost of education has
    climbed significantly.
        The NMVA requests appropriations funding to raise the MGIB-SR and
    lock the rate at 50 percent of the active duty benefit. Cost: $25
    million/first year, $1.4 billion over ten.
    Bonuses
        Guard and Reserve component members may be eligible for one of
    three bonuses, Prior Enlistment Bonus, Reenlistment Bonus and Reserve
    Affiliation Bonuses for Prior Service Personnel. These bonuses are used
    to keep men and woman in mission critical military occupational
    specialties (MOS) that are experiencing falling numbers or are
    difficult to fill. During their testimony before this committee the
    reserve chiefs addressed the positive impact that bonuses have upon
    retention. This point cannot be understated. The operation tempo,
    financial stress and civilian competition for jobs make bonuses a
    necessary tool for the DOD to fill essential positions. Though the
    current bonus program is useful there is a change that needs to be
    addressed to increase effectiveness.
        The National Guard has been quite successful with a referral
    program, where National Guard members are paid $1,000 for referring an
    individual to join the Guard. Another $1,000 is paid if that individual
    makes it into basic training. This has proved quite successful in the
    Army National Guard attaining its end strength of 350,000.
        The NMVA supports expanding and funding the referral program to the
    federal Reserve Components.
    Reserve/Guard Funding
        We are concerned about ongoing DOD initiatives to end ``two days
    pay for one days work,'' and replace it with a plan to provide 1/30 of
    a Month's pay model, which would include both pay and allowances. Even
    with allowances, pay would be less than the current system. When
    concerns were addressed about this proposal, a retention bonus was the
    suggested solution to keep pay at the current levels. Allowances differ
    between individuals and can be affected by commute distances and even
    zip codes. Certain allowances that are unlikely to be paid uniformly
    include geographic differences, housing variables, tuition assistance,
    travel, and adjustments to compensate for missing health care.
        The NMVA strongly recommends that the reserve pay system ``two days
    pay for one days work,'' be funded and retained, as is.
        Ensure adequate funding to equip Guard and Reserve at a level that
    allows them to carry out their mission. Do not turn these crucial
    assets over to the active duty force. In the same vein we ask that the
    Congress ensure adequate funding that allows a Guardsman/Reservist to
    complete 48 drills, and 15 annual training days per member, per year.
    DOD has been tempted to expend some of these funds on active duty
    support rather than personnel readiness.
        The NMVA strongly recommends that Reserve Program funding remain at
    sufficient levels to adequately train, equip and support the robust
    reserve force that has been so critical and successful during our
    Nation's recent major conflicts.
                         armed forces retirement homes
        Following Hurricane Katrina, Navy/Marine Corps residents from AFRJ-
    Gulfport were evacuated from the hurricane-devastated campus and were
    moved to the AFRH-Washington D.C. campus. Dormitories were reopened
    that are in need of refurbishing.
        NMVA urges this subcommittee to fund upgrades to the Washington
    D.C. facility, and also provide funding to rebuild the Gulfport
    facility.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee the
    Alliance again wishes to emphasize that we are grateful for and
    delighted with the large steps forward that the Congress has affected
    the last few years. We are aware of the continuing concern all of the
    subcommittee's members have shown for the health and welfare of our
    service personnel and their families. Therefore, we hope that this
    subcommittee can further advance these suggestions in this committee or
    in other positions that the members hold. We are very grateful for the
    opportunity to submit these issues of crucial concern to our collective
    memberships. Thank you.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Mr. Seth Benge,
    Legislative Director, Associations for America's Defense.
    Welcome, sir.
    STATEMENT OF SETH BENGE, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION,
                RESERVE ENLISTED ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF
                THE ASSOCIATIONS FOR AMERICA'S DEFENSE
        Mr. Benge. Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, thank you for
    having me here on behalf of the Associations for America's
    Defense, or A4AD, to share our concerns about equipment.
        My name is Seth Benge, I'm a Legislative Director for the
    Reserve Enlisted Association. As a sergeant in the Marine Corps
    Reserve, I was deployed in 2007 to Iraq, currently I'm an
    officer candidate for the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.
        A4AD looks at national defense, equipment, force structure,
    policy issues not normally addressed by the military support
    community. We would like to thank the subcommittee for their
    ongoing stewardship on issues of defense.
        First I am going to speak about Guard and Reserve
    equipment. With the new Department of Defense policy on
    deployment cycles, it has become even more important that
    equipment get to the various individual Reserve units. In
    addition to the premode training, and the ability to respond to
    a domestic emergency or terrorist attack, also has been
    hampered by equipment shortfalls.
        As always, our military will do everything to accomplish
    these missions, but response time is measured by equipment
    readiness. More money put into re-equipping the Guard and
    Reserve is needed, but funding through the services has not
    been effective, because most of it lacks the kind of oversight
    needed.
        One source of funding--the National Guard and Reserve
    equipment appropriations--would solve this problem. The NGREA
    gives the Reserve chiefs and Congress the control needed to
    track equipment funds. A4AD would like to see the National
    Guard and Reserve equipment appropriations funded at higher
    rates.
        In the current supplemental, it has been proposed that $1
    billion be added to the NGREA. Our industrial base requires
    large lead-times to produce needed equipment. Using the
    supplemental to fund NGREA causes delays in getting equipment
    to the Reserve units. This year, the money needed for the Guard
    and Reserve equipment should go directly into the National
    Guard and Reserve equipment appropriations in the regular
    budget cycle.
        Our current experiences have taught us that the Guard and
    Reserve are needed to engage in almost any conflict. It also
    taught us that we need to make some changes to the way we equip
    the Reserve components. Now is the time to get the process
    right.
        Next year, two programs that directly benefit both Active,
    and Reserve troops in the field. The Soldier Enhancement
    Program, and the similar Marine Enhancement Program, provides
    the capability for innovative, fast and flexible equipping of
    servicemen and women. Through these programs, the military has
    made advancements to individual protection, and to our soldiers
    and marines lethality. Everything from weapons optics, to
    uniforms, to ration to body armor have been developed through
    this system. This year, the Soldier Enhancement Program has an
    unfunded requirement of $18.8 million.
        Finally, the joint improvised explosive device defeat fund
    is a program that develops not only the equipment to defeat
    IEDs, but also the tactics, techniques, and procedures. This
    fund is essential to react to an adaptive enemy, and should be
    fully funded, along with covering the unfunded requirement of
    $152.9 million in current counter-IED devices.
        Thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify before
    the subcommittee. Included in our written testimony is a list
    of unfunded equipment.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Benge.
        Senator Stevens. No, you're right, we're working on it,
    that's for sure.
        We are working very hard on that, on the subjects you
    discussed.
        Mr. Benge. Yes, sir, I appreciate that. And so do our, my
    fellow soldiers. We all appreciate your hard work.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Seth Allan Benge
                       associations for america's defense
        Founded in January of 2002, the Association for America's Defense
    is an adhoc group of Military and Veteran Associations that have
    concerns about National Security issues that are not normally addressed
    by The Military Coalition (TMC), and the National Military Veterans
    Alliance (NMVA). The participants are members from each. Among the
    issues that are addressed are equipment, end strength, force structure,
    and defense policy.
    Participating Associations
    Air Force Association
    Enlisted Association National Guard of the United States
    Marine Corps Reserve Association
    Military Order of World Wars
    National Association for Uniformed Services
    Naval Enlisted Reserve Association
    Navy League of the United States
    Naval Reserve Association
    Reserve Enlisted Association
    Reserve Officers Association
    The Retired Enlisted Association
                                  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 eleven
    military and veteran associations that have concerns about national
    security issues that are not normally addressed by either The Military
    Coalition, or the National Military and Veterans Alliance. Among the
    issues that are addressed are equipment, end strength, force structure,
    and defense policy.
        A4AD, also, cooperatively works with other associations, who
    provide input while not including their association name to the
    membership roster.
                  current versus future; issues facing defense
        The Associations for America's Defense would like to thank this
    subcommittee for the on-going stewardship that it has demonstrated on
    issues of Defense. At a time of war, its pro-defense and non-partisan
    leadership continues to set the example.
        Your committee faces numerous issues and decisions. You are
    challenged at weighing people against technology, and where to invest
    dollars. Multi-generations of weapons are being touted, forcing a
    competition for limited budgetary resources.
        Members of A4AD group are concerned that hasty recommendations
    about U.S. Defense policy could place national security at risk.
    Careful study is needed to make the right choice. A4AD is pleased that
    Congress and this subcommittee continue oversight in these decisions.
        In recent years the military has been recreated to fight a new kind
    of warfare. Great strides have been made in providing the right
    equipment to the right people at the right time and in the tactics that
    are employed. There is still more to be done though and it is essential
    to incorporate the lessons learned from the campaigns in Iraq and
    Afghanistan into our current and future decisions.
    Rapid Fielding Initiative
        When the Army first moved into Afghanistan in 2002, years of anemic
    funding for troop equipment sent many deploying Soldiers shopping for
    their own hydration systems, navigation tools, and other gear, and
    forced units to scrounge for optics and tripods. Then, a program called
    the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI), developed under Program Executive
    Office (PEO) Soldier, overhauled the Army's acquisition process to get
    effective equipment quickly into the hands of Soldiers in theater.
        Now, with the drumbeat of the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN)
    deployment rhythm gaining momentum across the operating Army, senior
    Army planners decided in November to align their innovative soldier-
    equipping program to synchronize with ARFORGEN. That directive formally
    moves the priority of RFI to ensure that all units preparing to deploy,
    Active and Reserve Component alike, receive the program's 58 items of
    basic gear before heading out. RFI's previous focus extended across the
    entire operating Army, including some forces not on a deployment
    roster.
        It appears that the Army will complete its original RFI mission of
    providing enhanced Soldier capabilities to the operating Army by the
    end of fiscal year 2007, but Soldier equipment requirements continue
    beyond that. In addition equipment will continue to be upgraded, new
    equipment will continue to be developed and there will be a need to get
    this in the hands of our servicemen and women.
        The spending surge of RFI has been possible only because of
    supplemental Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) funding. The lessons
    learned on how to produce and field essential equipment at an
    accelerated rate need to be institutionalized. The military cannot
    afford to loose the knowledge on how to be flexible and agile when
    equipping soldiers. If the goal of the Department of Defense is to make
    deployments predictable, then issuing the equipment and other
    requirements to support the model should be predictable, too.
        To ensure predictable and quantifiable funding, future RFI programs
    should be included in the Department of Defense annual budget and the
    Department should study using this program across all the services.
    Airlift
        Air Mobility Command assets fly 36,478 hours per month and
    participate in major operations including earthquake and hurricane
    relief, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
    Noble Eagle, and SOUTHCOM. Their contributions in moving cargo and
    passengers are absolutely indispensable to American warfighters in the
    Global War on Terrorism. Both Air Force and Naval airframes and air
    crew are being stressed by these lift missions.
        As the U.S. military continues to become more expeditionary, it
    will require more airlift. DOD should complete the planned buy of 180
    C-17s, and add an additional 60 aircraft at a rate of 15 aircraft per
    year to account to ensure an adequate airlift force for the future and
    allow for attrition--C-17s are being worn out at a higher rate than
    anticipated in the Global War on Terrorism.
        DOD should also continue with a joint multi-year procurement of C-
    130Js and press ahead with a C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-
    engining Program test to see where airlift funds may be best allocated.
        The Navy and Marine Corps need C-40A replacements for the C-9B
    aircraft. The Navy requires Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift. The
    maximum range for the C-40A is approximately 1,500 miles more than the
    C-9 with a greater airlift capacity. The C-40A, a derivative of the
    737-700C is a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified, while
    the aging C-9 fleet is not compliant with either future global
    navigation requirements or noise abatement standards that restrict
    flights into European airfields. Twenty-two aircraft remain to be
    replaced.
    Tankers
        In need for air refueling is reconfirmed on a daily basis in
    worldwide DOD operations. A significant number of tankers are old and
    plagued with structural problems. The Air Force would like to retire as
    many as 131 of the Eisenhower-era KC-135E tankers by the end of the
    decade.
        DOD and Congress must work together to replacement of these
    aircraft. A replacement could come in the form of a hybrid tanker/
    airlifter aircraft, which when produced could ``swing'' from one
    mission to the other as required. Congress should also look at re-
    engining a portion of the KC-135 fleet as a short-term fix until newer
    platforms come online.
        Procurement F-22, F-35, MV-22A, C-40A and a replacement for the KC-
    135 needs to be accelerated and modernized, and mobility requirements
    need to be reported upon.
    Navy Fleet Size
        The current number of ships in the fleet has dropped to 278 ships.
    The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen, has set the target
    for the new fleet at 313 ships.
        The Administration procurement rate has been too low. In order to
    raise the number of ships the Navy will need more money to build ships.
    In addition, industrial capacity needs to become a major focus. The
    rate at which ships are built needs to be re-examined so that we keep
    industrial lines open, saving the nation money in the long run. This
    should result in stable funding of the current Annual Long-Range SCN
    Plan.
        A4AD favors a fleet no smaller than 313 ships because of an added
    flexibility to respond to emerging threats. Congress should explore
    options to current construction methods of ship design, configuration,
    and shipbuilding that have created billion dollar destroyers.
                                  other issues
    Increasing End Strength
        Op tempo and deployment rotation will begin to wear. The official
    position of rotation of 1 year deployed for three years duty for active
    duty and 1 year in six for the Guard and Reserve are targets, but not
    yet reality. Both the Administration and Congress have now called for
    an increase in Army and Marine Corps end strength. These increases will
    have many peripheral effects. These new recruits will need to be
    trained and equipped. The Air Force and Navy will be responsible for
    moving and supplying these troops. Any unfunded end-strength increases
    would put readiness at risk.
        The A4AD supports funding increases in support of the end strength
    boosts of the Active Duty Component of the Army and Marine Corps that
    have been recommended by Congress and the Administration.
        Now is not the time to be cutting the Guard and Reserve. Incentives
    should be utilized to attract prior service members into a growing
    reserve. Additionally, a moratorium on reductions to End Strength of
    the Guard and Reserve should be put into place until Commission on the
    Guard and Reserve can report back to Congress with recommendations.
        The A4AD would like to also put a freeze on reductions to the Guard
    and Reserve manning level.
    Regeneration/Resetting of Equipment
        A4AD would like to thank this committee for the regeneration money
    that was included in the Supplemental.
        Aging equipment, high usage rates, austere conditions in Iraq, and
    combat losses are affecting future readiness. Equipment is being used
    at 5 to 10 times the programmed rate.
        Additionally, to provide the best protection possible for Soldiers
    and Marines in the combat theater, many units have left their equipment
    behind for follow-on units, and are returning with no equipment.
    Without equipment on which to train after de-mobilization, readiness
    will become an issue.
        The Army, Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Marines and Marine
    Forces Reserve need continued funding by Congress for equipment
    replacement.
    Counter-measures to Improvised Explosive Devices (IED)
        A4AD would like to commend the committee for supporting enhanced
    countermeasures for air and ground troops now deployed. For ground
    troops, the biggest threat to safety continues to be the IED. The
    previous effectiveness of these attacks would suggest that future
    enemies of the United States will incorporate these tactics into their
    doctrine. Defeating these attacks requires a comprehensive approach.
    The military needs to have a formulation that includes human
    intelligence, armor and electronic countermeasures.
        The focus recently has been on the MRAP vehicle and its improved
    survivability, A4AD supports purchasing MRAPs. We also encourage the
    Committee to look at continuing funds for the purpose of researching,
    purchasing and deploying more electronic countermeasures. In this way
    we can provide more comprehensive protection for our troops on the
    battlefield.
        On May 1, the U.S. Army Times newspaper reported that ``Iraqi
    insurgents are launching four times as many attacks with improvised
    explosive devices than in 2003''. However, due to countermeasures,
    ``only one in five IED attacks kills or injures U.S. troops'', Pentagon
    spokesperson Christine Devries said. While she did not provide casualty
    figures, Davies said that one in nine U.S. soldiers injured by an IED
    attack dies. The work in creating IED-Counter measures has been
    effective but is not yet complete.
        Continued emphasis is needed for the procurement of sufficient
    quantities of electronic countermeasures to protect personnel deployed
    in the battle space.
    Aircraft Survivability Equipment
        Air crews face non-traditional threats used by non-conventional
    forces and deserve the best available warning and countermeasure
    equipment available to provide the greatest degree of safety possible.
    The majority of funds have been expended on fixed aircraft protection;
    approximately 75 percent of U.S. air losses have been rotary wing.
        A4AD hopes that the Committee will continue to support the purchase
    and deployment of warning and countermeasures systems with an emphasis
    on rotary wing aircraft across all of the services and insure that the
    latest and most advanced versions of these protections are made
    available to all units now deployed or slated for deployment in the
    future--be they active duty, Guard or Reserve.
    Maintaining the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriations
        One of the most important issues with regards to Guard and Reserve
    Equipment is tracking the appropriated money from Congress to the
    Reserve Components. This theme has been highlighted on several
    occasions from sources in the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
    Reserve Affairs office to LTG Steve Blum, Director National Guard
    Bureau. It is important to note that the Reserve Chiefs,
    overwhelmingly, indicate that Reserve specific equipment is needed more
    now, than ever. Along with this the services need to maintain unit
    cohesion, which means reserve specific equipment for reserve specific
    units. From A4AD's perspective, integration and cross-leveling is
    decreasing the readiness and training for Reserve personnel. Therefore,
    we have to maintain reserve specific equipment and reserve units if we
    are going to continue to be ready for the operational reserve force now
    and well into the future. The best method to ensuring that this happens
    is to fund the Guard and Reserve through the National Guard and Reserve
    Equipment Appropriations (NGREA).
        The NGREA reached a high of $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1991 then
    dropped over the next decade. Recently Congress has been inclined to
    add more money to the NGREA, $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2006, this
    trend should continue. The money given to the Reserve Components in
    this manner allows the Reserve Chiefs the maximum amount of flexibility
    and Congress more oversight. The National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Appropriations (NGREA) is vital to guaranteeing that the Guard and
    Reserve has funding to procure essential equipment that has not been
    funded by the services.
        A4AD asks this committee to continue to provide appropriations for
    unfunded National Guard and Reserve Equipment Requirements. To
    appropriate funds to Guard and Reserve equipment would help emphasize
    that the Active Duty is exploring dead-ends by suggesting the transfer
    of Reserve equipment away from the Reservists.

                         UNFUNDED EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
                [The services are not listed in priority order.]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Air Force:
        Aircraft Recapitalization and Modernization..........       $2,602
        Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Capability                      24
         Enhancement.........................................
        Common Vertical Lift Support Platform (CVLSP)........          250
        Force Protection Equipment...........................            4.2
        Miniature Air Launched Decoy & Jammer (MALD-J).......           14
    Air Force Reserve:
        C-5A Airlift Defense system (ADS)....................           17.3
        C-130H LAIRCM (Large Aircraft I/R Counter Measures)..           56.6
        C-17 LAIRCM..........................................           41.8
        C-130J LAIRCM........................................           22
        C-5 Structures.......................................           22
    Air Guard:
        A-10/F-15/F-16 Block 42 reengining...................        1,400
        F-15 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar.......          400
        A-10/F-15/F-16 Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems.........          223
        C-130/C-5/C-17/KC-135 LAIRCM/IRCM Testers............          919
        New C-38s............................................          200
    Army:
        MRAP (GSTAMIDS)......................................        2,249
        Stryker..............................................          775.1
        Counter-IED Systems..................................          152.9
        Javalin..............................................          184.2
        Ammo Production Base.................................          190.5
    Army Reserve (Total Unfunded Modernization Vehicle
     Requirements $1.826 billion):
        Light-medium trucks (LMTV) 2.5 Ton Truck.............          425
        Medium Tactical Vehicle (MTV) 5.0 Ton Truck..........          761
        Truck Cargo PLS 10x10 M1075..........................          106
        High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)..          304
        High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle, up-               133
         armored.............................................
    Army Guard:
        High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMHWV)..        1,610.6
        Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)............        5,198.1
        High Terrain Vehicles (HEMTT/LHS/PLS)................        1,201.2
        Night Vision (AN/PAS-13, AN/VAS-5)...................        1,912.4
        Communication Systems (JNN, SINCGARS, HF)............        1,997.2
    Marine Corps:
        MRAP.................................................        2,800
        Electronic Attack (EA) UAV...........................           10
        Anti-Sniper Infrared Targeting System (ASITS)........            9.8
        Tactical Remote Sensor System (TRSS).................            3.4
    Marine Corps Reserve:
        Obtain latest generation of Individual Combat and
         Protective Equipment including:
            M4 rifles
            Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) scopes
            Helmet pad systems
            Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) plates
            Night Vision Goggles
        Priorities to reset and modernize USMCR forces:
            Procure principal end-items necessary to
             reestablish Training Allowance to conduct home
             training
            Equip two new Light Armor Reconnaissance
             Companies
            Procure satellite/long-haul communication
             equipment shortfalls
            Update legacy aircraft
        Simulation Training Devises
    Navy:
        LPD-17...............................................        1,700
        T-AKE................................................        1,200
        Joint IED Defeat (JIEDDO) Sustainment................            9
        F/A-18E/F/G..........................................          720
        Critical ASW Enhancements............................           96
    Navy Reserve:
        C-40 A Combo cargo/passenger Airlift (4).............          330
        Civil Engineering Support Equipment, Tactical                   38
         Vehicles, Communications Equipment and other Table
         of Allowance items supporting.......................
            Naval Coastal Warfare (NCW) Units
            Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Units
            Naval Construction Forces (NCF)
            Navy Equipment Logistics Support Groups (ELSG)
        C-130, C-9, and C-40A upgrades and spare equipment...           69.7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   conclusion
        A4AD is a working group of military and veteran associations
    looking beyond personnel issues to the broader issues of National
    Defense.
        Cuts in manpower and force structure, simultaneously in the Active
    and Reserve Component are concerns in that it can have a detrimental
    effect on surge and operational capability.
        This testimony is an overview, and expanded data on information
    within this document can be provided upon request.
        Thank you for your ongoing support of the Nation, the Armed
    Services, and the fine young men and women who defend our country.
    Please contact us with any questions.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Dr. William Strickland,
    representing the American Psychological Association.
        Dr. Strickland.
    STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM J. STRICKLAND, Ph.D., VICE
                PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES RESEARCH
                ORGANIZATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
                PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
        Dr. Strickland. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Stevens. I'm Bill Strickland, Vice President of the Human
    Resources Research Organization. I'm testifying today on behalf
    of the American Psychological Association, or APA, a scientific
    and professional organization of more than 145,000
    psychologists and affiliates.
        For decades, psychologists have played vital roles within
    the Department of Defense, as providers of clinical services to
    military personnel and their families, and as scientific
    researchers, investigating issues ranging from airplane cockpit
    design, to human intelligence gathering.
        Psychologists today bring critical expertise to meeting the
    needs of our military and its personnel. In our written
    testimony, you will find APA's request to restore and increase
    funding for important training programs that impact deployed,
    and returning military personnel and their families.
        This morning, I will focus on APA's request that Congress
    reverse administration cuts to the DOD science and technology
    budget, and maintain support for important behavioral science
    research within DOD.
        The President's budget request for 2008 continues a
    familiar process. The administration slashes defense research
    programs, and it's left to the Congress to restore an
    investment in military mission-related research.
        As you've already heard, and know, the administration's
    fiscal year 2008 request includes deep cuts to the Defense S&T
    account, which would fall to $10.9 billion, a cut of over 20
    percent from the enacted fiscal year 2007 level. APA requests a
    total of $13.8 billion for S&T in fiscal year 2008, to return
    S&T funding just to its 2006 level.
        Behavioral research identified by the Defense Science Board
    (DSB) as critical will be cut unless funds are restricted to
    the overall S&T account. In its 2007 report on 21st century
    strategic technology vectors, the DSB identified a set of four
    operational capabilities, and the enabling technologies needed
    to accomplish future military missions. Of the four
    capabilities identified by the DSB for priority funding from
    DOD, the first was ``mapping the human terrain.''
        The DSB called for a significant reinvestment in social and
    behavioral research within DOD. In particular, the DSB called
    for increased DOD research in cognition and decision making,
    individual and team performance, behavioral, social and
    cultural modeling, and human system collaboration. These are
    areas that DOD cannot afford to ignore.
        Behavioral research traditionally has been supported by the
    Army Research Institute, the Office of Naval Research and the
    Air Force Research Laboratory. These military labs need
    sustained, basic, and applied research funding in 2008 to
    expand their reach further into effectively mapping the human
    terrain.
        Finally, APA is concerned with the potential loss of human-
    centered research programs within DOD's Counter-Intelligence
    Field Activity (CIFA). Within CIFA, the behavioral sciences
    directorate provides a home for research on counterintelligence
    issues ranging from models of insider threat, to cyber-security
    and detection of deception. CIFA psychologists consult with the
    military services to translate findings from behavioral
    research directly into enhanced, counterintelligence operations
    on the ground.
        APA urges the subcommittee to provide ongoing funding in
    2008 for CIFA's behavioral science directorate, and its
    research programs that provide direct support for military
    counterintelligence, and counterterrorism operations.
        On behalf of APA, I urge the subcommittee to support the
    men and women on the future front lines, by reversing yet
    another round of detrimental cuts to the Defense S&T account,
    and its human-oriented research projects.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Doctor. As you well
    know, this subcommittee was the first to recognize the validity
    and importance of psychologists.
        Dr. Strickland. Yes, sir, we appreciate that.
        Senator Inouye. And we listen to your words.
        Dr. Strickland. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of William J. Strickland, Ph.D.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I'm Dr. Bill
    Strickland, former Director of Human Resources Research for the Air
    Force and current Vice President of the Human Resources Research
    Organization. I am submitting testimony on behalf of the American
    Psychological Association (APA), a scientific and professional
    organization of more than 145,000 psychologists and affiliates.
        For decades, psychologists have played vital roles within the
    Department of Defense (DOD), as providers of clinical services to
    military personnel and their families, and as scientific researchers
    investigating mission-targeted issues ranging from airplane cockpit
    design to human intelligence-gathering. More than ever before,
    psychologists today bring unique and critical expertise to meeting the
    needs of our military and its personnel. APA's testimony will focus on:
    (1) increasing funding for the Center for Deployment Psychology (CDP);
    (2) reversing Administration cuts to the overall DOD Science and
    Technology (S&T) budget; and (3) maintaining support for important
    behavioral sciences research within DOD.
    Need for Mental and Behavioral Health Services in DOD
        Thousands of military personnel, including those returning from
    ongoing conflicts overseas, are struggling with mental health issues
    such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression and substance
    abuse. In a recent study released by Walter Reed Army Institute of
    Research (2006), one out of six soldiers and Marines who returned from
    Iraq screened positive for mental illnesses, a prevalence nearly twice
    that observed among soldiers surveyed before deployment. Returning
    Reservists and National Guardsmen may be even more likely than their
    military colleagues to have difficulty accessing established mental
    health services for geographic reasons. APA is concerned that these
    service members' (and their families') mental health needs may go
    unmet, or that they will seek care through civilian providers with
    limited or no experience in treating these populations.
    Center for Deployment Psychology
        Because of this concern, the Center for Deployment Psychology (CDP)
    was established in fiscal year 2006 as a new tri-service training
    consortium designed to better prepare psychologists to meet the mental
    and behavioral health needs of service members returning from combat
    and operational environments and their families. The Tri-Service CDP,
    housed at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, is
    the coordinating center for a network of military psychology internship
    training sites at ten regional DOD health facilities nationwide. CDP
    programs currently are open to both military and civilian
    psychologists, and eventually other health professionals will be
    included as well.
        Through a variety of training formats, ranging from a four-day
    Continuing Education program to a nearly three-week intensive training
    course, the CDP program trains military and civilian psychologists to
    better evaluate and treat combat-injured and combat-experienced service
    personnel.
        Initial funding for CDP in fiscal year 2006 was $3.4 million, which
    was cut to $2.9 million in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2008, APA
    requests $6 million to restore funding for the CDP program and expand
    its services. This vital expansion includes funds to: (1) continue the
    program of training activities currently supported by the CDP; (2)
    create mobile training teams to expand training for military and
    civilian psychologists, including Department of Veterans Affairs
    psychologists and other health providers; (3) initiate the use of
    teleconferences, online learning and web casts and increase web access
    for disseminating information much more widely to military personnel
    and their families; and (4) support research activities to expand our
    knowledge of the psychological and emotional impact of deployment and
    evaluate the impact of CDP programs.
    DOD Research
        Just as a large number of psychologists provide high-quality
    clinical services to our military service members stateside and abroad,
    psychological scientists within DOD conduct cutting-edge, mission-
    specific research critical to national defense.
        In terms of the overall DOD S&T budget, the President's request for
    fiscal year 2008 was the first step in a process that unfortunately has
    become very familiar over the last decade: the Administration slashes
    defense research programs and it is left to the Congress to restore
    funding and appropriately grow the investment in military mission
    research. In its fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Administration
    included large increases for weapons development but correspondingly
    deep cuts in the defense S&T account, which would fall to $10.9
    billion, a 20.1 percent or $2.7 billion decrease from the enacted
    fiscal year 2007 level. DOD basic research funding would see an 8.7
    percent cut, bringing it down to $1.4 billion in the President's
    request, and applied research support would be cut by 18 percent, for a
    total of $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. DARPA's budget would be
    decreased by 1 percent to $3.1 billion.
        The President's budget request for basic and applied research at
    DOD in fiscal year 2008 is $10.9 billion, a drastic 20.1 percent or
    $2.7 billion cut from the enacted fiscal year 2007 level. APA joins the
    Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR), a group of over 40
    scientific associations and universities, in urging the Subcommittee to
    reverse this cut. APA requests a total of $13.8 billion for Defense S&T
    in fiscal year 2008, to return S&T funding to its fiscal year 2006
    level. DOD behavioral research identified by the Defense Science Board
    as critical will be cut without restoring funds to the overall S&T
    account.
    Behavioral Research within the Military Service Labs and DOD
        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), with additional, smaller human
    systems research programs funded through the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and
    DOD's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA).
        The military service laboratories provide a stable, mission-
    oriented focus for science, conducting and sponsoring basic (6.1),
    applied/exploratory development (6.2) and advanced development (6.3)
    research. These three levels of research are roughly parallel to the
    military's need to win a current war (through products in advanced
    development) while concurrently preparing for the next war (with
    technology ``in the works'') and the war after next (by taking
    advantage of ideas emerging from basic research). All of the services
    fund human-related research in the broad categories of personnel,
    training and leader development; warfighter protection, sustainment and
    physical performance; and system interfaces and cognitive processing.
        Behavioral and cognitive research programs eliminated from the
    mission labs due to cuts or flat funding are extremely unlikely to be
    picked up by industry, which focuses on short-term, profit-driven
    product development. Once the expertise is gone, there is absolutely no
    way to ``catch up'' when defense mission needs for critical human-
    oriented research develop. As DOD noted in its own Report to the Senate
    Appropriations Committee:

        ``Military knowledge needs are not sufficiently like the needs of
    the private sector that retooling behavioral, cognitive and social
    science research carried out for other purposes can be expected to
    substitute for service-supported research, development, testing, and
    evaluation . . . our choice, therefore, is between paying for it
    ourselves and not having it.''
    Defense Science Board Calls for Priority Research in Social and
            Behavioral Sciences
        This emphasis on the importance of social and behavioral research
    within DOD is echoed by the Defense Science Board (DSB), an independent
    group of scientists and defense industry leaders whose charge is to
    advise the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff on scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition process, and
    other matters of special interest to the Department of Defense.
        In its recently-released 2007 report on ``21st Century Strategic
    Technology Vectors,'' the DSB identified a set of four operational
    capabilities and the ``enabling technologies'' needed to accomplish
    major future military missions (analogous to winning the Cold War in
    previous decades). In identifying these capabilities, DSB specifically
    noted that ``the report defined technology broadly, to include tools
    enabled by the social sciences as well as the physical and life
    sciences.'' Of the four priority capabilities and corresponding areas
    of research identified by the DSB for priority funding from DOD, the
    first was defined as ``mapping the human terrain.''
        The following quote from this report highlights the need for
    significant investment in social and behavioral science research within
    DOD to address this critical need for increased knowledge about the
    human elements of the battlespace:

        ``Unlike during the Cold War when the United States focused on one
    major, relatively slow-changing but individually formidable adversary,
    in the current era and the foreseeable future, U.S. military forces
    will be called upon to perform a wide range of missions. These include
    major combat, counter-insurgency, stability and reconstruction,
    countering weapons of mass destruction, homeland defense, and disaster
    relief. These varied missions present different challenges calling for
    highly adaptive military forces. One common feature of these missions
    is the increased responsibility placed on junior leaders and the small
    teams they lead . . .
        ``Perhaps most central is to gain deeper understanding of how
    individuals, groups, societies and nations behave and then use this
    information to (1) improve the performance of U.S. forces through
    continuous education and training and (2) shape behavior of others in
    pre-, intra- and post-conflict situations. Key enablers include
    immersive gaming environments, automated language processing and human,
    social, cultural and behavior modeling.'' DSB calls this ``mapping the
    human terrain,'' ``human terrain preparation,'' and says it's one of
    four ``critical capabilities and enabling technologies identified . . .
    [as] a coherent starting point for a science and technology strategy
    that will address 21st century security challenges.''

        In particular, DSB calls for increased DOD research in cognition
    and decision-making, individual and team performance, behavioral/
    social/cultural modeling, and human/system collaboration, saying: ``It
    is an area that DOD cannot afford to ignore. DOD needs to become more
    familiar with the theories, methods and models from psychology.'' These
    areas of behavioral research traditionally have been supported by the
    military research laboratories, which need more funding in fiscal year
    2008 to expand their reach even further into ``the human terrain.''
    Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI)
            and Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
        ARI works to build the ultimate smart weapon: the American soldier.
    ARI was established to conduct personnel and behavioral research on
    such topics as minority and general recruitment; personnel testing and
    evaluation; training and retraining; and attrition. ARI is the focal
    point and principal source of expertise for all the military services
    in leadership research, an area especially critical to the success of
    the military as future war-fighting and peace-keeping missions demand
    more rapid adaptation to changing conditions, more skill diversity in
    units, increased information-processing from multiple sources, and
    increased interaction with semi-autonomous systems. Behavioral
    scientists within ARI are working to help the armed forces better
    identify, nurture and train leaders.
        Another line of research at ARI focuses on optimizing cognitive
    readiness under combat conditions, by developing methods to predict and
    mitigate the effects of stressors (such as information load and
    uncertainty, workload, social isolation, fatigue, and danger) on
    performance. As the Army moves towards its goal of becoming the
    Objective Force (or the Army of the future: lighter, faster and more
    mobile), psychological researchers will play a vital role in helping
    maximize soldier performance through an understanding of cognitive,
    perceptual and social factors.
        ARL's Human Research & Engineering Directorate sponsors basic and
    applied research in the area of human factors, with the goal of
    optimizing soldiers' interactions with Army systems. Specific
    behavioral research projects focus on the development of intelligent
    decision aids, control/display/workstation design, simulation and human
    modeling, and human control of automated systems.
    Office of Naval Research (ONR)
        The Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division (CNS) of ONR supports
    research to increase the understanding of complex cognitive skills in
    humans; aid in the development and improvement of machine vision;
    improve human factors engineering in new technologies; and advance the
    design of robotics systems. An example of CNS-supported research is the
    division's long-term investment in artificial intelligence research.
    This research has led to many useful products, including software that
    enables the use of ``embedded training.'' Many of the Navy's
    operational tasks, such as recognizing and responding to threats,
    require complex interactions with sophisticated, computer-based
    systems. Embedded training allows shipboard personnel to develop and
    refine critical skills by practicing simulated exercises on their own
    workstations. Once developed, embedded training software can be loaded
    onto specified computer systems and delivered wherever and however it
    is needed.
    Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
        Within AFRL, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)
    behavioral scientists are responsible for basic research on manpower,
    personnel, training and crew technology. The AFRL Human Effectiveness
    Directorate is responsible for more applied research relevant to an
    enormous number of acknowledged Air Force mission needs ranging from
    weapons design, to improvements in simulator technology, to improving
    crew survivability in combat, to faster, more powerful and less
    expensive training regimens.
        As a result of previous cuts to the Air Force behavioral research
    budget, the world's premier organization devoted to personnel selection
    and classification (formerly housed at Brooks Air Force Base) no longer
    exists. This has a direct, negative impact on the Air Force's and other
    services' ability to efficiently identify and assign personnel
    (especially pilots). Similarly, reductions in support for applied
    research in human factors have resulted in an inability to fully
    enhance human factors modeling capabilities, which are essential for
    determining human-system requirements early in system concept
    development, when the most impact can be made in terms of manpower and
    cost savings. For example, although engineers know how to build cockpit
    display systems and night goggles so that they are structurally sound,
    psychologists know how to design them so that people can use them
    safely and effectively.
    Maintaining Behavioral Research During CIFA Reorganization
        APA also is concerned with the potential loss of invaluable human-
    centered research programs within DOD's Counterintelligence Field
    Activity (CIFA) due to a current reorganization of CIFA's structure and
    personnel strength. Within CIFA, the Behavioral Sciences Directorate
    provides a home for research on counterintelligence issues ranging from
    models of ``insider threat'' to cybersecurity and detection of
    deception. The psychologists also consult with the three military
    services to translate findings from behavioral research directly into
    enhanced counterintelligence operations on the ground.
        APA urges the Subcommittee to provide ongoing funding in fiscal
    year 2008 for CIFA's Behavioral Sciences Directorate and its research
    programs in light of their direct support for military intelligence
    operations.
    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 modeling
    behavior of individuals and groups, understanding and optimizing
    cognitive functioning, perceptual awareness, complex decision-making,
    stress resilience, recruitment and retention, and human-systems
    interactions. We urge you to support the men and women on the front
    lines by reversing another round of dramatic, detrimental cuts to the
    overall defense S&T account and the human-oriented research projects
    within the military laboratories and CIFA. We also urge you to support
    military personnel and their families even more directly by restoring
    and increasing funds for the Center for Deployment Psychology.
        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.
        As noted by the DSB in its report on defense research priorities,
    the ``focus is technology. But the human dimensions still dominate,
    especially in the irregular challenges facing the nation today.''
        Below is suggested appropriations report language for fiscal year
    2008 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 Inouye. Our next witness is Ms. Fran Visco,
    President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition.
    STATEMENT OF FRAN VISCO, J.D., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
                BREAST CANCER COALITION
        Ms. Visco. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens.
        As you know, I'm a 19-year breast cancer survivor, a wife
    and mother, and President of the National Breast Cancer
    Coalition, which is a coalition of more than 600 organizations
    from across the country, and tens of thousands of individuals.
    And, on behalf of our membership, I want to thank you for your
    continuing support of the DOD peer-reviewed breast cancer
    research program. You have both been leaders in maintaining the
    integrity of this program, and making it the success it is
    today.
        However, we still do not have the answers we need for
    breast cancer. We have made progress, but we do not have
    answers. And nothing shows us that more than the fact that last
    week, the Vice President of the Board of the National Breast
    Cancer Coalition was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer
    after 16 years from her initial diagnosis. We do not know how
    to cure this disease, and we certainly don't know how to
    prevent it.
        Karen Loss, a woman who sits on the panel that oversees the
    DOD Program, and also a volunteer for our organization, and a
    retired military woman, living with metastatic disease, and
    becoming more ill as the days go by.
        This program is where the answers lie. Women and their
    families across the country believe that. This is where our
    hope is. This program has been astounding. The collaboration
    that has resulted among the military, the scientific community
    and the patient advocacy community across the country is
    unprecedented. I have been told over and over again by members
    of the military that the model that this program sets has been
    copied by the military in other areas. This model that the DOD
    Breast Cancer Program has set has also been copied by other
    States, and by other countries.
        The program has been objectively evaluated twice by the
    National Academy of Sciences and both times they have lauded
    the program, not just for its successes, but for the way it
    operates. This program is transparent--everything that is
    funded with taxpayer dollars is open to the country--you can go
    onto the website and see every proposal that has been funded.
    And every 2 years, the program reports to the public where
    their tax dollars have gone, and what the progress is in the
    research that we funded.
        This program is efficient--90 percent of the funds go to
    research. The administrative costs are not quite 10 percent. It
    fills gaps in traditional research mechanisms, this is the
    program that can respond very quickly to what's happening in
    the scientific world--looking at areas of nanotechnology,
    looking at not just how to treat metastatic breast cancer, but
    also what causes metastatic breast cancer. Looking at possible
    vaccines to prevent and treat breast cancer--how do we prevent
    breast cancer without drugs? Looking at issues of health
    disparities.
        This program must continue, and we truly appreciate your
    leadership in making that happen over the past years. Again,
    this is where our hope is, and we look forward to continuing to
    work with you, to make certain the program maintains its
    integrity, efficiency and success.
        I thank you very much.
        Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Ms. Visco. I'm
    certain very few people are aware that the father of the Breast
    Cancer Research Program in the Department of Defense is Senator
    Stevens.
        Ms. Visco. We are certainly aware of that.
        Senator Inouye. It really had to be in some other
    subcommittee, but we decided we have the money, so we'll fund
    you.
        Ms. Visco. Yes, we really, we truly appreciate it, and it
    has made such a difference, not just in breast cancer, but in
    other diseases as well.
        Senator Inouye. And I lost my wife of 57 years about 1 year
    ago and, of cancer, so I take it personally now.
        Ms. Visco. I'm very sorry. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. So you're a--got support here.
        Senator Stevens. And, I'm an 18-year survivor of prostate
    cancer, so far, but I should tell you, you know, that the
    difficulty is, these are earmarks. Every time you hear someone
    talking against congressional earmarks, ask them if they know
    about breast cancer.
        Ms. Visco. Yes, we have that conversation over and over
    again----
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        Ms. Visco. And this, as you know, is an incredibly well-
    run, efficient, competitive program. So, we appreciate your
    support of that. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Fran Visco, J.D.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Defense, for the opportunity to talk to you about a
    program that has made a significant difference in the lives of women
    and their families. You have shown great determination and leadership
    in funding the Department of Defense (DOD) Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer
    Research Program (BCRP) at a level that has brought us closer to
    eradicating this disease. Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens,
    we have appreciated your personal support of this program in the past.
    I am hopeful that you and your Committee will continue that
    determination and leadership.
        I am Fran Visco, a breast cancer survivor, a wife and mother, a
    lawyer, and President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC).
    On behalf of NBCC, and the more than 3 million women living with breast
    cancer, I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
        I know you recognize the importance of this program to women and
    their families across the country, to the scientific and health care
    communities and to the Department of Defense. Much of the progress in
    the fight against breast cancer has been made possible by the
    Appropriations Committee's investment in breast cancer research through
    the DOD BCRP. This program has launched new models of biomedical
    research that have benefited other agencies and both public and private
    institutions. It has changed for the better the way research is
    performed and has been replicated by programs focused on other
    diseases, by other countries and states. To support this unprecedented
    progress moving forward, we ask that you support a separate $150
    million appropriation for fiscal year 2008. In order to continue the
    success of the program, you must ensure that it maintain its integrity
    and separate identity, in addition to the requested level of funding.
    This is important not just for breast cancer, but for all biomedical
    research that has benefited from this incredible government program. In
    addition, as Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports concluded in 1997 and
    2004, there continues to be excellent science that would go unfunded
    without this program. It is only through a separate appropriation that
    this program is able to continue to focus on breast cancer yet impact
    all other research, rapidly respond to changes and new discoveries in
    the field and fill the gaps created by traditional funding mechanisms.
        Despite the enormous successes and advancements in breast cancer
    research made through funding from the DOD BCRP, we still do not know
    what causes breast cancer, how to prevent it, or how to cure it. It is
    critical that innovative research through this unique program continues
    so that we can move forward toward eradicating this disease.
        As you know, the National Breast Cancer Coalition is a grassroots
    advocacy organization made up of hundreds of organizations and tens of
    thousands of individuals and has been working since 1991 toward the
    eradication of breast cancer through advocacy and action. NBCC supports
    increased funding for breast cancer research, increased access to
    quality health care for all, and increased influence of breast cancer
    activists at every table where decisions regarding breast cancer are
    made.
               overview of the dod breast cancer research program
        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 little
    bureaucracy, the program is able to respond quickly to what is
    currently happening in the scientific community. Because of its
    specific focus on breast cancer, it is able to rapidly support
    innovative proposals that reflect the most recent discoveries in the
    field. It is responsive, not just to the scientific community, but also
    to the public.
        Since its inception, this program has matured into a broad-reaching
    influential voice forging new and innovative directions for breast
    cancer research and science. The flexibility of the program has allowed
    the Army to administer this groundbreaking research effort with
    unparalleled efficiency and effectiveness.
        In addition, an integral part of this program has been the
    inclusion of consumer advocates at every level. As a result, the
    program has created an unprecedented working relationship between the
    public, scientists and the military, and ultimately has led to new
    avenues of research in breast cancer. Since 1992, over 977 breast
    cancer survivors have served on the BCRP review panels. Their vital
    role in the success of the BCRP has led to consumer inclusion in other
    biomedical research programs at DOD. This program now serves as an
    international model.
        It is important to note that the DOD Integration Panel that designs
    this program has a strategic plan for 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 ensures that we do not want to restrict
    scientific freedom, creativity or innovation. While we carefully
    allocate these resources, we do not want to predetermine the specific
    research areas to be addressed.
                          unique funding opportunities
        Developments in the past few years have begun to offer breast
    cancer researchers fascinating insights into the 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 Concept Awards bring funding even earlier in the process
    of discovery. These 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 and Concept grants are uniquely
    designed to dramatically advance our knowledge in areas that offer the
    greatest potential. IDEA and Concept grants are precisely the type of
    grants that rarely receive funding through more traditional programs
    such as the National Institutes of Health and private research
    programs. Therefore, they complement, and do not duplicate, other
    federal funding programs. This is true of other DOD award mechanisms as
    well.
        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 Award 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.
        These are just a few examples of innovative approaches at the DOD
    BCRP that are filling gaps in breast cancer research. Scientists have
    lauded the program and the importance of the various award mechanisms.
    In 2005, Zelton Dave Sharp wrote about the importance of the Concept
    award mechanism.

        ``Our Concept grant has enabled us to obtain necessary data to
    recently apply for a larger grant to support this project. We could
    have never gotten to this stage without the Concept award. Our eventual
    goal is to use the technology we are developing to identify new
    compounds that will be effective in preventing and/or treating breast
    cancer . . . Equally important, however, the DOD BCRP does an
    outstanding job of supporting graduate student trainees in breast
    cancer research, through training grants and pre-doctoral fellowships .
    . . The young people supported by these awards are the lifeblood of
    science, and since they are starting their training on projects
    relevant to breast cancer, there is a high probability they will devote
    their entire careers to finding a cure. These young scientists are by
    far the most important `products' that the DOD BCRP produces.''    --
    Zelton Dave Sharp, Associate Professor, Interim Director/Chairman,
    Institute of Biotechnology/Dept. Molecular Medicine, University of
    Texas Health Science Center (August 2005)

        Indeed, in April of 1999, John Niederhuber, now the Director of the
    National Cancer Institute (NCI), said the following about the program
    when he was Director of the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive
    Cancer Center:

        ``Research projects at our institution funded by the Department of
    Defense are searching for new knowledge in many different fields
    including: identification of risk factors, investigating new therapies
    and their mechanism of action, developing new imaging techniques and
    the development of new models to study [breast cancer] . . . Continued
    availability of this money is critical for continued progress in the
    nation's battle against this deadly disease.''

        Scientists and consumers agree that it is vital that these grants
    are able to continue to support breast cancer research--$150 million
    for peer-reviewed research will help sustain the program's momentum.
        Moreover, the DOD BCRP 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 award mechanism brings together the
    world's most highly qualified individuals and institutions to address a
    major overarching question in breast cancer research that could make a
    major contribution towards the eradication of breast cancer. These
    Centers put to work the expertise of basic, epidemiology and clinical
    researchers, as well as consumer advocates to focus on a major question
    in breast cancer research. Many of these centers are working on
    questions that will translate into direct clinical applications.
                            scientific achievements
        The BCRP research portfolio is comprised of many different types of
    projects, including support for innovative ideas, networks to
    facilitate clinical trials, and training of 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 innovation in the program is in the area of
    imaging. One DOD BCRP awardee developed a new use for medical
    hyperspectral imaging (MHSI) technology. This work demonstrated the
    usefulness of MHSI as a rapid, noninvasive, and cost-effective
    evaluation of normal and tumor tissue during a real-time operating
    procedure. Application of MHSI to surgical procedures has the potential
    to significantly reduce local recurrence of breast tumors and may
    facilitate early determination of tumor malignancy.
        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.
                            federal money well spent
        The DOD BCRP is as efficient as it is innovative. In fact, 90
    percent of funds go directly to research grants. The flexibility of the
    program allows the Army to administer it in such a way as to maximize
    its limited resources. The program is able to quickly respond to
    current scientific advances and fulfills an important niche by focusing
    on research that is traditionally under-funded. This was confirmed and
    reiterated in two separate IOM reports released in 1997 and 2004. It is
    responsive to the scientific community and to the public. This is
    evidenced by the inclusion of consumer advocates at both the peer and
    programmatic review levels. The consumer perspective helps the
    scientists understand how the research will affect the community, and
    allows for funding decisions based on the concerns and needs of
    patients and the medical community.
        Since 1992, the BCRP has been responsible for managing $1.94
    billion in appropriations. From its inception through fiscal year 2005,
    4,674 awards at over 420 institutions throughout the United States and
    the District of Columbia have been granted. Approximately 200 awards
    will be granted for fiscal year 2006. 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
    9,500 publications in scientific journals, more than 10,000 abstracts
    and more than 350 patents/licensure applications. The federal
    government can truly be proud of its investment in the DOD BCRP.
                   independent assessments of program success
        The National Breast Cancer Coalition has been the driving force
    behind this program for many years. The success of the DOD Peer-
    Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has been illustrated by several
    unique assessments of the program. The IOM, which originally
    recommended the structure for the program, independently re-examined
    the program in a report published in 1997. They published another
    report on the program in 2004. Their findings overwhelmingly encouraged
    the continuation of the program and offered guidance for program
    implementation improvements.
        The 1997 IOM review of the DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research
    Program commended the program, stating, ``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 and reiterates its own commitment to the
    program by appropriating the funding needed to ensure its success. The
    program's design--both its programmatic and peer review, as well as
    consumer involvement--and the program's successes have been applauded
    in several publications throughout the years, including: Breast
    Disease; Science; and the Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based
    Medicine.
                   transparent and accountable to the public
        The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program not only
    provides a funding mechanism for high-risk, high-return research, but
    also reports the results of this research to the American people at a
    biennial public meeting called the Era of Hope. The 1997 meeting was
    the first time a federally funded program reported back to the public
    in detail not only on the funds used, but also on the research
    undertaken, the knowledge gained from that research and future
    directions to be pursued. The transparency of the BCRP allows
    scientists, consumers and the American public to see the exceptional
    progress made in breast cancer research.
        At the 2005 Era of Hope meeting, all BCRP award recipients from the
    past two years were invited to report their research findings, and many
    awardees from previous years were asked to present advancements in
    their research. Themes for the 2005 meeting included: Understanding
    Risk--A Different Perspective; Understanding Who Needs Intervention and
    Understanding Treatments--Effectively Treating Primary and Metastatic
    Disease. The meeting also featured grant recipients who have delved
    into the topic of breast cancer heterogeneity. For example, gene
    expression profiling technologies have allowed researchers to identify
    several breast cancer ``types.'' Recognition of the heterogeneous
    character of breast cancer will allow for better selection of patient
    subgroups for clinical trials testing targeted therapies. Other
    researchers presented their research on many important topics ranging
    from the usage of nanotechnology to find and treat breast cancer to
    identifying and destroying progenitor breast cancer cells to developing
    better clinical trials that still ensure patient safety and make sure
    that treatments are safe.
        The DOD Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has attracted
    scientists across a broad spectrum of disciplines, launched new
    mechanisms for research and has continued to facilitate new thinking in
    breast cancer research and research in general. A report on all
    research that has been funded through the DOD BCRP is available to the
    public. Individuals can go to the Department of Defense website and
    look at the abstracts for each proposal at http://cdmrp.army.mil/
    bcrp/.
               commitment of the national breast cancer coalition
        The National Breast Cancer Coalition is strongly committed to the
    DOD program in every aspect, as we truly believe it is one of our best
    chances for finding cures and preventions for breast cancer. The
    Coalition and its members are dedicated to working with you to ensure
    the continuation of funding for this program at a level that allows
    this research to forge ahead. From 1992 with the launch of our ``300
    Million More Campaign'' that formed the basis of this program to date,
    NBCC activists have appreciated your support.
        Over the years, our members have shown their continuing support for
    this program through petition campaigns, collecting more than 2.6
    million signatures, and through their advocacy on an almost daily basis
    around the country asking for support of the DOD BCRP.
        As you know, there are three million women living with breast
    cancer in this country today. This year more than 40,460 will die of
    the disease and nearly 240,510 will be diagnosed. We still do not know
    how to prevent breast cancer, how to diagnose it truly early or how to
    cure it. While the mortality rate seems to be decreasing, it is not by
    much and it is not for all groups of women. It is an incredibly complex
    disease. We simply cannot afford to walk away from these facts, we
    cannot go back to the traditional, tried and not so true ways of
    dealing with breast cancer. We must, we simply must, continue the
    innovative, rapid, hopeful approach that is the DOD BCRP.
        Two weeks ago many of the women and family members who supported
    the campaign to gather the 2.6 million signatures came to NBCCF's
    Annual Advocacy Training Conference here in Washington, D.C. More than
    600 breast cancer activists from across the country, representing
    groups in their communities and speaking on behalf of tens of thousands
    of others, were here as part of our efforts to end breast cancer. The
    overwhelming interest in and dedication to eradicating this disease
    continues to be evident as people not only are signing petitions, but
    are willing to come to Washington, D.C. from across the country to tell
    their members of Congress about the vital importance of continuing the
    DOD BCRP.
        Since the very beginning of this program in 1992, Congress has
    stood with us in support of this important investment in the fight
    against breast cancer. In the years since, Chairman Inouye and Ranking
    Member Stevens, you and this entire Committee have been leaders in the
    effort to continue this innovative investment in breast cancer
    research.
        NBCC asks you, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to
    recognize the importance of what 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 the
    program at $150 million and maintain its integrity. This is research
    that will help us win this very real and devastating war against a
    cruel enemy.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony and for
    giving hope to all women and their families, and especially to the 3
    million women in the United States living with breast cancer.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Dr. Joan Lappe, of
    Creighton University, on behalf of the National Coalition for
    Osteoporosis and Related Bone Disease.
    STATEMENT OF DR. JOAN LAPPE, Ph.D., CLINICAL SCIENTIST,
                OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH CENTER, CREIGHTON
                UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
                COALITION FOR OSTEOPOROSIS AND RELATED BONE
                DISEASES
        Dr. Lappe. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens. We greatly
    appreciate the opportunity to discuss the need for continued
    funding of the Department of Defense Bone Health and Military
    Readiness Program, I'll refer to that as the Bone Health
    Program.
        The Bone Coalition, the Coalition for Osteoporosis and
    Related Bone Diseases, is committed to reducing the impact of
    bone diseases through expanded research.
        The mission of the Department of Defense Bone Health
    Program is to advance bone physiology research that can lead to
    strategies to improve bone health, reduce stress fractures
    during physically intensive training, and have our military
    personnel ready for combat deployment.
        An effort currently underway is targeting the elimination
    of stress fractures, which cause significant morbidity and can
    even lead to permanent disability, particularly the hip
    fractures that can occur in these young recruits.
        Stress fractures are among the most common injuries in
    military recruits. The incidents range from about 5 percent in
    males, to as high as 21 percent in female recruits. The recent
    increase in military recruitment has led to an upsurge in the
    total number of stress fractures reported.
        An additional concern is that soldiers who are returning
    from lengthy deployments are sustaining stress fractures in
    unprecedented numbers.
        The impact of stress fractures on the military is
    significant. In the U.S. Army, 40 percent of men, and 60
    percent of women who sustain a stress fracture, do not complete
    their basic training. At one U.S. Army training base alone, an
    estimated $26 million was lost for soldiers discharged from
    training before, during a 1-year period. Now, the cost averages
    more than $34,000 per soldier discharged, and that does not
    include the cost of healthcare.
        Research funded by the Bone Health Program has already been
    very productive. For example, research-based recommendations to
    decrease the training, marching, and running volume has led to
    a decrease in stress fracture incidents. In the first study of
    its kind, our research group found that vitamin D and calcium
    supplementation reduced the incidents of stress fractures in
    young females by 25 percent. There are examples of studies that
    are currently in progress, include--there's a study to
    establish sort of a risk factor profile, so that you could
    target individuals who are going to be at high risk. Also,
    we're exploring gender differences in the response to active
    training.
        We need further research that includes better description
    of relationships between stress fractures and the gaits of the
    recruit, their carriage patterns, their biomechanics, how they
    fall on their legs. We need studies to improve bone quality in
    those high-risk interventions, and we want to take a look at
    pre-basic training exercise programs, more dietary
    supplementation, and also a new technology called ``whole body
    vibration.''
        We also need to determine the efficacy of different
    treatments that could increase healing of stress fractures.
    Some things that are being considered are parathyroid hormone,
    ultrasound, and again, whole body vibration.
        Though small in size, the Bone Health Program is providing
    the military with realistic solutions that protect, sustain and
    enhance soldier performance, and skeletal health across a
    continuum of military operations.
        Mr. Chairman, and Senator Stevens, stress fractures
    continue to be a critical obstacle to military readiness, and
    timely deployment. It's imperative that the Department of
    Defense build on recent findings, and maintain an aggressive
    and sustained Bone Health Program.
        The Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Diseases is
    asking that you fund this for $5 million in 2008.
        Thank you for your time and attention.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Dr. Lappe.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Dr. Joan Lappe
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Joan Lappe, Ph.D.,
    a clinical scientist at the Creighton University Osteoporosis Research
    Center in Omaha, NE and I am testifying on behalf of the National
    Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases (the Bone
    Coalition).
        The Bone Coalition is most appreciative of this opportunity to
    discuss with you the need for continued funding of the Bone Health and
    Military Medical Readiness program within the Department of Defense.
        The Bone Coalition is committed to reducing the impact of bone
    diseases through expanded basic, clinical, epidemiological and
    behavioral research leading to improvement in patient care. The
    Coalition participants are prominent national bone disease
    organizations--the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the
    National Osteoporosis Foundation, the Osteogenesis Imperfecta
    Foundation, and The Paget Foundation for Paget's Disease of Bone and
    Related Disorders.
        The mission of the Bone Health and Military Medical Readiness
    program is to advance bone physiology research that may lead to
    strategies to improve bone health of men and women, reduce stress
    fracture rates during physically intensive training, and have our
    military personnel ready for combat deployment.
        An effort currently underway is targeting the elimination of stress
    fractures. A stress fracture is an overuse injury. It occurs when bones
    are repetitively loaded over short periods without sufficient time for
    adaptation and repair. It is seen most often among persons who are
    involved in physical activity to which they are not adapted. The first
    injury, as well as re-injury, can lead to chronic problems. In
    addition, some of these stress fractures, particularly of the hip, lead
    to permanent disability.
        Stress fractures are among the most common overuse injuries seen in
    military recruits. The incidence in males ranges from 0.2-5.2 percent.
    The incidence in females is higher, ranging from 1.6-21.0 percent.
        The recent increase in military recruitment has led to an upsurge
    in the total number of stress fracture cases reported. An additional
    concern is the increased number of documented stress fracture injuries
    over the last two years in soldiers who have recently returned from
    lengthy deployment. Anecdotal reports from troop medical clinics
    indicate that these soldiers are sustaining stress fractures in
    unprecedented numbers.
        The impact of stress fractures is significant. Recent data obtained
    from the Bone Health and Military Medical Readiness (BHMMR) program
    indicate that:
      --In the U.S. Army, 40 percent of men and 60 percent of women
            trainees with stress fracture do not complete basic training.
      --At one U.S. Army training base alone, an estimated $26 million was
            lost in training costs for the 749 soldiers discharged from
            training over a one year period.
      --This is more than $34,000 per soldier and does not include costs
            related to health care.
        The Department of Defense recognized the severity and magnitude of
    stress fractures within its population and commissioned the Institute
    of Medicine (IOM) to examine the incidence of stress fractures in
    military basic training. In particular, the IOM was asked to address
    why the incidence of stress fractures in military basic training was
    greater for women than men. IOM's findings were published in 1998 and
    concluded that the prevalence of stress fracture has a marked impact on
    the health of service personnel, imposing a significant financial
    burden on the military by delaying completion of the training of new
    recruits. It further concluded that the low initial fitness of
    recruits, both cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal, appeared to be
    the principal factor in the development of stress fractures during
    basic training.
        Stress fractures and other bone related injuries erode the physical
    capabilities and reduce the effectiveness of our combat training units,
    compromising military readiness. Research conducted by the Bone Health
    and Military Medical Readiness program is highly focused on research
    areas that are a direct result of the physical demands that our service
    members are required to undergo in training and deployment.
    Research Results
        To date, the results of research funded under the Bone Health and
    Military Medical Readiness program have led, for example, to
    recommendations to reduce running and marching volume during recruit
    training. The changes to basic combat training, implemented by the
    Physical Fitness School and the Center for Health Promotion and
    Preventive Medicine and input from the U.S. Army Research Institute of
    Environmental Medicine and the BHMMR program, have led to a decline in
    stress fracture incidence.
        In addition, studies have revealed an association between bone size
    and observed gender differences in stress fracture incidence. Lower
    bone/muscle ratio of the calf was associated with increased stress
    fracture risk in women. Biomechanical factors may also contribute to
    stress fracture incidence, and might be corrected through gait
    retraining. Studies using new imaging technology indicate that exercise
    may result in changes in bone strength through changes in geometry.
        In the first of a kind study, Vitamin D and calcium supplementation
    in new Navy recruits was found to decrease stress fracture incidence by
    25 percent.
        With a sufficient funding level, the Bone Health program can build
    on these results and research efforts currently underway.
    Studies Currently in Progress
        Utilization of data from all relevant BHMMR and Defense Women's
    Health Initiative studies to establish a risk factor profile for stress
    fracture injury. This model will be used to identify individuals at
    risk for stress fracture. Science-based, targeted intervention programs
    can then be implemented in an effort to prevent stress fracture injury
    in these susceptible recruits.
        Exploration of gender differences in the physiological response to
    strenuous exercise during strenuous training programs in a military
    population, with an emphasis on prevention of stress fracture injury.
        The study of bone health is not a simple task, as bone health
    requires a complex interaction between exercise and other factors that
    affect bone remodeling, such as nutrition, hormonal status, genetics,
    and biomechanics. Currently, there is a distinct gap in understanding
    risk factors for stress fracture, interventions to improve bone
    quality, advances in imaging technologies and interventions to speed
    bone healing.
    Future Research Needs
        Risk Factors for Stress Fractures.--Research that relates stress
    fracture injury with: quantifiable training regimens; bone geometry and
    density; load carriage; gait patterns (march cadence, running, etc);
    tibial biomechanics. Validation studies in a recruit population are
    also indicated prior to use and implementation of the model in an
    active-duty population.
        Interventions to Improve Bone Quality.--Gender studies are of
    special interest, given the persistent gender differences that have
    been observed in studies. Laboratory based intervention studies,
    followed by large-scale interventions in a military population are
    necessary to test the effectiveness of proposed interventions in
    decreasing stress fracture injury. Indicated interventions for
    individuals susceptible to injury include, but are not limited to
    modified load carriage requirements; gait and march formation
    modifications; gait retraining; pre-basic training exercise programs;
    dietary supplementation; and whole-body vibration.
        Interventions to Speed Bone Healing.--Determine the efficacy of
    interventions such as therapeutic modalities (i.e. ultrasound),
    pharmacological treatments (i.e. PTH, IGF), and mechanical loading
    (i.e. targeted exercise, whole body vibration) to accelerate stress
    fracture healing and return to duty in injured recruits.
        These studies, along with other DOD studies in progress, will
    determine the most cost-effective approach to diagnosis and treatment
    of stress fracture. An improved understanding of these injuries will
    also form the basis of potential preventive measures.
    Recommendation
        Though small in size, the Bone Health and Military Medical
    Readiness program is providing the military with realistic solutions
    that protect, sustain and enhance soldier performance and health across
    the continuum of military operations and training.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, stress fractures
    continue to be a critical obstacle to military readiness and time
    deployment. Therefore it is imperative that the Department of Defense
    build on recent findings and maintain an aggressive and sustained Bone
    Health and Military Medical Readiness program. The National Coalition
    for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases urges you to fund this
    program at a level of $5 million in fiscal year 2008.
        We appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Ms. Kathleen Moakler,
    Director of Government Relations, National Military Family
    Association.
        Welcome, Ms. Moakler.
    STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN MOAKLER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
                RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY
                ASSOCIATION
        Ms. Moakler. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens.
    Thank you for inviting the National Military Family Association
    (NMFA) to come today, and tell you of the concerns of military
    families, and the issues that affect their quality of life.
        Today's military families are required to be in a constant
    state of readiness. With the increased number of deployments,
    and the extension of some deployments, families need
    coordinated programs, and a support system that creates a
    strong foundation for family readiness.
        Families are in different stages with each deployment. The
    support they receive must adapt to those stages. The
    professional staff and volunteers who care for these families
    require proper training, and must be equipped to sustain the
    support.
        DOD and service programs like Military One Source, and
    Military Family Life Counselors that have proven successful in
    supporting families, need to be properly resourced. Innovative
    new programs dealing with the unique needs of individual
    augmentees are helping young people cope with deployment, or
    are addressing reintegration, like the Army's Battle Mind
    Program, need to be funded.
        Families tell NMFA that shortfalls in installation
    operations funding make the challenges of military life more
    difficult. NMFA asks this subcommittee to ensure critical base
    operations programs are adequately funded for the service
    members and families who depend on them. Child care is always a
    top concern. Innovative programs are needed to match the round
    the clock work hours of service members, whose op tempo at home
    makes them almost deployed in place.
        Respite care for the suddenly single parent, whose spouse
    is deployed, is an urgent need as well. We urge this
    subcommittee to make sure that the resources for providing
    child care are funded to meet the requirements of military
    families.
        NMFA encourages this subcommittee to increase the DOD
    supplement to impact aid to $50 million, to help districts meet
    the additional demands caused by the effects of base
    realignment and closure (BRAC), and global rebasing. We ask
    that all school districts experiencing a significant growth in
    their military student populations, be eligible for the
    additional funding currently available only to districts with
    an enrollment of at least 20 percent military children. Some
    districts will be receiving military children for the first
    time, yet their need is still great.
        As the war continues, families' need for a full spectrum of
    mental health services continues to grow. While the need grows,
    TRICARE reimbursement rates for mental healthcare providers
    have been cut in some regions. Sufficient funding to provide
    for the ongoing mental health needs of service members and
    their families should be considered.
        We ask this subcommittee to fund research into the
    emotional, educational, and employment-related challenges
    affecting military families. Research funding is also needed to
    assess the long-term effects of post traumatic stress disorder
    (PTSD), and traumatic brain injury, the signature wound of this
    war.
        NMFA thanks this subcommittee for its continued funding for
    a robust, military healthcare system. This healthcare system,
    which showed signs of stress before the start of the global war
    on terrorism, is now significantly taxed. Military treatment
    facilities must be funded, to ensure that their facilities are
    optimized to provide high-quality, coordinated care that is
    easily accessed by military beneficiaries, including wounded
    service members and their families.
        Some military families are being asked to move to
    installations that are incapable of providing critical support
    and services to them. Funding is necessary to provide the
    support for gating installations. As we have seen with recent
    news reports about Walter Reed, anticipation of closure can
    impact facilities and services at the closing installation, as
    well.
        NMFA urges Congress to fully fund the joint venture between
    Walter Reed, Bethesda, and Fort Belvoir to keep it on schedule.
    Authorized BRAC and rebasing construction, and quality of life
    initiatives must be fully funded, and on the promised
    timetable.
        Military family support and quality of life facilities and
    programs require dedicated funding, not emergency funding.
    Military families are being asked to sustain their readiness.
    The least their country can do is make sure their support
    structure is consistently sustained, as well.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        Senator Inouye. Your program is absolutely essential if we
    are to successfully recruit and retain qualified personnel. We
    thank you very much.
        Ms. Moakler. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Kathleen Moakler
        The National Military Family Association (NMFA) is the only
    national organization whose sole focus is the military family. The
    Association's goal is to influence the development and implementation
    of policies that 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 National Military Wives Association, NMFA is
    a non-profit 501(c)(3) primarily volunteer organization. NMFA
    represents the interests of family members and survivors of active
    duty, reserve component, 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 does not have or receive federal grants or contracts.
        NMFA's website is: 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 today on the quality of life of
    military families. Once again, we thank you for your focus on the many
    elements of the quality of life package for service members and their
    families: access to quality health care, robust military pay and
    benefits, support for families dealing with deployment, and special
    care for the families of those who have made the greatest sacrifice.
        In this statement, NMFA will address issues related to military
    families in the following areas:
    Family Readiness
        Today's military families are required to be in a constant state of
    readiness. They are either preparing for deployment, experiencing a
    deployment, or recovering from a deployment for a short time until it
    is time to prepare for another one. Family readiness calls for
    coordinated programs and the information delivery system necessary to
    create a strong foundation of family preparedness for the ongoing and
    unexpected challenges of military family life. Those who provide the
    support, both professional and volunteer, should be well-trained.
    Consistent services should be available: adequate child care, easy
    access to preventative mental health counseling as well as therapeutic
    mental health care, employment assistance for spouses, and youth
    programs that assist parents in addressing the concerns of children
    during deployment and separation.
        The Nation has an obligation to support the quality of life for
    service members and their families not only because it is the right
    thing to do, but also because strong quality of life programs aid in
    the retention of a quality force. At a recent hearing, Master Chief
    Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON) Joe R. Campa, Jr. summed up the
    importance of caring for families: ``Quality of life does affect
    retention and it impacts recruiting. Young Americans deciding whether
    the Navy is right for them look at quality of life initiatives as
    indicators of the Navy's commitment to sailors and their families. Our
    goal is to leave no family unaccounted for or unsupported. Our vision
    of today's Navy family is one who is self-reliant yet well connected to
    our Navy community and support programs.''
                Ensuring Robust Family Programs and Installation Operations
                        Support
        In this sixth year of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), as many
    service members and families are experiencing their second or third
    deployments, family readiness is more imperative than ever. The needs
    of and support required for the family experiencing repeated
    deployments are often different from those of the first deployment. The
    family that was childless in the first deployment may have two toddlers
    by now. Middle schoolers have grown into teenagers with different
    needs. Parents age and the requirements of the ``sandwich generation''
    grow. Commanders cannot assume that ``experienced'' families have the
    tools they need to weather each new deployment successfully. The end
    strength increases in the Army and Marine Corps will bring many new
    families needing to learn the basics of military life and family
    support while experiencing their first deployments.
        Recently, top military family program leaders from across the
    Services gathered at the Family Readiness Summit convened by Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs Thomas Hall to answer tough
    questions on how to work better together. While focusing on the reserve
    component, delegates agreed that communication across the Services and
    components is key to bringing families the best support possible.
    Effective use of technology and partnering with community agencies were
    listed as best practices, along with Military OneSource and the use of
    volunteers. Challenges identified included the need for consistent
    funding for family programs and full-time support personnel to help
    avoid burnout for the full-time staff and volunteers. Some participants
    expressed concern that current funding is tied to current operations
    and worried those funds will not always be available. Participants also
    identified the need for clear, non-confusing nomenclature for programs
    that families could recognize regardless of Service or component.
    Everyone saw reintegration as a challenge and expressed concern that
    the single service member not be forgotten in the process. Outreach to
    parents, significant others, and other family members is essential in
    helping the service member recover from the combat experience.
        Families and the installation professionals who support families
    tell NMFA shortfalls in installation operations funding are making the
    challenges of military life today more difficult. Families are grateful
    for the funding increases Congress has provided since the start of the
    GWOT for deployment related programs, such as counseling, family
    assistance for National Guard and Reserve families, and expanding
    access to child care services. However, the military families who
    contact NMFA, as well as many of our more than 100 installation
    volunteers, tell us they are worried about consistent funding levels
    for these programs, as well as for core installation support programs:
    family center staffing, support for volunteer programs, maintenance on
    key facilities, and operating hours for dining halls, libraries, and
    other facilities.
        Shortages in base operation funding are nothing new. What seems to
    make the crisis worse are war needs which have exacerbated the negative
    effects of a long history of cutbacks. Deployed service members expect
    their installation quality of life services, facilities, and programs
    be resourced at a level to meet the needs of their families. Cutbacks
    hit families hard. They are a blow to their morale, a sign that perhaps
    their Service or their nation does not understand or value their
    sacrifice. They also pile on another stressor to the long list of
    deployment-related challenges by making accessing services more
    difficult. Families are being told the cutbacks are necessary to ensure
    funds are available for the GWOT, and in the case of Army communities,
    the ongoing Army transformation. Just when they need quality of life
    programs most, families should not be asked to do without. Their
    commanders should not have to make the choice between paying
    installation utility bills or providing family support services.
        NMFA asks Congress to direct the Department of Defense to maintain
    robust family readiness programs and to see that resources are in place
    to accomplish this goal. We ask this Subcommittee to ensure critical
    base operations programs are adequately funded for the service members
    and families who depend on them.
                Caring for Military Children and Youth
        At a recent hearing, the Service Senior Enlisted Advisors put child
    care in the top two of their quality of life concerns. Frequent
    deployments and long work hours make the need for quality affordable
    and accessible child care critical. We thank Congress for making
    additional funding available for child care since the beginning of the
    GWOT. We also applaud several of the innovative ways the military
    Services have attempted to meet the demand:
      --Navy's 24 hour child care centers in Virginia and Hawaii.
      --Purchase of additional child care slots in private or other
            government agency facilities.
      --Partnerships with provider organizations to connect military
            families with providers.
      --Additional funding provided by Congress to make improvements to
            temporary facilities to increase the number of child care slots
            on military installations.
        While these efforts have helped to reduce the demand for child
    care, the Services--and families--continue to tell NMFA more child care
    spaces and innovative assistance with the high cost of off installation
    care are needed to fill the ever-growing demand.
        Multiple deployments have also affected the number of child care
    providers, both center and home based. Child and Youth Service (CYS)
    programs have historically counted heavily on the ranks of military
    spouses to fill these positions. Service CYS programs report a growing
    shortage of spouses willing to provide child care as the stress of
    single parenting and the worry over the deployed service member takes
    its toll. The partnerships between the Services and the National
    Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) are
    helping and have grown over the past two years; however, not all
    families qualify for the subsidies and not all programs are the same.
    In addition, funding for these critical programs has been provided
    under supplemental appropriations, families have come to depend upon
    these programs and Congress must ensure that funding remains available
    for their continuation.
        Innovative strategies are also needed when addressing the
    unavailability of after hour (before 6 A.M. and after 6 P.M) and
    respite care. Families often find it difficult to obtain affordable,
    quality care, especially during hard-to-fill hours and on weekends.
    Both the Navy and the Air Force have piloted excellent programs that
    provide 24-hour care. The Navy has 24-hour centers in Norfolk and
    Hawaii, which provide a home-like atmosphere for children of Sailors
    working late night or varying shifts. The Air Force provides Extended
    Duty Child Care and Missile Care (24 hour access to child care for
    service members working in the missile field). These innovative
    programs must be expanded to provide care to more families and funding
    for these programs must be sufficient to ensure the same level of
    quality provided in traditional child development programs.
        NMFA urges Congress to ensure resources are available to meet the
    child care needs of military families.
                Education of Military Children
        As increased numbers of military families move into some
    communities due to Global Rebasing and BRAC, their housing needs will
    be met further and further away from the installation. Thus, military
    children may be attending school in districts whose familiarity with
    the military lifestyle may be limited. Educating large numbers of
    military children will put an added burden on schools already hard-
    pressed to meet the needs of their current populations. Impact Aid has
    traditionally helped to ease this burden; however, the program remains
    under-funded. NMFA was disappointed to learn the DOD supplement to
    Impact Aid was funded at a compromise level of $35 million for fiscal
    year 2007. An additional $10 million was provided to school districts
    with more than 20 percent military enrollment that experience
    significant shifts in military dependent attendance due to force
    structure changes, with another $5 million for districts educating
    severely-disabled military children. While the total funding available
    to support civilian schools educating military children is greater than
    in recent years, we urge Congress to further increase funding for
    schools educating large numbers of military children. This supplement
    to Impact Aid is vital to school districts that have shouldered the
    burden of ensuring military children receive a quality education
    despite the stresses of military life.
        NMFA also encourages this Subcommittee to provide additional
    funding for school districts experiencing growth available to all
    school districts experiencing significant enrollment increases and not
    just to those districts meeting the current 20 percent enrollment
    threshold. We also urge you to authorize an increase in the level of
    this funding until BRAC and Global Rebasing moves are completed. The
    arrival of several hundred military students can be financially
    devastating to any school district, regardless of how many of those
    students the district already serves. Because military families cannot
    time their moves, they must find available housing wherever they can.
    Why restrict DOD funding to local school districts trying to meet the
    needs of military children simply because they did not have a large
    military child enrollment to begin with?
        NMFA asks Congress to increase the DOD supplement to Impact Aid to
    $50 million to help districts better meet the additional demands caused
    by large numbers of military children, deployment-related issues, and
    the effects of military programs and policies. We also ask Congress to
    allow all school districts experiencing a significant growth in their
    military student population due to BRAC, Global Rebasing, or
    installation housing changes to be eligible for the additional funding
    currently available only to districts with an enrollment of at least 20
    percent military children.
                Spouse Education and Employment
        Studies show the gap between the financial well-being of military
    families and their civilian peers is largely due to the frequent moves
    required of the military family and the resulting disruptions to the
    career progression of the military spouse. In a 2005 report by the RAND
    Corporation, researchers found that military spouses, when compared to
    their civilian counterparts, were more likely to have graduated from
    high school and have some college. Yet the RAND study found that
    civilian counterparts tended to have better employment outcomes and
    higher wages. Surveys show that a military spouse's income is a major
    contributor to the family's financial well-being and that the military
    spouse unemployment rate is much higher (10 percent) than the national
    rate.
        With a concern that spouses desiring better careers will encourage
    service members to leave the military, DOD is acknowledging the
    importance of efforts to support spouse employment. Recent DOD
    initiatives include the collaboration between DOD and Department of
    Labor (DoL), which focuses on:
      --establishing Milspouse.org, a resource library for military spouse
            employment, education and relocation information,
      --establishing One Stop Career Centers near major military
            installations (Norfolk, Virginia; San Diego, California; Fort
            Campbell, Kentucky),
      --expanding opportunities for Guard and Reserve members and military
            spouses to access training and education grants,
      --exploring options with states to offer unemployment compensation to
            military spouses when unemployment is the result of a permanent
            change of station (PCS) move, and
      --to improve reciprocity for state certifications and licensing
            requirements.
        Unfortunately, funds for this promising collaboration have run out.
    NMFA believes this lack of funding is a significant blow to the promise
    of these early initiatives. We also believe the Department of Labor is
    best positioned to provide the coordination necessary with states and
    other agencies to promote opportunities for military spouse employment.
        DOD has also sponsored a partnership with Monster.com to create the
    Military Spouse Career Center and recently announced the availability
    of free career coaching through the Spouse Employment Assessment,
    Coaching and Assistance Program (SEACA). 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. These programs depend upon
    continued funding availability. Many of them are currently being funded
    as pilot projects.
        NMFA asks that the partnership between DOD and DoL be realigned to
    give DoL the authority to serve military spouses through legislative
    changes designating military spouses as an eligible group for funds for
    training and education. Furthermore, NMFA asks Congress to ensure that
    successful pilot programs are converted to long-term, permanent
    programs with regular funding streams.
    Mental Health
        As the war continues, families' need for a full spectrum of mental
    health services--from preventative care to stress reduction techniques,
    to individual or family counseling, to medical mental health services--
    continues to grow. As service members and families experience numerous
    lengthy and dangerous deployments, NMFA believes the need for
    confidential, preventative mental health services will continue to
    rise. It will also remain high for some time even after military
    operations scale down in Iraq and Afghanistan. NMFA has seen progress
    in the provision of mental health services, access to those services,
    and military service member and family well-being. In some cases,
    however, the progress is ongoing and barriers to quality mental health
    care remain.
        As pointed out in a report by the American Psychological
    Association, scholarly research is needed on the short- and long-term
    effects of deployment on military families, especially the children. We
    urge this Subcommittee to fund research agreements with qualified
    research organizations to expand our Nation's knowledge base on the
    mental health needs of the entire military family: service members,
    spouses, and children. Solid research on the needs of military families
    is needed to ensure the mix of programs and initiatives available to
    meet those needs is actually the correct one.
        We ask this Subcommittee to encourage DOD to expand research into
    the emotional, educational, and deployment-related challenges affecting
    military families.
    Family Health
        NMFA thanks this Subcommittee for its continued funding for a
    robust military health care system. We ask Members of Congress to
    remember the multi-faceted mission of this system. It must meet the
    needs of service members and the Department of Defense (DOD) in times
    of armed conflict. The Nation must also acknowledge that military
    members, retirees, their families, and survivors are indeed a unique
    population with unique duties, who earn an entitlement to a unique
    health care program. We ask you to recognize that the military health
    care system, which showed signs of stress even before the start of the
    Global War on Terror, is now significantly taxed.
        MTFs must have the resources and the encouragement to ensure their
    facilities are optimized to provide high quality, coordinated care for
    the most beneficiaries possible. They must be held accountable for
    meeting stated access standards. If funding or personnel resource
    issues are the reason access standards are not being met, then
    assistance must be provided to ensure MTFs are able to meet access
    standards, support the military mission, and continue to provide
    quality health care.
        NMFA asks all Members of Congress to hold DOD accountable for
    providing access to quality care to all TRICARE beneficiaries and to
    ensure the system is adequately resourced to provide that access.
                TRICARE Fees--What's the Answer?
        Last year's proposal by DOD to raise TRICARE fees by exorbitant
    amounts resonated throughout the beneficiary population. Beneficiaries
    saw the proposal as a concentrated effort by DOD to change their earned
    entitlement to health care into an insurance plan. NMFA appreciates the
    concern shown by Members of Congress last year in forestalling any
    premium increase, emphasizing the need for the Department to institute
    more economies, and suggesting further investigation of the issue
    through a report by the Government Accountability Office and the
    creation of a task force on the future of military health care. We
    appreciate your recognition of the need for more information about the
    budget assumptions used by DOD, the effects of possible increases on
    beneficiary behavior, the need for DOD to implement greater
    efficiencies in the Defense Health Care Program (DHP), and the adequacy
    of the DHP budget as proposed by DOD.
        NMFA remains especially concerned about what we believe is DOD's
    continued intention to create a TRICARE Standard enrollment fee.
    Charging a premium (enrollment fee) for TRICARE Standard moves the
    benefit from an earned entitlement to an opportunity to buy into an
    insurance plan. Standard is the only option for many retirees, their
    families, and survivors because TRICARE Prime is not offered
    everywhere. Also, using the Standard option does not guarantee
    beneficiaries access to health care. DOD has so far not linked any
    guarantee of access to their proposals to require a Standard enrollment
    fee.
        DOD's proposal last year to increase TRICARE Prime enrollment fees,
    while completely out-of-line dollar wise, was not unexpected. In fact,
    NMFA had been surprised DOD did not include an increase as it
    implemented the recent round of new TRICARE contracts. NMFA believes
    DOD officials continue to support large increased retiree enrollment
    fees for TRICARE Prime, combined with a tiered system of enrollment
    fees and TRICARE Standard deductibles. NMFA believes any tiered system
    would be arbitrarily devised and would fail to acknowledge the needs of
    the most vulnerable beneficiaries: survivors, wounded service members,
    and their families.
        Acknowledging that the annual Prime enrollment fee has not
    increased in more than 10 years and that it may be reasonable to have a
    mechanism to increase fees, NMFA last year presented an alternative to
    DOD's proposal should Congress deem some cost increase necessary. The
    most important feature of this proposal was that any fee increase be no
    greater than the percentage increase in the retiree cost of living
    adjustment (COLA). If DOD thought $230/$460 was a fair fee for all in
    1995, then it would appear that raising the fees simply by the
    percentage increase in retiree pay is also fair. NMFA also suggests it
    would be reasonable to adjust the TRICARE Standard deductibles by tying
    increases to the percent of the retiree annual COLA.
        NMFA believes tying increases in TRICARE enrollment fees to the
    percentage increase in the retiree Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is
    a fair way to increase beneficiary cost shares should Congress deem an
    increase necessary.
                Wounded Service members Have Wounded Families
        Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is the signature wound for Operation
    Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom injured service members.
    Long-term effects and appropriate treatment for this condition have not
    been adequately assessed. NMFA is concerned with DOD's decision to cut
    funding for basic research by 9 percent and 18 percent for applied
    research. Accurate diagnosis and proper treatment for TBI requires
    forward leaning initiatives by DOD and VA founded on solid research.
        When designing support for the wounded/injured in today's conflict,
    the ``government''--whether in the guise of commander, non-commissioned
    officer, Service personnel office, a family assistance center, an MTF,
    or the VA--must take a more inclusive view of military families and
    remember that a successful recovery depends on caring for the whole
    patient and not just the wound. It is time to update TRICARE benefits
    to meet the needs of this population by allowing medically-retired
    wounded service members and their families to retain access to the set
    of benefits available to active duty families during a transitional
    period following the service member's retirement. These benefits would
    include the ability to enroll in TRICARE Prime Remote and to continue
    coverage of a disabled family member under the Extended Care Health
    Option (ECHO).
        To support wounded and injured service members and their families,
    NMFA recommends that Congress extend the three-year transitional
    survivor health care benefit to service members who are medically
    retired and their families and direct DOD to establish a Family
    Assistance Center at every MTF caring for wounded service members.
    Families in Transition
        Military families are in a constant state of movement. Through the
    years, the knowledge that the family would be relocated every two or
    three years was a constant. Now, there are many different types of
    transitions. The closing of installations in Europe is forcing families
    back to the states into communities that may not have the
    infrastructure and housing to support them. As service members return
    from combat and reintegrate with their families and employers, all
    parties need to have the tools to help in the reintegration process.
    Survivors--the military families who have sacrificed the most--deserve
    our Nation's long-term support. What needs to be done to help service
    members and families in transition?
                Base Realignment and Closure, Global Rebasing, and
                        Transformation
        As DOD relocates and rebases units, it must be conscious that the
    further it moves families from an installation and the military
    community, the more it degrades their ability to benefit from the
    support of that military community. The current BRAC and rebasing
    initiatives will result in disruption and upheaval for the families
    affected. Military families accept this fact as a reality of the
    lifestyle they have chosen. What they cannot, and should not, be asked
    to accept is that they will be asked to move as ordered to a receiving
    installation that is incapable of providing critical support and
    services to them. Moving is stressful for any family. It is critical
    the government does not amplify this stress by allowing the process to
    move forward without the funding for necessary infrastructure and
    facilities to support these families. This critical funding is needed
    to provide health care, education, housing, child care, and family
    support programs and facilities for these gaining installations. The
    Army alone requires thirty new child care centers simply to maintain
    the level of care currently available on losing installations. Military
    families must be assured that services are in place before they arrive
    at their new military community.
        NMFA strongly asserts that the authorized BRAC and rebasing
    construction and quality of life initiatives must be fully funded.
                Survivors
        NMFA still believes the benefit change that will provide the most
    significant long-term advantage to the financial security of all
    surviving families would be to end the Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC) offset to the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Ending
    this offset would correct an inequity that has existed for many years.
    Those who give their lives for their country deserve more fair
    compensation for their surviving spouses. We urge Congress to intensify
    efforts to eliminate this unfair ``widow's tax'' this year.
        NMFA believes several other adjustments could be made to the
    Survivor Benefit Plan. These include allowing payment of SBP benefits
    into a trust fund in cases of disabled children and allowing SBP
    eligibility to switch to children if a surviving spouse is convicted of
    complicity in the member's death.
        NMFA recommends the DIC offset to SPB be eliminated to recognize
    the length of commitment and service of the career service member and
    spouse and relieve the spouse of making hasty financial decisions at a
    time when he or she is emotionally vulnerable.
    Pay and Compensation
        NMFA thanks Members of this Subcommittee for their recognition that
    service members and their families deserve a comprehensive benefit
    package. In addition, service members and their families appreciate the
    regular annual pay increases and targeted raises, over the past several
    years. In most cases, military pay is on par with civilian pay for
    equivalent education levels. NMFA asserts, however, that while the DOD
    policy of paying at the seventieth percentile has made significant
    progress in alleviating the pay gap, military service is a unique
    profession, which requires unique dedication and sacrifice. Perhaps the
    establishment of pay rates at the seventieth percentile does not
    adequately reflect the value our Nation places on the dedicated service
    of our men and women in uniform. NMFA urges funding for a pay increase
    of not less than 4 percent for fiscal year 2008. We further urge that
    future increases consider the unique character of military service and
    consider the establishment of pay rates at the eightieth percentile.
    Families and Community
        Higher stress levels caused by open-ended and multiple deployments
    require a higher level of community support. We ask Congress to ensure
    a consistent level of resources to provide robust quality of life,
    family support, and the full range of preventative and therapeutic
    mental health programs during the entire deployment cycle: pre-
    deployment, deployment, post-deployment, and in that critical period
    between deployments.
        Military families share a bond that is unequaled in the civilian
    world. They support each other through hardship, deployments, PCS
    moves, and sometimes, the loss of a loved one. The military community
    is close knit and must be so. It is imperative that our Nation ensure
    the necessary infrastructure and support components are in place to
    support families regardless of where they happen to be located
    geographically. More importantly, we ask you and other Members of
    Congress to ensure that the measures undertaken today in the interest
    of cutting costs and improving efficiency do not also destroy the sense
    of military community so critical to the successful navigation of a
    military lifestyle.
        Educating families on what support is being provided helps reduce
    the uncertainty for families. Preparation and training are key in
    reaching families and making sure they are aware of additional
    resources available to them. While NMFA appreciates the extraordinary
    support that was made available to address the special needs of the
    families during deployment extensions and the recent ``Surge'', our
    Nation must ensure this level of support is available to all families
    day in and day out. Military family support and quality of life
    facilities and programs require dedicated funding, not emergency
    funding. Military families are being asked to sustain their readiness.
    The least their country can do is make sure their support structure is
    consistently sustained as well. Strong families equal a strong force.
    Family readiness is integral to service member readiness. The cost of
    that readiness is an integral part of the cost of the war and a
    National responsibility. We ask Congress to shoulder that
    responsibility as service members and their families shoulder theirs.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Ms. Sherry Black,
    Executive Director of Ovarian Cancer National Alliance.
        Ms. Black.
    STATEMENT OF SHERRY SALWAY BLACK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                OVARIAN CANCER NATIONAL ALLIANCE
        Ms. Black. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens.
    Thank you for inviting me, once again, to speak before this
    subcommittee.
        I am the Executive Director of the Ovarian Cancer National
    Alliance, and I am testifying on behalf of the 172,000 ovarian
    cancer survivors, which I am lucky to be one.
        I am pleased to be here on behalf of survivors, patients,
    and our many friends who have lost their battle to ovarian
    cancer, to urge you to continue to support the Department of
    Defense, congressionally directed research program in ovarian
    cancer.
        According to the American Cancer Society, more than 22,000
    women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and approximately
    15,000 will lose their lives to this disease this year.
        Ovarian cancer causes more deaths than all other cancers of
    the female reproductive tract combined, and is the fifth
    highest cause of cancer deaths among women.
        Currently, almost one-half of the women diagnosed with
    ovarian cancer die within 5 years. Seventy-five percent are
    diagnosed in stages 3 and 4. When detected early, as I was, the
    5-year survival rate increases to more than 90 percent, but
    when detected in the late stages, the 5-year survival rate
    drops to 29 percent.
        Ovarian cancer survival rates have not made the appreciable
    gains that other cancers have. One reason is the lack of an
    early screening or diagnostic test. Yet, Federal funding for
    ovarian cancer research has remained flat. We need continued
    and increased research funding to assure that effective
    screening and diagnostic tests are developed, and ideally, to
    identify who is high risk, and how ovarian cancer can be
    prevented in the first place.
        The Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP) has been funded
    at $10 million since 2004, and has never been appropriated more
    than $12 million in its 10 year history. We know that critical
    research, which takes many years to bear fruit, is on the cusp
    of significant findings. Additional investment now is vital for
    future research into prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.
        Since its inception, the OCRP has developed a
    multidisciplinary research portfolio that encompasses
    prevention, early detection, diagnosis, pre-clinical
    therapeutics, quality of life, and behavioral research
    projects. The OCRP 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
    underrepresented populations.
        Today, ovarian cancer researchers are still struggling to
    develop the very first ovarian cancer screening test. With
    traditional research models largely unsuccessful, the
    innovative grants awards by the OCRP are integral to moving the
    field of research forward. The OCRP has been responsible for
    the only two working animal models of ovarian cancer, models
    that will help unlock the keys to diagnosing and treating
    ovarian cancer.
        In 2007, researchers announced the discovery of a potential
    biomarker, that may be used in ovarian cancer screening. Only
    with sufficient funding will the realization of a desperately
    needed screening test be possible.
        The program's achievements have been documented in numerous
    ways, included 253 publications in professional journals and
    books, 330 abstracts and presentations, and nine patents. Due
    to research grants, the program has attracted 25 new
    researchers to the field--this is critical. Investigators
    funded through the OCRP have yielded several crucial
    breakthroughs in the study of prevention.
        The alliance is joined by our partner, the Society of
    Gynecologic Oncologists, and the many people affected by this
    disease. We urge the subcommittee to increase Federal funding
    on ovarian cancer by appropriating $20 million to the
    Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program for
    fiscal year 2008.
        The alliance is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year.
    As we conclude our first decade of action, we look forward to a
    future of hope. This hope is made possible, in part, by
    advances in medicine discovered through the OCRP.
        I thank you very much for your leadership on this issue.
        Senator Inouye. As indicated earlier, Senator Stevens and I
    are on your side. We'll do our best.
        Ms. Black. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Sherry Salway Black
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
    you for inviting me to speak. I am Sherry Salway Black, Executive
    Director of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance (the Alliance). I am
    testifying on behalf of the 172,000 ovarian cancer survivors, of which
    I am lucky to count myself. I am pleased to be here on behalf of
    survivors, patients and our many friends who lost their battle to
    ovarian cancer to urge you to continue to support the Department of
    Defense (DOD) Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP)
    in ovarian cancer. The Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP) and the
    Alliance have worked for the past 10 years to improve the lives of
    women with ovarian cancer, and their families. We are joined in our
    request by the doctors who deliver patient care, the Society of
    Gynecologic Oncologists. Great strides have been made in this previous
    decade, but without an increase in research funds, progress will stall.
    As we move forward into our second decade, we have hope for the future
    of treatment, patient care, survivorship and research.
        According to the American Cancer Society, more than 22,000 women
    will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and approximately 15,000 will
    lose their lives to the disease this year. Ovarian cancer causes more
    deaths than all the other cancers of the female reproductive tract
    combined, and is the fifth highest cause of cancer deaths among women.
    Currently, almost half of the women diagnosed with ovarian cancer die
    within five years. When detected early, the five-year survival rate
    increases to more than 90 percent, but when detected in the late
    stages, the five-year survival rate drops to 29 percent.
        The majority of women with ovarian cancer are diagnosed in Stages
    III or IV, when survival rates are lower. Ovarian cancer survival rates
    have not made the appreciable gains that other cancers have. One key
    reason for this is the lack of an effective screening or early
    diagnosis test.
        Yet, federal funding for ovarian cancer research has remained flat.
    We need continued and increased research funding to assure that
    effective screening and diagnostic tests are developed, and ideally to
    identify who is at high-risk and how ovarian cancer can be prevented in
    the first place. The OCRP has been funded at $10 million since 2004,
    and has never been appropriated more than $12 million in its 10-year
    history. We know that critical research, which takes many years to bear
    fruit, is on the cusp of significant findings. Additional investment
    now is vital for future research into prevention, diagnosis and
    treatment. Therefore, we respectfully recommend that this Subcommittee
    appropriate $20 million to the OCRP for fiscal year 2008.
                      the ovarian cancer research program
    Funding history
        The Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP) was established in 1997
    in response to the advocacy efforts of the ovarian cancer movement. The
    stated mission is to eliminate ovarian cancer by promoting
    ``innovative, integrated multidisciplinary research efforts that will
    lead to a better understanding, detection, diagnosis, prevention and
    control of ovarian cancer.'' The program was initially appropriated
    $7.5 million. In its first eight years, the OCRP has distributed more
    than $79 million for research. In 2005 the OCRP was only able to fund 7
    percent of the proposals, and in 2006 was limited to 15 percent of the
    proposals. The OCRP operates with less than 10 percent in
    administrative costs, making this a highly efficient program.
        Cutting-edge research being done by grantees of the program has
    moved us forward: researchers now better understand the disease, have
    identified possible biomarkers for screening tests, are exploring
    targeted therapies, and are moving us closer to our goal of conquering
    ovarian cancer. Without additional funding, we fear that researchers
    will fail to investigate ovarian cancer, and our medical progress will
    stall.
    Process
        The program uses an Integration Panel to provide a two-tier review
    process in which scientific and non-scientific advisors interact.
    Patient advocates are always included in the review process. The
    Integration Panel, based on input from advocates, scientists and
    clinicians, identifies areas where research should be conducted. The
    inclusion of patient advocates adds a necessary perspective by ensuring
    that the focus is on understanding and conquering the disease in a way
    that will be helpful to patients. The goal of the OCRP is to use
    science directly to help ovarian cancer patients and those at risk--not
    just for the sake of a scientific exercise.
        More important, the process allows funding of research that is high
    risk, but high reward, and would not otherwise be funded. One example
    of such research is investigation into a much-needed screening test
    through the presence of a biomarker BCL-2, and the discovery that
    hormones found in oral contraceptives reduce the risk of ovarian
    cancer. Researchers without proven track records may receive grants
    from the OCRP--many of these research projects have gone on to be
    funded by the National Institutes of Health after the initial OCRP-
    funded research is completed.
        Grants are awarded to fund innovative research or to establish
    research resources. These research resources are available to
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions and
    are awarded to foster collaborations between the researchers at the
    minority institution and other institutions.
        Collaboration between institutions is an important aspect of this
    program. Projects have leveraged DOD awards with National Institutes of
    Health (NIH) programs or other institutions, both domestically and
    internationally. For example, one award linked researchers at the Fox
    Chase Cancer Center with scientists at Delaware State University to
    study lasers as an early detection tool for ovarian cancer.
        Many of the results from the CDMRP are translatable to other
    cancers. For example, a study funded by DOD, NIH and Komen for the Cure
    discovered the existence of cancer stem cells. These cancer stem cells
    may hold the key to preventing cancer recurrence. Another study is
    testing a patient's breath for cancer. The research has proven
    successful for breast and lung cancers. Currently, specially trained
    dogs can smell biochemicals in patients' breath that indicate early
    lung and breast cancers correctly in over 85 percent of cases.
    Results
        Since its inception, the OCRP has developed a multidisciplinary
    research portfolio that encompasses etiology, prevention, early
    detection/diagnosis, preclinical therapeutics, quality-of-life, and
    behavioral research projects. The OCRP 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 under-represented populations.
        Today, ovarian cancer researchers are still struggling to develop
    the first ovarian cancer screening test. With traditional research
    models largely unsuccessful, the innovative grants awarded by the OCRP
    are integral in moving the field of research forward. The OCRP has been
    responsible for the only two working animal models of ovarian cancer--
    models that will help unlock keys to diagnosing and treating ovarian
    cancer. In 2007, researchers announced the discovery of a potential
    biomarker that may be used on ovarian cancer screening. Only with
    sufficient funding will the realization of a desperately-needed
    screening test be possible.
        The program's achievements have been documented in numerous ways,
    including 253 publications in professional medical journals and books,
    330 abstracts and presentations given at professional meetings, and
    nine patents, applications and licenses granted to awardees of the
    program. Due to research grants, the program has attracted 25 new
    researchers to the field, 18 of whom are still working on ovarian
    cancer. Investigators funded through the OCRP have yielded several
    crucial breakthroughs in the study of prevention and detection,
    including:
      --Creation of a human ovarian tissue bank
      --Development of chicken model to study susceptibility to ovarian
            cancer
      --Use of rhesus monkey model to study contraceptives and vitamin A
            analog in prevention of ovarian cancer
      --Detection of a possible biomarker (BCL-2) screening tool to detect
            ovarian cancer through urine samples
      --Development of a potential screening tool to determine chemotherapy
            sensitivity in ovarian cancer patients
      --Use of new bioinformatics tools to identify different sets of genes
            for different types of ovarian cancer tumors
      --Development of radio-therapeutics for advanced ovarian cancer
            treatment
      --Discovery of a receptor expression level as a possible indicator of
            aggressive ovarian cancer tumor behavior
      --Discovery of potential method to overcome oncogene-associated
            chemo-resistance in ovarian cancer cells
      --Continued focus on ovarian cancer screening tools
      --Development of radiation therapies for metastatic ovarian cancer
      --Discovery of production of certain enzymes by ovarian cancer cells;
            this discovery may lead to the development of vaccines for
            recurrent ovarian cancer.
                                   conclusion
        The Alliance is joined by our partner, the Society of Gynecologic
    Oncologists, in making this request. We urge the Subcommittee to
    increase federal funding on ovarian cancer by appropriating $20 million
    to the Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program for fiscal
    year 2008. As we conclude our first decade of action, we look forward
    to a future of hope. This hope is made possible, in part, by advances
    in medicine discovered through the OCRP. I thank you for your
    leadership on this issue.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Dr. Sven-Erik Bursell,
    Joslin Diabetes Center.
        Did I pronounce it correctly?
    STATEMENT OF DR. SVEN-ERIK BURSELL, DIRECTOR,
                TELEHEALTH RESEARCH, JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER
        Dr. Bursell. You did a wonderful job, sir. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to report on
    the progress of Joslin Diabetes Center's cooperative
    telemedicine project with the Department of Defense, Veterans
    Health Administration, and the University of Hawaii for
    providing a healthcare delivery platform for the connect-care
    management and treatment of people with diabetes, and for
    providing appropriate eye care to prevent blindness from
    diabetic retinopathy.
        This program can serve as a national model for providing
    cost-efficient and appropriate, high-quality care for all
    people with diabetes.
        I am Sven-Erik Bursell, the Director of Telehealth Research
    at Joslin Diabetes Center. This Telehealth program represents a
    collaborative research and development effort that is being
    successfully translated into clinical programs, represented by
    the VA national tele-retinal screening initiative, and
    implementation of successful clinical programs to provide
    diabetes care to Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native
    Hawaiians.
        The innovative eye care program that is a module of our
    larger diabetes management platform is the only clinically
    validated, nonmedriatic system that is being successfully
    deployed in 70 sites in 23 States and is accessed by over
    100,000 people with diabetes, into appropriate eye care. This
    has directly resulted in significant savings of sight for these
    people with diabetes.
        This clinical application will also be the first outside
    application to be integrated into the new DOD, electronic
    medical records system, ALTA. And, its initial usage will be in
    the Walter Reed Army Medical Center network, and in the
    Lackland Air Force network in San Antonio. This integration
    will be completed this year.
        Additionally, the larger diabetes management program is
    currently in use in community health centers in Hawaii, South
    Carolina, and Massachusetts, and will be implemented in the
    Indian Health Service this year. Six month data from our
    Community Health Centers Program showed that patients in this
    system see a significant improvement in their control of
    diabetes, such as blood glucose levels, as well as a
    significant reduction in the level of daily stress they
    experience in managing their diabetes.
        We're asking for continuation funding of $5 million in
    fiscal year 2008 to complete a series of nine multicenter
    clinical trials, aimed at determining the clinical efficacy and
    cost efficiency of various components of our diabetes
    management application. The data from these completed studies
    will provide direct, medical and economic evidence to validate
    the sustainability of the program.
        In addition to completing these studies, we will also
    initiate new research efforts into automated diabetic
    retinopathy, diagnostic support systems, computer-assisted
    decision support for medical management of diabetes, migration
    of the system into a personal health record that will leverage
    home monitoring, automated lifestyle decision support, and the
    use of streaming video, entertaining education that can go
    directly to the cell phone.
        These research efforts, we expect, to rapidly translate
    into our existing clinical programs, to further empower people
    with diabetes to live a normal life.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your attention, and our
    appreciation to be part of this project with the Department of
    Defense, as well as the support of you and your colleagues. We
    will be grateful for the continued support again this year, for
    this unique and extremely productive collaborative effort.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. I can assure you that we'll do our very
    best.
        Dr. Bursell. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Dr. Sven-Erik Bursell
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the
    Diabetes Care and Treatment Project: A Joslin Telemedicine Initiative.
    We are extremely appreciative of the funds provided for this valuable
    project in the fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act. The results
    of this work can be immediately translated into providing coordinated
    care for returning servicemen, as well as providing cost effective care
    for all people with diabetes. In fact, the interoperable and
    interactive platform that we have developed for diabetes care and care
    of other chronic diseases can provide a model for national programs.
    For example, the Veterans Affairs has initiated their National
    Teleretinal screening program based on the research and development
    work derived from this funding.
                                    summary
        This request of $5,000,000 represents the collective costs of the
    participating organizations (Joslin Diabetes Center, Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center, Boston Veterans Affairs Campus, and the University of
    Hawaii) in this collaborative consortium of expertise and associated
    expenses of the Department of the Army, RDT&E.
                         fiscal year 2007 status report
        The problem that we are faced with is that diabetes is a
    significant and growing public health problem and it disproportionately
    affects certain social groups especially Native Americans, Native
    Hawaiians and Native Alaskans. Additionally, care is unevenly provided
    in the United States, especially in rural/remote areas and to
    minorities. At this time the current health care system does not have
    the ability to manage all people with diabetes, and we know that
    diabetes-related complications can be slowed or prevented with
    appropriate care. This project has developed a new web-based health
    information technology (HIT)--the Comprehensive Diabetes Management
    Program (CDMP)--designed to provide even and comprehensive care to
    people with diabetes. This project is also examining the value derived
    from the adoption and utilization of the CDMP at multiple sites with 8
    research projects. Several cross most sites that include the Joslin
    Diabetes Center, the VA Boston Healthcare System, the Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center network and the University of Hawaii with program
    implementation at 3 Community Health Centers in Hawaii.
        This Diabetes Telehealth application was initially focused on the
    delivery of quality eye care to the right patients at the right time.
    The aim was to prevent blindness caused by diabetes and to provide
    health care delivery tools for diabetes and other chronic diseases for
    a clinically effective and cost efficient platform for connected care
    for all American people.
                          telehealth eye care program
        This program was the earliest of our implemented diabetes care
    programs developed through this funding. Currently the application has
    accessed over 100,000 patients at approximately 70 sites in 23 states
    in the United States including Hawaii and Alaska. We are currently
    planning deployment of the Telehealth application including the eye
    care application in the Lackland Air Force Base network in San Antonio
    in May 2007.
        The eye care program has been clinically validated as being
    diagnostically equivalent to current clinical gold standards for eye
    examination and has been shown to be a cost effective method of eye
    care delivery.
              telehealth diabetes management application progress
        Work on the development of an interactive comprehensive diabetes
    management program was initiated in 2001. It involved leaders in
    diabetes clinical management, education, lifestyle modification and
    medical informatics from the Joslin Diabetes Center, the Department of
    Defense, the Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Services. The
    rationale for this effort was the recognized need to be able to provide
    a continuum of care for diabetic patients in contrast to the current
    more disjointed care that is provided. This need was further
    highlighted by recent results from the Diabetes Prevention Program
    (DPP). These patients were randomized to either intensive life style
    modification, metformin or placebo treatment. After follow up of 4.6
    years, life style modification reduced the progression to diabetes by
    58 percent. Moreover, the development of diabetes was reduced by 31
    percent. The results indicated that one of the primary reasons for the
    success of this study was the implementation of a case management
    program. This is exactly what we have developed for the CDMP, namely a
    care manager centric interactive and interoperable application that
    provides more continuous and immediate contact between patients, care
    managers and physicians over secure websites. It is anticipated that
    the development of the interactive web-based education and behavior
    modules will provide the largest potential benefit with respect to
    motivating patients to set reasonable goals for their management of
    diabetes, and thus maximize the clinical benefit.
        The collaborative currently runs 9 clinical trial research projects
    actively that are taking place at 4 sites. These each entail testing
    some aspect of the Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program for
    clinical efficacy and cost efficiency, namely the CDMP Eye care
    program, the Behavioral Assessment Tool (BAT), and the digital
    photography component of the nutrition module.
        The completion of these studies has been deemed critical to provide
    the medical evidence to support a sustainable program. The expectations
    are that this program will provide significant reductions in health
    care dollars expenses while maintaining a high quality of care as
    assessed through a reduction in complications such as blindness from
    diabetes. The data from these studies can provide compelling evidence
    to third party payors as to the effectiveness of the program since
    medical reimbursement is a critical factor in sustaining the program.
    The use of this program will also increase the access of patients to
    appropriate care and provide a very powerful tool that will empower
    patients to improve their own management of their diabetes. During the
    2007 funding period, active patients in the program will be followed
    for all the proposed studies and data collection and interim analyses
    will be ongoing.
        Philosophically this management program has been developed to
    facilitate an interactive and continuous connection between patient and
    care team. This gives it the ability to aggregate clinical data from
    diverse sources, electronic medical record systems, lab systems and
    data from the home through the use of home monitoring devices. In this
    way the system is able to present data to a physician in a medically
    relevant manner that allows a patient doctor communication to occur
    over most of the short patient visits. The robust clinical decision
    support system also rapidly identifies patients at risk or who have
    other medical issues that need to be addressed. It is expected that the
    management and health care delivery services provided through this
    application will allow a primary care practitioner to appropriately
    manage patients with chronic disease, such as diabetes, for longer
    periods of time before having to refer patients to more expensive
    subspecialty services that result in very cost efficient care and the
    savings of health care dollars.
                          fiscal year 2008 objectives
    CDMP Eye Care Application Enhancements
        We will continue our research and development efforts to improve
    retinal image quality and provide computer assisted support with
    respect to automated detection of retinal lesions and automated
    diagnosis based on identification of these lesions. We will also begin
    to develop a system to provide computer assisted decision support for
    best practice treatment and management plan options, based on diagnosis
    of level of diabetic retinopathy and the level of risk associated with
    the patients diabetes in general. This neural network approach will
    rapidly increase the efficiency of the system for providing eye
    diagnoses and medically relevant treatment plan options and will have a
    critical impact on the sustainability of the program.
    Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program (CDMP)
        The current system utilization is more physician centric. However,
    the platform allows a migration to modules that provide a patient
    centric personal health record that is also interoperable and will
    harmonize care across the health care arena. Over the coming years our
    work will focus on moving the system into a more open source
    environment so that it becomes available to everyone license free.
        A major research thrust will be to develop a neural net engine that
    automates treatment plan options based on available medical information
    and evidence based clinical guidelines. In this manner the physician
    can be rapidly guided to treatment plan options and can decide to
    choose one of the presented options or develop a different plan.
        We will also focus on enriching the personal health record
    component of the applicant through a series of automated lifestyle
    decision support systems. In this way, instead of the patient having to
    go through options and make decisions, the system automatically
    provides the patient with healthy lifestyle options and the patient
    just has to choose whatever option the patient likes. Thus we expect
    that patient decisions regarding the management of the patients'
    chronic disease will become much more seamless and gives the patient
    time to focus on decisions involving a more normal lifestyle in the
    absence of a chronic disease.
    Behavior is the Key to Health Maintenance
        While behavior-driven goals are easy to define they are difficult
    to implement in the current medical paradigm. A typical doctor visit in
    the United States allows only three minutes of direct interaction with
    a patient. As we better understand the profound role of individual
    behavior in the maintenance of health and in the onset and progression
    of disease, it is clear that the effective management of those
    behaviors is the Holy Grail of modern health management. Human
    behaviors are notoriously difficult to change. We change slowly and
    incrementally, and change comes as the result of understanding--truly,
    deeply understanding the positive impact our behaviors will have on the
    quality and length of our lives.
        We expect to significantly impact patient behaviors through the use
    of novel education applications that are a major thrust of our
    continuing research and development. This will focus on the arena of
    providing medical education in a manner that will resonate with the
    patient. The concept here is to provide education and decision support
    in an engaging video format coupled with a learning system that starts
    to recognize particular patient's preferences. For example, based on
    patient data collected during the day on nutrition, (images of meals
    taken over cell phone) exercise, and blood glucose values, it will be
    possible to provide video clips of different meals that adhere to
    patient treatment plan and lifestyle. When a patient clicks on a meal
    beam a TV format video, onto the patient TV in the kitchen, of how to
    cook the meal.
        Other CDMP research areas will focus 4 topics as outlined below:
      --The continuing development of the nutrition module to include
            algorithms identifying nutritional risk based on patient food
            intake with decision support to improve nutritional behaviors.
            This will also include interactive patient advice with respect
            to recipe choices, portion sizes and food choices.
      --Provide a wide variety of home monitoring devices to the patient
            that can be connected wirelessly to a home computer for
            transmission to the CDMP application.
      --Integration of a Hypertension Management Module working in
            collaboration with the Veterans Administration.
      --The development of a cognitive assessment tool. This is an
            important aspect of being able to help a patient manage
            diabetes. For example if a patient is non compliant to a method
            for changing smoking cessation, the patient is non-compliant
            because the patients are not ready to change or are because
            they do not understand what is being asked of him or her.
      --The development of a mental health care service delivery module. In
            diabetes there is an almost complete lack of appropriate
            management of mental health care. During this funding cycle we
            will develop a CDMP module that facilitates delivery of mental
            health care services to a patient with diabetes.
      --The development of a predictive modeling algorithm that will allow
            the CDMP care manager to predict significant clinical adverse
            events, with decision support tools that will allow the care
            manager to potentially prevent the adverse event from
            occurring.

                                  PROGRAM COSTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Admin & Mgmt Costs (@20 percent)....................      $1,000,000
    Participation Expenses (Includes costs for ongoing             1,757,000
     studies and addition of new sites).....................
    Joslin Expenses (Includes costs for studies and support        1,173,000
     as well as on going research and development efforts
     for improved retinal imaging)..........................
    Shared CDMP Costs involved in continuing development of        1,070,000
     new modules and computer assisted diagnostic support as
     well as study related costs for the ongoing cost
     benefit and clinical benefit studies...................
                                                             ---------------
          TOTAL, Joslin Diabetes Center.....................       5,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, Joslin is pleased to be a part of this project with
    the Department of Defense and we are grateful for the support that you
    and your colleagues have provided to us. Please know that we would be
    grateful for your continued support again this year.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is John R. Davis,
    Director, Legislative Programs of The Fleet Reserve
    Association.
        Mr. Davis.
    STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE
                PROGRAMS, THE FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION
        Mr. Davis. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) wants to
    thank you, and the entire subcommittee for your work to improve
    military pay, improve healthcare, and enhance other personnel,
    retirement, and survivor programs.
        This year, with even more than $100 billion in pending
    supplemental appropriations for the Iraq and Afghanistan
    conflict, the United States will still spend only about 4
    percent of its GDP on defense, as compared to 9 percent
    annually in the 1960's.
        FRA strongly supports funding to support the anticipated
    increases in end-strengths for 2008, since the current end-
    strength is not adequate to meet the demands of fighting the
    war on terror, and sustaining other operational commitments.
        Sailors, marines and Coast Guardsman serving in Operation
    Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom must be fully armed
    with the best protective devices available for their personal
    safety. A top priority for FRA is adequate funding for, and
    receipt of those protective devices, including: vehicle
    protection, armor and electronic equipment to disrupt IEDs for
    every uniformed service member in theater.
        FRA strongly supports adequate funding for the Defense
    Health Program. In order to meet readiness needs, fully fund
    TRICARE and improve access for all beneficiaries, regardless of
    age, status, or location, FRA believe the Defense Department
    must investigate and implement other options to make TRICARE
    more cost effective as an alternative to shifting the cost to
    retiree beneficiaries under the age of 65.
        The proposed 2008 budget includes cuts in healthcare
    funding based, apparently, on the assumed implementation of
    drastically higher fees for military retirees. FRA questions
    why DOD assumed authorization of the fee hikes before the
    ongoing studies are complete.
        FRA strongly urges the subcommittee to restore the funding
    in lieu of TRICARE fee increases. FRA believes funding
    healthcare benefits for all beneficiaries are part of the cost
    of defending our Nation.
        FRA supports the annual Active duty increases that are at
    least one-half of 1 percent above the employment cost index.
    For 2008, the administration recommended only a 3-percent
    across-the-board pay increase for members of the Armed
    Services, which is equal to the employment compensation index.
        Adequate pay contributes to improved morale, readiness, and
    retention. The value of adequate pay cannot be overstated.
    Better pay will reduce family stress, especially for the junior
    enlisted. The current year pay increase, which was 2.2 percent,
    was the smallest increase since 1994. Military pay and benefits
    must reflect the fact that military service is very different
    from the work in the private sector.
        Also, reforming and updating the Montgomery GI bill is
    important, and aids in the recruitment and retention of high-
    quality individuals for service in the Active and Reserve
    forces. If authorized, FRA also strongly supports funding
    improvements to concurrent receipt of military retired pay, and
    VA disability compensation. Also, retention of a full month's
    pay, for retired pay, by the retiree's surviving spouse.
        These proposals have also been endorsed by the full
    military coalition.
        Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the
    opportunity to present the association's recommendations, and I
    stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
        Senator Inouye. Well, as you are well aware, recruiting and
    retention are our major concerns at this moment.
        Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inouye. And I can assure you that your program
    helps in that element, so we'll do our very best, sir.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of John R. Davis
                                    the fra
        The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is the oldest and largest
    enlisted organization serving active duty, Reserves, retired and
    veterans of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. It is
    Congressionally Chartered, recognized by the Department of Veterans
    Affairs (DVA) as an accrediting Veteran Service Organization (VSO) for
    claim representation and entrusted to serve all veterans who seek its
    help.
        FRA was established in 1924 and its name is derived from the Navy's
    program for personnel transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine
    Corps Reserve after 20 or more years of active duty, but less than 30
    years for retirement purposes. During the required period of service in
    the Fleet Reserve, assigned personnel earn retainer pay and are subject
    to recall by the Secretary of the Navy.
        FRA's mission is to act as the premier ``watch dog'' organization
    in maintaining and improving the quality of life for Sea Service
    personnel and their families. FRA is a leading advocate on Capitol Hill
    for enlisted Active Duty, Reserve, retired and veterans of the Sea
    Services.
        FRA also is a major participant in The Military Coalition (TMC) a
    35-member consortium of military and veterans organizations. FRA hosts
    most TMC meetings and members of its staff serve in a number of TMC
    leadership roles, including co-chairing several committees.
        FRA celebrated 82 years of service in November 2006. For over eight
    decades, dedication to its members has resulted in legislation
    enhancing quality of life programs for Sea Services personnel and other
    members of the Uniformed Services while protecting their rights and
    privileges. CHAMPUS, now TRICARE, was an initiative of FRA, as was the
    Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit Plan (USSBP). More recently, FRA
    led the way in reforming the REDUX Retirement Plan, obtaining targeted
    pay increases for mid-level enlisted personnel, and sea pay for junior
    enlisted sailors. FRA also played a leading role in obtaining predatory
    lending protections for service members and their dependents in the
    fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.
        FRA's motto is: ``Loyalty, Protection, and Service.''
                                    overview
        Mr. Chairman, the Fleet Reserve Association thanks you and the
    entire Subcommittee for your strong and unwavering support of funding
    programs important to active duty, Reserve Component, and retired
    members of the uniformed services, their families, and survivors. The
    Subcommittee's work has greatly improved military pay, eliminated out-
    of-pocket housing expenses, improved health care, and enhanced other
    personnel, retirement and survivor programs. This support is critical
    to maintaining readiness and is invaluable to our uniformed services
    engaged throughout the world fighting the global War on Terror,
    sustaining other operational commitments and fulfilling commitments to
    those who've served in the past.
        This year, even with the more than $100 billion in pending
    supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States
    will still spend only four percent of its GDP on defense. From 1961-
    1963, the military consumed 9.1 percent of GDP annually. According to
    many experts the active duty military has been stretched to the limit
    since 9/11, and has expanded by only 30,000 personnel. FRA strongly
    supports funding to support the anticipated increased end strengths in
    fiscal year 2008 since the current end strength is not adequate to meet
    the demands of fighting the War on Terror and sustaining other
    operational commitments. ``Measuring governmental costs against the
    economy as a whole is a good proxy for how much of the nation's wealth
    is being diverted to a particular enterprise.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ John Cranford, CQ Weekly, February 10, 2007; ``Political
    Economy: High, and Low, Cost of War''.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the past several years, the Pentagon has been constrained in
    its budget even as it has been confronted with rising personnel costs,
    aging weapon systems, worn out equipment, and dilapidated facilities.
        This statement lists the concerns of our members, keeping in mind
    that the Association's primary goal is to endorse any positive safety
    programs, rewards, quality of life improvements that support members of
    the uniform services, particularly those serving in hostile areas, and
    their families, and survivors.
        Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsman serving in Operation Iraqi
    Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) must be fully armed
    with the best protective devices available for their personnel safety.
    A top priority for FRA is adequate funding for, and receipt of those
    protective devices; including vehicle protection, armor and electronic
    equipment to disrupt IEDs for every uniformed member serving in
    theater.
                                  health care
        Full Funding for the Defense Health Program.--FRA strongly supports
    adequate funding for the Defense Health Program in order to meet
    readiness needs, fully fund TRICARE, and improve access for all
    beneficiaries regardless of age, status or location.
        FRA believes that the Defense Department must investigate and
    implement other options to make TRICARE more cost-efficient as
    alternatives to shifting costs for TRICARE Standard and other health
    care benefits to retiree beneficiaries under age 65. Cost-saving
    options include:
      --Negotiating discounts with drug manufacturers, or mandating federal
            pricing;
      --Eliminate mail-order co-pays to boost use of this lowest cost
            option for beneficiaries to receive prescription medications;
            and
      --Accelerate DOD/VA cost sharing initiates to ensure implementation
            of a seamless transition.
        The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget includes a $1.86 billion
    health care funding cut based apparently on the assumed implementation
    of drastically higher fees for younger military retirees. There have
    been no enrollment fee hikes since TRICARE was established in 1995, and
    this proposed cost shifting to beneficiaries is nearly 250 percent more
    than the annual savings predicted by DOD last year ($735 million). FRA
    questions why DOD assumed authorization of the fee hikes before the
    Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care issues a preliminary
    report and prior to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of
    the data and methodology DOD used to determine increased fees outlined
    in 2006. FRA strongly urges the Subcommittee to restore the $1.86
    billion funding in lieu of TRICARE fee increases.
        Higher health care fees for retirees will significantly erode the
    value of retired pay, particularly for enlisted retirees who retired
    prior to larger and targeted recent pay adjustments enacted to close
    the pay gap. Military service is very different from work in the
    corporate world and requires service in often life threatening duty
    assignments and the associated benefits offered in return must be
    commensurate with these realities.
        FRA is grateful to both the House and Senate Budget Committees for
    providing head room in fiscal year 2008 to restore adequate funding
    without huge fee increases for beneficiaries. Funding health care
    benefits for all beneficiaries is part of the cost of defending our
    Nation.
                           protect personnel programs
        Active Duty Pay.--FRA supports annual active duty pay increases
    that are at least 0.5 percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI)
    along with targeted increases for mid career and senior enlisted
    personnel to help close the remaining four percent pay gap between
    active duty and private sector pay.
        For fiscal year 2008, the Administration recommended only a three
    percent across the board pay increase for members of the Armed
    Services.
        Adequate and targeted pay increases authorized in recent years for
    middle grade and senior petty and noncommissioned officers have
    contributed to improved morale, readiness, and retention. The value of
    adequate pay cannot be over stated. Better pay will reduce family
    stress, especially for junior enlisted and reduce the need for military
    personnel use of short-term pay day loans unaware of the ruinous long-
    term impact of excessive interest rates.
        The 2.2 percent across the board basic pay increase for members of
    the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2007 is the smallest increase since
    1994 and an issue within the career force. In addition, certain grades
    received targeted pay increases on April 1, 2007 totaling between 2
    percent and 5 percent.
        Military pay and benefits must reflect the fact that military
    service is very different from work in the private sector.
        BRAC and Rebasing.--Adequate resources are required to fund
    essential quality of life programs and services at bases impacted by
    BRAC and rebasing initiatives. FRA is concerned about sustaining
    commissary access, MWR programs and other support for service members
    and their families particularly at installations most impacted by these
    actions. These include Guam, where a significant number of Marines and
    their families are being relocated from Okinawa. The shortage of funds
    is curtailing or closing some of the activities while the costs of
    participating in others have recently increased. Regarding Navy fitness
    centers, the biggest challenge is updating older fitness structures and
    providing the right equipment, and ensuring availability of trained
    staff.
        Family Readiness and Support.--FRA supports funding for a family
    readiness and a support structure to enhance family cohesion and
    improve retention and recruitment. DOD and the services must provide
    information and education programs for families of our service members.
    Spousal and family programs 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 the 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 also particularly
    beneficial to mobilized Reservists and families who are unfamiliar with
    benefits and services available to them.
        Child and Youth Programs.--MCPON Joe Campa testified before the
    House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans
    Affairs on February 9, 2007 and stated that a top Navy issue is the
    need for more childcare facilities. ``We are currently providing close
    to 69 percent of the need right now, but with more single parents, dual
    military couples and surge deployments, childcare is very important,
    and it's critical to our mission accomplishment.'' Currently, the
    Navy's program cares for over 31,000 children six months to 12 years in
    227 facilities, and in 3,180 on and off base licensed child development
    homes. Access to childcare is important and FRA urges Congress to
    authorize adequate funding for this important program.
        Other top Navy requirements are the need for more homeport/ashore
    barracks, and improved health care access via more providers in certain
    fleet concentration areas.
        As an integral support system for mission readiness and
    deployments, it is imperative these programs be adequately funded and
    continued to be improved and expanded to cover the needs of both
    married and single parents.
        Spousal Employment.--The Association urges Congress to continue its
    support of the military's effort to affect a viable spousal employment
    program and to authorize sufficient funds to assure the program's
    success. Today's all-volunteer environment requires the services to
    consider the whole family. Spousal employment is important and can be a
    stepping-stone to retention of the service member--a key participant in
    the defense of this Nation.
        Active Duty and Reserve Component Personnel End Strengths.--FRA
    strongly supports adequate end strength to win the War on Terror and to
    sustain other military commitments around the world. Inadequate end
    strengths increase stress on the military personnel and their families
    and contribute to greater reliance on the Guard and Reserves. FRA
    welcomes the Administration's request for 92,000 additional personnel
    (27,000 Marines and 65,000 Army) and urges authorization of
    appropriations to cover the associated short and long term costs.
        Education Funding.--FRA strongly supports funding for supplemental
    Impact Aid for highly impacted school districts. It is important to
    ensure our service members, many serving in harm's way, have less
    concern about their children's education and more focus with the job at
    hand. Impact Aid funding for local schools educating military children
    is frozen at the fiscal year 2006 level in the Department of Education
    and the Administration's fiscal year 2008 request is set at the same
    level ($1,228,453,000) despite rebasing plans and significant
    anticipated Army and Marine Corps end strength increases in the coming
    years.
        The Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) program must be adequately funded
    since it is important and aids in the recruitment and retention of
    high-quality individuals for service in the active and Reserve forces;
    assists in the readjustment of service men and women to civilian life
    after they complete military service; extends the benefits of higher
    education (and training) to service men and women who may not be able
    to afford higher education; and enhances the Nation by providing a
    better educated and more productive workforce. Double-digit education
    inflation is dramatically diminishing the value of MGIB, and despite
    recent increases, benefits fall well short of the actual cost of
    education at a four-year public college or university. In addition,
    thousands of career service members who entered service during the
    Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) era, but declined to
    enroll in that program (in many cases, on the advice of government
    education officials) have been denied a MGIB enrollment opportunity.
        Reform of PCS Process.--FRA appreciates that the long delayed
    implementation of the Families First program which will provide full
    replacement value reimbursements for damaged household goods moved
    during service members PCS relocations will be implemented in May 2008.
    This program must be adequately funded and FRA continues to support
    resources necessary to ensure full implementation and the continuation
    of this program.
                                 reserve issues
        FRA stands foursquare in support of the Nation's Reservists. Due to
    the demands of the War on Terror, Reserve units are now increasingly
    being mobilized to augment active duty components and last year more
    than 5,000 Navy Reserve Sailors were serving in the desert. And
    wherever active-duty Marines are engaged around the world, Marine
    Reservists are there.
        Inadequate benefits for Reservists and the Guard can only undermine
    long-term retention and readiness. And because of increasing demands on
    these personnel to perform multiple missions abroad over longer periods
    of time, it's essential to improve compensation and benefits packages
    to attract recruits and retain currently serving personnel.
        Health Care.--FRA supports adequate funding for TRICARE Reserve
    Select to sustain the benefit on an optional basis for all selected
    Reservists and families on a cost-sharing basis. FRA also supports
    funding to increase subsidy levels for TRICARE coverage for drilling
    Reserve members not yet mobilized and establishing one premium for all
    members of the Guard and Reserve who continue to be drilling members.
    Consistency of health care benefits and continuity of care are major
    concerns for Reserve personnel and their families.
        Retirement.--If authorized, FRA supports funding to support a
    reduction in the age when Reserve members are eligible for retirement
    pay, particularly for those members who have experienced extended
    mobilizations at great sacrifice to their civilian careers.
        Family Readiness.--FRA supports resources to allow increased
    outreach to connect Guard and Reserve families with support programs.
    This includes increased funding for family readiness, especially for
    those geographically dispersed, not readily accessible to military
    installations, and inexperienced with the military. Unlike active duty
    families who often live near military facilities and support services,
    many Reserve families live in civilian communities where information
    and support is not readily available. Congressional hearing witnesses
    have indicated that many of the half million mobilized Guard and
    Reserve personnel have not received transition assistance services they
    and their families need to make a successful transition back to
    civilian life.
        Other Issues.--FRA is pleased to see improvements to the Survivor
    Benefit Program (SBP) and concurrent receipt in the House Personnel
    Subcommittee mark up of the fiscal year 2008 National Defense
    Authorization Act. If authorized, the Association asks that the
    Subcommittee provide funding necessary to cover the increase costs of
    the enhancements in these two important programs.
                                   conclusion
        FRA is grateful for the opportunity to present the organization's
    views to this distinguished Subcommittee. The Association reiterates
    its profound gratitude for the extraordinary progress this Subcommittee
    has made in advancing a wide range of military personnel benefits and
    quality-of-life programs for all uniformed services personnel,
    retirees, their families and survivors.
        Thank you.

        Senator Inouye. I must call this hearing to a short recess,
    because we have a vote pending. There will be four votes on the
    floor, all stacked up, and so we should be able to reconvene in
    an hour.
        So, with that, the hearing is recessed for 1 hour, and the
    first witness upon our return will be Chief Petty Officer James
    Phillips.
        Our next witness is Chief Petty Officer James Phillips,
    United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps.
        Captain Hurd. Mr. Chairman, it's my honor to introduce
    Chief Phillips, who is the Petty Officer of the Year, selected
    out of 10,000 Sea Cadets every year, and quite a privilege.
        Senator Inouye. Congratulations.
    STATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JAMES PHILLIPS, UNITED
                STATES NAVAL SEA CADET CORPS
    ACCOMPANIED BY CAPTAIN ROBERT C. HURD, UNITED STATES NAVY (RETIRED),
                NAVAL SEA CADET CORPS

        Chief Phillips. Mr. Chairman, good morning. I'm Naval Sea
    Cadet Corps Chief Petty Officer James Phillips, lead Petty
    Officer of the Warrior Division in Doseville, Georgia, as well
    as a senior at New Creations Center.
        It is an honor to address you on behalf of the Naval Sea
    Cadet Corps. There are now between 9,000 and 10,000 young men
    and women, ages 11 to 17, and adult volunteers, proudly wearing
    the Naval Sea Cadet uniform in 371 units throughout the
    country.
        We are a congressionally chartered youth development and
    education program, sponsored by the Navy League of the United
    States, and supported by the Navy and Coast Guard.
        The program's main goals are the development of young men
    and women, while promoting interest and skill in seamanship and
    aviation, and instilling a sense of patriotism, courage,
    commitment, self-reliance, and honor, along with other
    qualities that mold strong moral character, and self-discipline
    in a drug, and gang-free environment.
        After completing boot camp, Sea Cadets choose from a
    variety of 2-week summer training sessions, including training
    aboard Navy and Coast Guard ships. During my tour in the Naval
    Sea Cadets, I have attended 15 advanced summer and spring
    training sessions. During the year, we drill one weekend a
    month, and may complete Navy correspondent courses for
    advancement, this being the basis for the accelerated
    promotion, if a cadet should choose to enlist in the Navy, or
    Coast Guard, after leaving the program.
        Almost 500 former Sea Cadets now attend the U.S. Naval
    Academy. This past year, over 12 percent of the entering fleet
    class were ex-cadets. Approximately 500 former cadets annually
    enlist in the Armed Services, pre-screened, highly motivated,
    and well-prepared. Prior Sea Cadets experience has proven to be
    an excellent indicator of a potentially higher career success
    rate, both in and out of the military. My current plans for the
    future are that I plan to work toward becoming a military
    doctor.
        Whether or not we choose a service career, we all carry
    forth the forged values of good citizenship, leadership, and
    moral courage that we believe will benefit us and our country.
    A major difference between this, and other federally chartered
    youth programs, is that we are all responsible for our own
    expenses, including uniforms, travel, insurance, and training
    costs, which can amount to $400 to $500 a year. The Corps,
    however, is particularly sensitive that no young person is
    denied access to the program, because of socio-economic status.
        Some units are financed, in part, by local sponsors. Yet,
    this support--while greatly appreciated--is not sufficient to
    support all cadets. Federal funds over the past years have been
    used to help offset cadets out-of-pocket training costs,
    however, for a variety of reasons, current funding can no
    longer adequately sustain the program. These include:
    inflation, base closures and reduced base access, reduced
    afloat training opportunities, lack of previously provided
    transportation, on-base berthing and base transportation,
    increased need-based support for the cadets.
        We respectfully request your consideration and support, our
    funding request of $300,000, that will allow for the full
    budgeted amount of $2 million requested for next year.
        Unfortunately, time precludes sharing the many stories that
    Captain Hurd has shared with your staff this year, pointing out
    the many acts of courage, community service, and successful
    youth development of my fellow Sea Cadets, as well as those ex-
    cadets who are serving in armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan,
    and around the world. These stories, and many more like them,
    are unfortunately the stories that you do not always hear about
    in the press.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I, and
    the entire Sea Cadet Corps, appreciate your support for this
    fine program, that has meant so much to me over the past 6
    years, and which will continue to influence me for the rest of
    my life.
        Senator Inouye. Once again, congratulations, sir. And, this
    patriotic program is worthy of our support.
        Chief Phillips. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Chief Phillips. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Captain Robert C. Hurd
                                    request
        It is respectfully requested that $300,000 be appropriated for the
    NSCC in fiscal year 2008, so that when added to the Navy budgeted
    $1,700,000 will restore full funding at the $2,000,000 level. Further,
    in order to ensure future funding at the full $2,000,000 requirement,
    consideration of including the following conference language is
    requested:

        ``Congress is pleased to learn that Navy has funded the U.S. Naval
    Sea Cadet Corps in the fiscal year 20078 budget as urged by the Senate
    and House in the 2007 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 2008 budget request
    will fund the program at the full $2,000,000 requested. Conferees urge
    the Navy to continue to fund this program and increase the POM level to
    $2,000,000 for the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps.''
                                   background
        At the request of the Department of the Navy, the Navy League of
    the United States established the Naval Sea Cadet Corps in 1958 to
    ``create a favorable image of the Navy on the part of American youth.''
    On September 10, 1962, the U.S. Congress federally chartered the Naval
    Sea Cadet Corps under Public Law 87-655 as a non-profit civilian youth
    training organization for young people, ages 13 through 17. A National
    Board of Directors, whose Chairman serves as the National Vice
    President of the Navy League for Youth Programs, establishes NSCC
    policy and management guidance for operation and administration. A
    full-time Executive Director and small staff in Arlington, Virginia
    administer NSCC's day-to-day operations. These professionals work with
    volunteer regional directors, unit commanding officers, and local
    sponsors. They also collaborate with Navy League councils and other
    civic, or patriotic organizations, and with local school systems.
        In close cooperation with, and the support of, the U.S. Navy and
    U.S. Coast Guard, the Sea Cadet Corps allows youth to sample military
    life without obligation to join the Armed Forces. Cadets and adult
    leaders are authorized to wear the Navy uniform, appropriately modified
    with a distinctive Sea Cadet insignia.
        There are currently over 367 Sea Cadet units with a program total
    of over 8,200 participants with over 2,200 adult volunteer Officers and
    Instructors.
                                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, 197 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 the areas of leadership, perseverance and
    courage. Requirements include intensive anti-drug program training and
    giving anti-drug presentations to interested community groups.
                                    training
    Local Training
        Local training, held at the unit's drill site, includes a variety
    of activities supervised by qualified Sea Cadet Corps officers and
    instructors, as well as Navy and Coast Guard instructors.
        Cadets receive classroom and hands on practical instruction in
    basic military requirements, military drill, water and small boat
    safety, core personal values, social amenities, drug/alcohol abuse,
    cultural relations, Navy history, naval customs and traditions and
    other nautical skills. Training may be held aboard ships, small boats
    or aircraft, depending upon platform availability. In their training
    Cadets also learn about and are exposed to a wide variety of civilian
    and military career opportunities through field trips and educational
    tours.
        Special presentations by military and civilian officials augment
    the local training, as does attendance at special briefings and events
    throughout the local area. Cadets are also encouraged and scheduled, to
    participate in civic activities and events to include parades, social
    work and community projects, all part of the ``whole person'' training
    concept.
        For all Naval Sea Cadets the training during the first several
    months is at their local training site and focuses on general
    orientation to and familiarization with, the entire program. It also
    prepares them for their first major away from home training event, the
    two weeks recruit training which all Sea Cadets must successfully
    complete.
        The Navy League Cadet Corps training program teaches younger Cadets
    the virtues of personal neatness, loyalty, obedience, courtesy,
    dependability and a sense of responsibility for shipmates. In
    accordance with a Navy-oriented syllabus, this education prepares them
    for the higher level of training they will receive as Naval Sea Cadets.
                                summer training
        After enrolling, all Sea Cadets must first attend a two-week
    recruit training taught at the Navy's Recruit Training Command, at
    other Naval Bases or stations, and at regional recruit training sites
    using other military host resources. Instructed by Navy or NSCC Recruit
    Division Commanders, Cadets train to a condensed version of the basic
    training that Navy enlistees receive. The curriculum is provided by the
    Navy and taught at all training sites. In 2006 there were 23 recruit
    training classes at 21 locations, including two classes conducted over
    the winter holiday break and another held over spring break. About
    eighteen nationwide to twenty-two regional sites are required to
    accommodate the steady demand for quotas and also to keep cadet and
    adult travel costs to a minimum. Approximately 2,000 cadets attended
    recruit training in 2006 supported by another 350 adult volunteers.
        A Cadet who successfully completes recruit training is eligible for
    advanced training in various fields of choice. Cadets can experience
    the excitement of ``hands-on'' practical training aboard Navy and Coast
    Guard vessels, ranging from tugboats and cutters to the largest
    nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Female Cadets may also train aboard
    any ship that has females assigned as part of the ship's company.
    Qualified Cadets choose from such Sea Cadet advanced training as basic/
    advanced airman, ceremonial guard, seamanship, sailing, SEAL training,
    amphibious operations, leadership, firefighting and emergency services,
    Homeland security, mine warfare operations, Navy diving submarine
    orientation and training in occupational specialties, including health
    care, legal, music, master-at-arms and police science and construction.
        The Cadet Corp programs excel in quality and diversity of training
    offered, with more than 7,000 training orders carried out for the 2006
    summer training program. Cadets faced a myriad of challenging training
    opportunities designed to instill leadership and develop self-reliance,
    enabling them to become familiar with the full spectrum of Navy and
    Coast Guard career fields.
        This steady and continuing participation once again reflects the
    popularity of the NSCC and the positive results of federal funding for
    2001 through 2006. The NSCC still continues to experience an average
    increased recruit and advanced training attendance of well over 2,000
    cadets per year over those years in which federal funding was not
    available.
        While recruit training acquaints cadets with Navy life and Navy
    style discipline, advanced training focuses on military and general
    career fields and opportunities, and also affords the cadets many
    entertaining, drug free, disciplined yet fun activities over the
    summer. The popularity of the training continues to grow not with just
    overall numbers but also as evidenced with numerous cadets performing
    multiple two week training sessions during the summer of 2006.
        Training highlights for 2006.--The 2006 training focus was once
    again on providing every cadet the opportunity to perform either
    recruit or advanced training during the year. To that end emphasis was
    placed on maintaining all traditional and new training opportunities
    developed since federal funding was approved for the NSCC. These
    include more classes in sailing and legal (JAG) training, expanded SEAL
    training opportunity, more SCUBA and diving training classes, more
    seamanship training onboard the NSCC training vessels on the Great
    Lakes, more aviation related training and additional honor guard
    training opportunities. Other highlights included:
      --Maintained national recruit training opportunity for every cadet
            wanting to participate with 21 recruit training evolutions in
            2006.
      --Extended cadet training opportunity beyond the traditional summer
            evolutions to now include advanced and recruit training classes
            over the Thanksgiving high school recess, the Christmas recess
            and the spring recess. During 2006, 12 additional classes over
            these school breaks were conducted with 725 cadets
            participating. They were supported by another 104 adult
            volunteers.
      --Maintained NSCC's aggressive NSCC Officer Professional Development
            Program, with three different weekend courses tailored to
            improving volunteer knowledge and leadership skills. Over 500
            volunteers attended 2006 training at 32 different training
            evolutions.
      --Continued for a second year, NSCC's new naval engineering class for
            NSCC cadets at Navy's Training Command, Great Lakes, IL.
      --Once again placed cadets onboard USCG Barque Eagle for a summer
            underway orientation training cruise.
      --Maintained NSCC's expanded seamanship training on the Great Lakes
            with 4 underway cruises onboard 2 NSCC YP's and the NSCC
            torpedo retriever ``Grayfox''.
      --Further enhanced NSCC cadet opportunity for advanced training in
            the medical field through the expanded medical ``first
            responder'' training at Naval Hospital Great Lakes, IL, and
            continuing the very advanced, unique ``surgical tech'' training
            at the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, CA.
      --Developed and implemented NSCC's first 3 week summer training
            course in Joint Special Operations Command Orientation at Fort
            Pickett, VA. 37 cadets graduated from this course in 2006.
      --Continued NSCC's maritime focus through its expanded sail training
            with basic, intermediate and advanced sailing classes offered
            in San Diego, CA and 2 additional classes on board ``tall
            ships'' in Newport, RI.
      --Continued to place cadets aboard USCG stations, cutters, and
            tenders for what proves to be among the best of the individual
            training opportunities offered in the NSCC.
      --Placed cadets onboard USN ships under local orders as operating
            schedules and opportunity permitted.
      --Promoted cadets' orientation of the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S.
            Coast Guard Academy by offering tuition offsets to cadets
            accepted into either academies summer orientation program for
            high school juniors (NASS or AIM). 20 cadets participated in
            2006.
      --Again, as in prior years, enjoyed particularly outstanding support
            from members of the United States Naval Reserve, the Army, and
            National Guard, whose help and leadership remains essential for
            summer training.
    International Exchange Program (IEP)
        For 2006 the NSCC again continued its' 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, Scotland, Russia, 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 international cadets in Newport, RI and at ANG Gowen Field,
    Boise, ID, for two weeks of NSCC sponsored training.
    Navy League Cadet Training
        In 2006, approximately 984 Navy League cadets and escorts attended
    Navy League Orientation and Advanced Training nationwide. Participation
    in 2006 was somewhat less than 2005 by about 150 cadets, surmised to be
    attributable to reduced enrollments as a result of the on-going war in
    Iraq. This is a total of approximately 350 fewer cadets than in 2004.
    Regardless, the diversity in location and ample quotas allowed for
    attendance by each and every League cadet who wished to attend. Of
    these, approximately 217 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 recruit training.
    International Exchange Program
        For 2006 the NSCC again continued for the fifth 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 nad British
    Columbia and the NSCC hosted visiting cadets in Newport, RI and at ANG
    Gowen Field in Boise, ID for two weeks of NSCC sponsored training. New
    in 2005 were exchanges to Saint Petersberg, Russia and also to
    Scotland.
    Navy League Cadet Training
        In 2005, over 1,120 Navy League Cadets and escorts attended
    orientation training at 17 different sites. This diversity in location
    made training accessible and reasonably available to each Cadet who
    wished to attend. Over 373 League Cadets and escorts attended advanced
    training at several sites. The advanced program was developed in
    recognition of the need to provide follow-on training for this younger
    age group to sustain their interest and to better prepare them for the
    challenges of Naval Sea Cadet Corps training. Navy League Cadets who
    attend recruit orientation training are exceptionally well prepared for
    Sea Cadet ``boot camp.''
    Scholarships
        The Naval Sea Cadet Corps scholarship program was established to
    provide financial assistance to deserving Cadets who wished to further
    their education at the college level. Established in 1975, the
    scholarship program consists of a family of funds: the NSCC Scholarship
    Fund; the Navy League Stockholm Scholarship; and the NSCC ``named
    scholarship'' program, designed to recognize an individual,
    corporation, organization or foundation. Since the inception of the
    scholarship program, 209 scholarships have been awarded to 197 Cadets
    (includes some renewals) totaling over $256,500.
    Service Accessions
        The Naval Sea Cadet Corps was formed at the request of the
    Department of the Navy as a means to ``enhance the Navy image in the
    minds of American youth.'' To accomplish this, ongoing presentations
    illustrate to Naval Sea Cadets the advantages and benefits of careers
    in the armed services, and in particular, the sea services.
        While there is no service obligation associated with the Naval Sea
    Cadet Corps program, many Sea Cadets choose to enlist or enroll in
    Officer training programs in all the Services.
        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 training
    illustrates to Naval Sea Cadets the advantages and benefits of careers
    in the armed services, and in particular, the sea 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 which occurs during the
    period January through March. The reported accessions to the services
    are only those known to the unit. There are many accessions that go
    unreported, that occur 2-5 years after Cadets leave their units. With
    about 80 percent of the units reporting, the survey indicates that 566
    known Cadets entered the Armed Forces during the reporting year ending
    December 31, 2005. This is an increase over the previous years'
    accessions. Each Cadet entering the Armed Forces is a disciplined,
    well-trained individual and progresses much better than those with no
    experience. Attritions of former cadets prior to their completion of
    obligated service is very low compared to other entrees.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Naval Academy (2006)....................................        148
    U.S. Military Academy........................................          6
    U.S. Coast Guard Academy.....................................          5
    U.S. Air Force Academy.......................................          3
    U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.................................         10
    NROTC........................................................         41
    OCS Navy.....................................................          8
    OCS Army.....................................................         11
    OCS Air Force................................................          3
    OCS Marine Corps.............................................          3
    USNA Prep School.............................................          1
    Navy-Enlisted................................................        169
    U.S. Coast Guard-Enlisted....................................         15
    Marine Corps-Enlisted........................................         72
    Army-Enlisted................................................         48
    Air Force-Enlisted...........................................          6
    National Guard-Enlisted......................................         17
                                                                  ----------
          Total..................................................        566
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Program Finances
        Sea Cadets pay for all expenses, including travel to/from training,
    uniforms, insurance and training costs. Out-of-pocket costs can reach
    $500 each year. Assistance is made available so that no young person is
    denied access to the program, regardless of social or economic
    background.
        Federally funded at the $1,000,000 level in fiscal year's 2001,
    2002, and 2003, and at $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2004 and $1,700,000 in
    2005 (of the $2,000,000 requested), and $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2006
    all of these fund were used to offset individual Cadet's individual
    costs for summer training, conduct of background checks for adult
    volunteers and for reducing future enrollment costs for Cadets. In
    addition to the federal fund received, NSCC receives under $700,000 per
    year from other sources, which includes around $226,000 in enrollment
    fees from Cadets and adult volunteers. For a variety of reasons, at a
    minimum, this current level of funding is necessary to sustain this
    program and the full $2,000,000 would allow for program expansion:
      --All time high in number of enrolled Sea Cadets.
      --General inflation of all costs.
      --Some bases denying planned access to Sea Cadets for training due to
            increased terrorism threat level alerts and the associated
            tightening of security measures--requiring Cadets to utilize
            alternative, and often more costly training alternatives.
      --Reduced availability of afloat training opportunities due to the
            Navy's high level of operations related to the Iraq war.
      --Reduced training site opportunities due to base closures.
      --Non-availability of open bay berthing opportunities for Cadets due
            to their elimination as a result of enlisted habitability
            upgrades to individual/double berthing spaces.
      --Lack of available ``Space Available'' transportation for group
            movements.
      --Lack of on-base transportation, as the navy no longer ``owns''
            busses now controlled by the GSA.
      --Navy outsourcing of messing facilities to civilian contractors
            increases the individual Cadet's meal costs.
        Because of these factors, Cadet out-of-pocket costs have
    skyrocketed to the point where the requested $2,000,000 alone would be
    barely sufficient to handle cost increases
        It is therefore considered a matter of urgency that the full amount
    of the requested $2,000,000 be authorized and appropriated for fiscal
    year 2008.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Mr. Rick Jones,
    Legislative Director, National Association for Uniformed
    Services.
    STATEMENT OF RICK JONES, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
                ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
        Mr. Jones. Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Stevens, it's an
    honor to testify before so distinguished a veteran of World War
    II, and it's a privilege to be invited before your
    subcommittee.
        My association is very proud of the job this generation of
    Americans is doing. What they do is vital to our security, and
    the debt we owe them is enormous.
        Mr. Chairman, quality healthcare is a strong incentive for
    a military career. At a time when we are relying on our Armed
    Forces, the Defense Department's recommendations to reduce
    military healthcare spending by $1.8, $1.9 billion is deeply
    disappointing.
        The plan DOD proposes would, as you know, double or even
    triple annual fees for retirees and families, and would greatly
    diminish the value of the benefit earned by retirees for a
    military career. My association asks you to ensure full funding
    is provided to maintain the value of the healthcare benefit
    that's provided these men and women, willing to undergo the
    hardships of a military career. What we ask is what is best for
    our service men and women.
        Mr. Chairman, a long war fought by an overstretched force
    gives us a warning. There are simply too many missions, and too
    few troops. To sustain the service, we must recognize that an
    increase in troop strength is needed, and it must be resourced.
    We ask, also, that you give priority to funding operations and
    maintenance accounts. To reset, recapitalize and renew the
    Force.
        The National Guard, for example, has virtually depleted its
    equipment inventory, causing rising concern about its capacity
    to respond to disasters at home, or to train for its missions
    abroad. Another matter of great interest to our members is the
    plan to re-align and consolidate military health facilities in
    the national capital region, specifically, Walter Reed Medical
    Center in Washington, DC.
        To maintain Walter Reed's base operation support and
    medical services, we request that funds be in place to ensure
    that Walter Reed remains open, fully operational, and fully
    functional until the planned facilities at Bethesda and Fort
    Belvoir are in place already to give uninterrupted care to our
    catastrophically wounded soldiers.
        Our wounded warriors really deserve our Nation's best, most
    compassionate healthcare. They earned it the hard way, and with
    application of proper resources, we know the Nation will
    continue to hold the well-being of these soldiers and their
    families in one of our highest priorities.
        The development of an electronic medical record remains a
    major goal. My association calls on you to continue to push, as
    you have in the past, DOD and VA to follow through on
    establishing a bi-directional, interoperable, electronic
    medical record. The time for foot-dragging is over.
        We also call on the subcommittee to fund a full spectrum of
    traumatic brain injury care, recognizing that TBI is a
    signature injury of the current conflict. We need to recognize
    that the care is needed for patients suffering from mild to
    moderate brain injuries, as well. The approach to this problem
    requires resources, and we trust you'll take a look at that.
        We encourage the subcommittee to ensure that funding for
    the Defense Department's prosthetic research is adequate to
    support the full range of programs needed to meet the needs of
    current, disabled veterans.
        As you know, the Uniformed Services University of the
    Health Sciences is the Nation's Federal School of Medicine and
    Graduate School of Nursing. We support the university, and
    request adequate funding be provided to ensure continued
    accredited training, especially in the area of chemical,
    biological, radiological, and nuclear response.
        Mr. Chairman, we thank you so very much for your service to
    this Nation, your efforts, your hard work, we look forward to
    working with you, and thank you for this opportunity to support
    our courageous troops.
        Senator Inouye. I can assure you, Mr. Jones, that we
    support your position.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]
                        Prepared Statement of Rick Jones
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Stevens, and members of the
    Subcommittee, good morning. It is a pleasure to appear before you today
    to present the views of The National Association for Uniformed Services
    on the 2008 Defense appropriations bill.
        My name is Richard ``Rick'' Jones, Legislative Director of The
    National Association for Uniformed Services (NAUS). And for the record,
    NAUS has not received any federal grant or contract during the current
    fiscal year or during the previous two years in relation to any of the
    subjects discussed today.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, The National Association for Uniformed
    Services, founded in 1968, represents all ranks, branches and
    components of uniformed services personnel, their spouses and
    survivors. The Association includes all personnel of the active,
    retired, Reserve and National Guard, disabled veterans, veterans
    community and their families. We love our country, believe in a strong
    national defense, support our troops and honor their service.
        Mr. Chairman, the first and most important responsibility of our
    government is the protection of our citizens. As we all know, we are at
    war. That is why the defense appropriations bill is so very important.
    It is critical that we provide the resources to those who fight for our
    protection and our way of life. We need to give our courageous men and
    women everything they need to prevail. And we must recognize as well
    that we must provide priority funding to keep the promises made to the
    generations of warriors whose sacrifice has paid for today's freedom.
        At the start, I want to express a NAUS concern about the amount of
    our investment in our national defense. At the height of the War on
    Terror, our current defense budget represents only a little more than 4
    percent of the gross national product, as opposed to the average of 5.7
    percent of GNP in the peacetime years between 1940 and 2000.
        We cannot look the other way in a time when we face such serious
    threats. Resources are required to ensure our military is fully
    staffed, trained, and equipped to achieve victory against our enemies.
    Leaders in Congress and the administration need to balance our
    priorities and ensure our defense in a dangerous world.
        Here, I would like to make special mention of the leadership and
    contribution this panel has made in providing the resources and support
    our forces need to complete their mission. Defending the United States
    homeland and the cause of freedom means that the dangers we face must
    be confronted. And it means that the brave men and women who put on the
    uniform must have the very best training, best weapons, best care and
    wherewithal we can give them.
        Mr. Chairman, you and those on this important panel have taken
    every step to give our fighting men and women the funds they need,
    despite allocations we view as insufficient for our total defense
    needs. You have made difficult priority decisions that have helped
    defend America and taken special care of one of our greatest assets,
    namely our men and women in uniform.
        And NAUS is very proud of the job this generation of Americans is
    doing to defend America. Every day they risk their lives, half a world
    away from loved ones. Their daily sacrifice is done in today's
    voluntary force. What they do is vital to our security. And the debt we
    owe them is enormous.
        The members of NAUS applaud Congress for the actions you have taken
    over the last several years to close the pay gap, provide bonuses for
    specialized skill sets, and improve the overall quality of life for our
    troops and the means necessary for their support.
        Our Association does, however, have some concerns about a number of
    matters. Among the major issues that we will address today is the
    provision of a proper health care for the military community and
    recognition of the funding requirements for TRICARE for retired
    military. Also, we will ask for adequate funding to improve the pay for
    members of our armed forces and to address a number of other challenges
    including TRICARE Reserve Select and the Survivor Benefit Plan.
        We also have a number of related priority concerns such as the
    diagnosis and care of troops returning with Post Traumatic Stress
    Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), the need for enhanced
    priority in the area of prosthetics research, and providing improved
    seamless transition for returning troops between the Department of
    Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In addition,
    we would like to ensure that adequate funds are provided to defeat
    injuries from the enemy's use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
    Military Quality of Life: Health Care
        Quality health care is a strong incentive to make military service
    a career. The Defense blueprint for military healthcare raises serious
    concern. DOD recommends saving $1.8 billion through sharp increases in
    TRICARE fees and higher copays for pharmaceuticals for 3.1 million
    retirees under age 65 and their families.
        To achieve these savings, Defense officials would institute the
    plan proposed last year. That plan triples annual enrollment fees for
    TRICARE Prime next October for officers, to $700 from $230 a year for
    individuals and to $1,400 from $460 per year for families. For retired
    E-6 and below, the fee would jump nearly fifty percent, to $325/$650
    from $230/$460. And for E-7 and above, the jump would more than double
    to $475/$950 from $230/$460.
        Defense officials also suggest the establishment of a TRICARE
    Standard enrollment fee and an increase in the annual amount of
    deductible charges paid by retirees using Standard coverage. The
    standard beneficiary already pays a 25 percent cost share (and an added
    15 percent for non-participating providers). Should Congress approve
    the DOD request to increase deductibles and initiate an annual fee, the
    value of the benefit earned by military retirees using Standard would
    be greatly diminished.
        DOD officials also recommend changes in TRICARE retail pharmacy
    copayments. Their ideas call for increasing copays for retail generic
    drugs to $5 from $3 and for retail brand drugs to $15 from $9. The
    copayment for non-formulary prescriptions would remain at $22. By the
    way, these would also affect over-age 65 retirees who use TRICARE for
    Life.
        The assertion behind the proposals is to have working-age retirees
    and family members pay a larger share of TRICARE costs or use civilian
    health plans offered by employers. Frankly, we are deeply troubled that
    DOD would aim to discourage retirees from using their earned benefits
    with the military medical system.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is certainly not
    comfortable with DOD estimates that by 2011, if the changes were made,
    144,000 retirees currently enrolled in the TRICARE programs would bail
    out and go to a State or private plan and an estimated 350,000 people
    who earned the benefit would never come into it.
        The DOD plan would drive half a million military retirees to make a
    choice that they might otherwise not want to make to reduce its costs
    this year by $1.8 billion. It is not only an extremely poor way to
    treat military families in times of peace or war; it is unfair,
    unbalanced, and would push 500,000 retirees out of TRICARE, the benefit
    they earned through a military career.
        Mr. Chairman, the National Association for Uniformed Services asks
    you to ensure full funding is provided to maintain the value of the
    healthcare benefit provided those men and women willing to undergo the
    hardships of a military career.
        The provision of quality, timely care is considered one of the most
    important benefits afforded the career military. What Congress has done
    reflects the commitment of a nation, and it deserves your wholehearted
    support.
        We urge the Subcommittee to take the actions necessary for honoring
    our obligation to those men and women who have worn the nation's
    military uniform. Confirm America's solemn, moral obligation to support
    our troops, our military retirees, and their families. They have kept
    their promise to our Nation, now it's time for us to keep our promise
    to them.
    Military Quality of Life: Pay
        For fiscal year 2008, the Administration recommends a 3 percent
    across-the-board pay increase for members of the Armed Forces. The
    proposal is designed, according to the Pentagon, to keep military pay
    in line with civilian wage growth.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services calls on you to put
    our troops and their families first. Our forces are stretched thin, at
    war, yet getting the job done. We ask you to express the nation's
    gratitude for their critical service, increase basic pay and drill pay
    one-half percent above the administration's request to 3.5 percent.
        Congress and the administration have done a good job over the
    recent past to narrow the gap between civilian-sector and military pay.
    The differential, which was as great as 14 percent in the late 1990s,
    has been reduced to just under 4 percent with the January 2007 pay
    increase.
        However, we can do better than simply maintaining a rough measure
    of comparability with the civilian wage scale. To help retention of
    experience and entice recruitment, the pay differential is important.
    We have made significant strides. But we are still below the private
    sector.
        In addition, we urge the appropriations panel to never lose sight
    of the fact that our DOD manpower policy needs a compensation package
    that is reasonable and competitive. Bonuses have a role in this area.
    Bonuses for instance can pull people into special jobs that help supply
    our manpower for critical assets, and they can also entice ``old
    hands'' to come back into the game with their skills.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services asks you to do all
    you can to fully compensate these brave men and women for being in
    harm's way, we should clearly recognize the risks they face and make
    every effort to appropriately compensate them for the job they do.
    Military Quality of Life: Allowances
        The National Association for Uniformed Services strongly supports
    revised housing standards within the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).
    We are most grateful for the congressional actions reducing out-of-
    pocket housing expenses for servicemembers over the last several years.
    Despite the many advances made, many enlisted personnel continue to
    face steep challenge in providing themselves and their families with
    affordable off-base housing and utility expenses. BAH provisions must
    ensure that rates keep pace with housing costs in communities where
    military members serve and reside. Efforts to better align actual
    housing rates can reduce unnecessary stress and help those who serve
    better focus on the job at hand, rather than the struggle with meeting
    housing costs for their families.
    Military Quality of Life: Allowances
        The National Association for Uniformed Services urges the
    Subcommittee to provide adequate funding for military construction and
    family housing accounts used by DOD to provide our service members and
    their families quality housing. The funds for base allowance and
    housing should ensure that those serving our country are able to afford
    to live in quality housing whether on or off the base. The current
    program to upgrade military housing by privatizing Defense housing
    stock is working well. We encourage continued oversight in this area to
    ensure joint military-developer activity continues to improve housing
    options. Clearly, we need to be particularly alert to this challenge as
    we implement BRAC and related rebasing changes.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services also asks special
    provision be granted the National Guard and Reserve for planning and
    design in the upgrade of facilities. Since the terrorist attacks of
    Sept. 11, 2001, our Guardsmen and reservists have witnessed an upward
    spiral in the rate of deployment and mobilization. The mission has
    clearly changed, and we must recognize they account for an increasing
    role in our national defense and homeland security responsibilities.
    The challenge to help them keep pace is an obligation we owe for their
    vital service.
    Increase Force Readiness Funds
        The readiness of our forces is declining. The long war fought by an
    overstretched force tells us one thing: there are simply too many
    missions and too few troops. Extended and repeated deployments are
    taking a human toll. Back-to-back deployments means, in practical
    terms, that our troops face unrealistic demands. To sustain the service
    we must recognize that an increase in troop strength is needed and it
    must be resourced.
        In addition, we ask you to give priority to funding for the
    operations and maintenance accounts where money is secured to reset,
    recapitalize and renew the force. The National Guard, for example, has
    virtually depleted its equipment inventory, causing rising concern
    about its capacity to respond to disasters at home or to train for its
    missions abroad.
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center
        Another matter of great interest to our members is the plan to
    realign and consolidate military health facilities in the National
    Capital Region. The proposed plan includes the realignment of all
    highly specialized and sophisticated medical services currently located
    at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC, to the National
    Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, and the closing of the existing
    Walter Reed by 2011.
        While we herald the renewed review of the adequacy of our hospital
    facilities and the care and treatment of our wounded warriors that
    result from news reports of deteriorating conditions at Walter Reed
    Army Medical Center, the National Association for Uniformed Services
    believes that Congress must continue to provide adequate resources for
    WRAMC to maintain its base operations' support and medical services
    that are required for uninterrupted care of our catastrophically
    wounded soldiers and marines as they move through this premier medical
    center.
        We request that funds be in place to ensure that Walter Reed
    remains open, fully operational and fully functional, until the planned
    facilities at Bethesda or Fort Belvoir are in place and ready to give
    appropriate care and treatment to the men and women wounded in armed
    service.
        Our wounded warriors deserve our nation's best, most compassionate
    healthcare and quality treatment system. They earned it the hard way.
    And with application of the proper resources, we know the nation will
    continue to hold the well being of soldiers and their families as our
    number one priority.
    Department of Defense, Seamless Transition Between the DOD and VA
        The development of electronic medical records remains a major goal.
    It is our view that providing a seamless transition for recently
    discharged military is especially important for servicemembers leaving
    the military for medical reasons related to combat, particularly for
    the most severely injured patients.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services calls on the
    Appropriations Committee to push DOD and VA to follow through on
    establishing a bi-directional, interoperable electronic medical record.
    Since 1982, these two departments have been working on sharing critical
    medical records, yet to date neither has effectively come together in
    coordination with the other.
        The time for foot dragging is over. Taking care of soldiers,
    sailors, airmen and marines is a national obligation, and doing it
    right sends a strong signal to those currently in military service as
    well as to those thinking about joining the military.
        DOD must be directed to adopt identical electronic architecture
    including software, data standards and data repositories as used at the
    Department of Veterans Affairs. It makes absolute sense and it would
    lower costs for both organizations.
        If our seriously wounded troops are to receive the care they
    deserve, the departments must do what is necessary to establish a
    system that allows seamless transition of medical records. It is
    essential if our nation is to ensure that all troops receive timely,
    quality health care and other benefits earned in military service.
        To improve the DOD/VA exchange, the hand-off should include a
    detailed history of care provided and an assessment of what each
    patient may require in the future, including mental health services. No
    veteran leaving military service should fall through the bureaucratic
    cracks.
    Defense Department Force Protection
        The National Association for Uniformed Services urges the
    Subcommittee to provide adequate funding to rapidly deploy and acquire
    the full range of force protection capabilities for deployed forces.
    This would include resources for up-armored high mobility multipurpose
    wheeled vehicles and add-on ballistic protection to provide force
    protection for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, ensure increased
    activity for joint research and treatment effort to treat combat blast
    injuries resulting from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), rocket
    propelled grenades, and other attacks; and facilitate the early
    deployment of new technology, equipment, and tactics to counter the
    threat of IEDs.
        We ask special consideration be given to counter IEDs, defined as
    makeshift or ``homemade'' bombs, often used by enemy forces to destroy
    military convoys and currently the leading cause of casualties to
    troops deployed in Iraq. These devices are the weapon of choice and,
    unfortunately, a very efficient weapon used by our enemy. The Joint
    Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is established
    to coordinate efforts that would help eliminate the threat posed by
    these IEDs. We urge efforts to advance investment in technology to
    counteract radio-controlled devices used to detonate these killers.
    Maintaining support is required to stay ahead of the changing enemy and
    to decrease casualties caused by IEDs.
    Defense Health Program--TRICARE Reserve Select
        Mr. Chairman, another area that requires attention is reservist
    participation in TRICARE. As we are all aware, National Guard and
    Reserve personnel have seen an upward spiral of mobilization and
    deployment since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The mission
    has changed and with it our reliance on these forces has risen.
    Congress has recognized these changes and begun to update and upgrade
    protections and benefits for those called away from family, home and
    employment to active duty. We urge your commitment to these troops to
    ensure that the long overdue changes made in the provision of their
    heath care and related benefits is adequately resourced. We are one
    force, all bearing a full share of the load.
    Department of Defense, Prosthetic Research
        Clearly, care for our troops with limb loss is a matter of national
    concern. The global war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan has
    produced wounded soldiers with multiple amputations and limb loss who
    in previous conflicts would have died from their injuries. Improved
    body armor and better advances in battlefield medicine reduce the
    number of fatalities, however injured soldiers are coming back
    oftentimes with severe, devastating physical losses.
        In order to help meet the challenge, Defense Department research
    must be adequately funded to continue its critical focus on treatment
    of troops surviving this war with grievous injuries. The research
    program also requires funding for continued development of advanced
    prosthesis that will focus on the use of prosthetics with
    microprocessors that will perform more like the natural limb.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services encourages the
    Subcommittee to ensure that funding for Defense Department's prosthetic
    research is adequate to support the full range of programs needed to
    meet current and future health challenges facing wounded veterans. To
    meet the situation, the Subcommittee needs to focus a substantial,
    dedicated funding stream on Defense Department research to address the
    care needs of a growing number of casualties who require specialized
    treatment and rehabilitation that result from their armed service.
        We would also like to see better coordination between the
    Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs in the development of prosthetics that
    are readily adaptable to aid amputees.
    Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
        The National Association for Uniformed Services supports a higher
    priority on Defense Department care of troops demonstrating symptoms of
    mental health disorders and traumatic brain injury.
        It is said that Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is the signature
    injury of the Iraq war. Blast injuries often cause permanent damage to
    brain tissue. Veterans with severe TBI will require extensive
    rehabilitation and medical and clinical support, including neurological
    and psychiatric services with physical and psycho-social therapies.
        We call on the Subcommittee to fund a full spectrum of TBI care and
    to recognize that care is also needed for patients suffering from mild
    to moderate brain injuries, as well. The approach to this problem
    requires resources for hiring caseworkers, doctors, nurses, clinicians
    and general caregivers if we are to meet the needs of these men and
    women and their families.
        The mental condition known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
    has been well known for over a hundred years under an assortment of
    different names. For example more than sixty years ago, Army
    psychiatrists reported, ``That each moment of combat imposes a strain
    so great that . . . psychiatric casualties are as inevitable as gunshot
    and shrapnel wounds in warfare.''
        PTSD is a serious psychiatric disorder. While the government has
    demonstrated over the past several years a higher level of attention to
    those military personnel who exhibit PTSD symptoms, more should be done
    to assist service members found to be at risk.
        Pre-deployment and post-deployment medicine is very important. Our
    legacy of the Gulf War demonstrates the concept that we need to
    understand the health of our service members as a continuum, from pre-
    to post-deployment.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services applauds the extent
    of help provided by the Defense Department, however we encourage that
    more resources be made available to assist. Early recognition of the
    symptoms and proactive programs are essential to help many of those who
    must deal with the debilitating effects of mental injuries, as
    inevitable in combat as gunshot and shrapnel wounds.
        We encourage the Members of the Subcommittee to provide for these
    funds and to closely monitor their expenditure and to see they are not
    redirected to other areas of defense spending.
    Armed Forces Retirement Home
        The National Association for Uniformed Services encourages the
    Subcommittee's continued interest in providing funds for the Armed
    Forces Retirement Home (AFRH). As you know, more than half of the
    residents in the Gulfport home were evacuated for care and treatment to
    the Washington, DC, home the day after Hurricane Katrina struck and
    damaged the Mississippi facility in August 2005. We applaud the staff
    and residents at the Washington facility for stepping up to the
    challenge of absorbing the change, and we recognize that challenges
    remain in the transformation.
        We urge the Subcommittee to continue its help in providing adequate
    funding to alleviate the strains on the Washington home. Also, we
    remain concerned about the future of the Gulfport home, so we urge your
    continued close oversight on the recently signed memorandum of
    understanding between the General Services Administration and design-
    build contractors for the Gulfport home. And we thank the subcommittee
    for the provision of $221 million to build a new Armed Forces
    Retirement Home at the present location of the tower, which is
    scheduled for demolition this summer.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services also asks the
    Subcommittee to closely review administration plans to sell great
    portions of the Washington AFRH to developers. The AFRH home is a
    historic national treasure, and we recommend that Congress find an
    alternate means to continue providing a residence for and quality-of-
    life support to these deserving veterans without turning most of this
    pristine campus over to developers.
    Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
        As you know, the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences (USUHS) is the nation's federal school of medicine and
    graduate school of nursing. The medical students are all active-duty
    uniformed officers in the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Public Health
    Service who are being educated to deal with wartime casualties,
    national disasters, emerging diseases and other public health
    emergencies.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services supports the USUHS
    and requests adequate funding be provided to ensure continued
    accredited training, especially in the area of chemical, biological,
    radiological and nuclear response. In this regard, it is our
    understanding that USUHS requires funding for training and educational
    focus on biological threats and incidents for military, civilian,
    uniformed first responders and healthcare providers across the nation.
    Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC)
        We also want the fullest accounting of our missing servicemen and
    ask for your support in DOD dedicated efforts to find and identify
    remains. It is a duty we owe to the families of those still missing as
    well as to those who served or who currently serve. And as President
    Bush said, ``It is a signal that those who wear our country's military
    uniform will never be abandoned.''
        In recent years, funding for the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command
    (JPAC) has fallen short, forcing the agency to scale back and even
    cancel many of its investigative and recovery operations. NAUS supports
    the fullest possible accounting of our missing servicemen. It is a duty
    we owe the families, to ensure that those who wear our country's
    uniform are never abandoned. We request that appropriate funds be
    provided to support the JPAC mission for fiscal year 2008.
    Appreciation for the Opportunity to Testify
        As a staunch advocate for our uniformed service men and women, The
    National Association for Uniformed Services recognizes that these brave
    men and women did not fail us in their service to country, and we, in
    turn, must not fail them in providing the benefits and services they
    earned through honorable military service.
        Mr. Chairman, The National Association for Uniformed Services
    appreciates the Subcommittee's hard work. We ask that you continue to
    work in good faith to put the dollars where they are most needed: in
    strengthening our national defense, ensuring troop protection,
    compensating those who serve, providing for DOD medical services
    including TRICARE, and building adequate housing for military troops
    and their families, and in the related defense matters discussed today.
    These are some of our nation's highest priority needs and we ask that
    they be given the level of attention they deserve.
        The National Association for Uniformed Services is confident you
    will take special care of our nation's greatest assets: the men and
    women who serve and have served in uniform. We are proud of the service
    they give to America every day. They are vital to our defense and
    national security. The price we pay as a nation for their earned
    benefits is a continuing cost of war, and it will never cost more nor
    equal the value of their service.
        We thank you for your efforts, your hard work. And we look forward
    to working with you to ensure we continue to provide sufficient
    resources to protect the earned benefits for those giving military
    service to America every day.
        Again, the National Association for Uniformed Services deeply
    appreciates the opportunity to present the Association's views on the
    issues before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness, Mr. George Dahlman,
    Senior Vice President for Public Policy, the Leukemia and
    Lymphoma Society.
    STATEMENT OF GEORGE DAHLMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
                PUBLIC POLICY, LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA
                SOCIETY
        Mr. Dahlman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us this
    opportunity. My name is George Dahlman, I'm here today to
    represent and testify on behalf of the Leukemia and Lymphoma
    Society and hundreds of thousands of blood cancer patients
    across the country. I'm also the parent of a leukemia survivor.
        Over the past 56 years, this society has been dedicated to
    finding a cure for blood cancers, that's leukemia, lymphoma,
    and myeloma. We are both--we are the largest blood cancer
    organization in the world and we're actually the second largest
    cancer organization in the country after the American Cancer
    Society.
        Our main focus is really on funding research. We'll fund,
    in 2007, approximately $65 million in grants. We provide a wide
    range of services to people with blood cancer, their caregivers
    and family, at 64 chapters around the country.
        As you may know, there have been impressive strides in
    curing childhood cancer and a few years ago there was a new
    pill developed called Gleevec, which has really developed a new
    paradigm in targeted treatments of cancer, generally. We are
    proud--the society is proud to play a role in developing that
    drug and--but there's still a lot of work to be done. A lot of
    blood cancers still have bad outlooks. And, the Department of
    Defense's congressionally directed medical research program is
    an important part of that.
        Right now in this year, about 130,000 Americans will be
    diagnosed with some form of blood cancer and approximately
    65,000 of those will die this year. The society and its other
    blood cancer partners believes this is important medical
    research to the Department of Defense for a number of reasons.
        First, research on blood cancers had significance relevance
    to the Armed Forces because 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 prove that individual
    exposures, for example, to chemical agents such as Agent Orange
    in the Vietnam war, also developed blood cancers.
        Second, research in blood cancers traditionally pioneered
    treatments in other cancers. Just like Gleevec, the first
    chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants are two good examples
    of treatments first developed in blood cancers that are now
    applied to others. And Congress recognized that relevance. Over
    the past 6 years, they have appropriated $4.5 million annually
    for one type of leukemia program and members of the
    subcommittee know the great distinction of the CDMRP is its
    cooperative and collaborative process that incorporates
    different experts and patients in the field.
        Furthermore, over the last 6 years, blood cancers have been
    one of a number of diseases eligible for research funding under
    the DOD's Peer-review Medical Research Program. But as of the
    continuing resolution in February, the leukemia program itself
    and the incorporation of the blood cancers as an eligible
    disease to be sponsored under the peer-reviewed program, were
    both dropped.
        Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to our colleagues
    fighting a broad range of cancers that are represented in this
    program and, certainly not to diminish their significance, a
    cancer research program designed for application to military
    and national security needs would invariably begin with a
    strong blood cancer research foundation. DOD research on blood
    cancers addresses the importance of preparing for civilian and
    military exposure to weapons being developed by hostile nations
    and to aid in the march to more effective treatments for all
    who suffer from these diseases.
        Recognizing that, this year a group of 34 members of
    Congress have requested that the program be funded at $10
    million and expanded in scope to include all blood cancers.
    And, the very least, especially for this subcommittee, we
    strongly believe that a blood cancer program should at least be
    eligible for funding under the Peer-reviewed Medical Research
    Program. That's not a guarantee of funding, but simply the
    ability to compete.
        Subcommittee members might be interested in knowing that we
    had, the society had been in discussions with CDMRP on
    collaborative opportunities in team science, which we are, have
    a great deal of experience in. And, the society, because of our
    extensive research portfolio, is interested in pursuing
    opportunities for public/private partnerships with the
    Department of Defense. That question was raised by this
    subcommittee in 2003, and was the subject of an Institute of
    Medicine report in 2004, and the society continues to believe
    that a collaborative venture holds great promise.
        DOD research on other forms of cancer, blood cancers
    address the importance of civilian and military exposure to the
    weapons being developed across the world and to aid in the
    effective treatment of people who suffer those. And, we
    respectfully request support for this funding in the fiscal
    year 2008 appropriations bill.
        Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. This is, cancer is a matter of personal
    concern to most of our members. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Dahlman. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of George Dahlman
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is George
    Dahlman, Senior Vice President, Public Policy for The Leukemia &
    Lymphoma Society. I am pleased to appear today and testify on behalf
    the Society and the almost 800,000 Americans currently living with
    blood cancers and the 130,000 who will be diagnosed with one this year.
    Every 10 minutes, someone dies from one of these cancers--leukemia,
    lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and myeloma.
        During its 58-year history, the Society has been dedicated to
    finding a cure for the blood cancers, and improving the quality of life
    of patients and their families. The Society has the distinction of
    being both the nation's second largest private cancer organization and
    the largest private organization dedicated to biomedical research,
    education, patient services and advocacy as they pertain to blood-
    related cancers.
        Our central contribution to the search for cures for the blood
    cancers is providing a significant amount of the funding for basic,
    translational and clinical research. In 2007, we will provide
    approximately $65 million in research grants. In addition to our
    research funding role, we help educate health care and school
    professionals as needed and provide a wide range of services to
    individuals with a blood cancer, their caregivers, families, and
    friends through our 64 chapters across the country. Finally, we
    advocate responsible public policies that will advance our mission of
    finding cures for the blood cancers and improving the quality of life
    of patients and their families.
        We are pleased to report that impressive progress is being made in
    the effective treatment of many blood cancers, with 5-year survival
    rates doubling and even tripling over the last two decades. More than
    90 percent of children with Hodgkin's disease now survive, and survival
    for children with acute lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
    has risen as high as 86 percent.
        Just five years ago, in fact, 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--
    five year survival rates were just over 50 percent. Let me say that
    more clearly, if six 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. Now, five year
    survival rates are as high as 96 percent for patients newly diagnosed
    with chronic phase CML.
        The Society funded the early research that led to Gleevec approval,
    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 realized. Many
    forms of leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma still present daunting
    treatment challenges. There is much work still to be done, and we
    believe that 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
    important effort and should be further strengthened.
             the grant programs of the leukemia & lymphoma society
        The grant programs of the Society have traditionally been in three
    broad categories: Career Development Program grants, Translational
    Research Program grants, and Specialized Centers of Research Program
    grants. 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 responsible for
    Gleevec's development, was supported by a Translational Research
    Program grant from the Society.
        Our Specialized Centers of Research grant program is intended to
    bring investigators together to form new research teams focused on the
    discovery of innovative approaches to treating and/or preventing
    leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma. The awards go to those groups that can
    demonstrate that their close interaction will create research synergy
    and accelerate our search for new and better treatments.
        Dr. Druker is certainly a star among those supported by the
    Society, but our support in the biomedical field is broad and deep.
    Through the Society's research grant programs, we are currently
    supporting more than 380 investigators at 134 institutions in 34 states
    and 12 other countries.
        Not content with these extensive efforts, the Society is launching
    a new Therapy Acceleration Program intended to proactively invest in
    promising blood cancer therapies that are in early stages of
    development by industry, but which may not have sufficient financial
    support or market potential to justify private sector investment. In
    addition, the Society will use this program to further facilitate the
    advancement of therapies in development by academic researchers who may
    not have the spectrum of resources or expertise to fulfill the
    potential of their discoveries. Directed early phase clinical trial
    support in this funding program will further advance new and better
    treatments for blood cancer treatments.
                        impact of hematological cancers
        Despite enhancements in treating blood cancers, there are still
    significant research challenges and opportunities. 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 2007, more than 130,000 Americans will be
    diagnosed with a form of blood-related cancer and almost 65,000 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 across a lifetime; and for others treatment options
    are still 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: (DB--I would
    reorder these 3, 1, 4, 5, 2 for logical flow)
      --Taken together, the hematological cancers are fifth among cancers
            in incidence and fourth in mortality.
      --Almost 800,000 Americans are living with a hematological malignancy
            in 2007.
      --Almost 52,000 people will die from hematological cancers in 2007,
            compared to 160,000 from lung cancer, 41,000 from breast
            cancer, 27,000 from prostate cancer, and 52,000 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 five-year survival
            rates are:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hodgkin's disease............................................         87
    Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.......................................         64
    Leukemias (total)............................................         50
    Multiple Myeloma.............................................         33
    Acute Myelogenous Leukemia...................................         21
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --Individuals who have been treated for leukemia, lymphoma, and
            myeloma may suffer serious adverse consequences of treatment,
            including second malignancies, organ dysfunction (cardiac,
            pulmonary, and endocrine), neuropsychological and psychosocial
            aspects, and poor quality of life.
      --For the period from 1975 to 2003, the incidence rate for non-
            Hodgkin's lymphoma increased by 76 percent.
      --Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma rank second and fifth,
            respectively, in terms of increased cancer mortality since
            1973.
      --Lymphoma is the third most common childhood cancer and the fifth
            most common cancer among Hispanics of all races. 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.
      --Hispanic children of all races under the age of 20 have the highest
            rates of childhood leukemias.
      --Despite the significant decline in the leukemia and lymphoma death
            rates for children in the United States, leukemia is still the
            leading cause of death in the United States among children less
            than 20 years of age, in females between the ages of 20 and 39
            and males between the ages of 60-79.
      --Lymphoma is the fourth leading cause of death among males between
            the ages of 20 and 39 and the fifth leading cause of death for
            females older than 80. Overall, cancer is now the leading cause
            of death for U.S. citizens younger than 85 years of age,
            overtaking heart disease as the primary killer.
             possible environmental causes of hematological cancers
        The causes of hematological cancers are varied, and our
    understanding of the etiology of leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma is
    limited. Extreme radiation exposures are clearly associated with an
    increased incidence of leukemias. Benzene exposures are associated with
    increased incidence of a particular form of leukemia. Chemicals in
    pesticides and herbicides, as well as viruses such as HIV and EBV,
    apparently play a role in some hematological cancers, but for most
    cases, no environmental 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, the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation
    and the International Myeloma Foundation, believe biomedical research
    focused on the hematological cancers 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
    [a1]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. Of note, bone marrow transplants
    that have been developed to treat blood-related cancers 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. Cancer treatments that have been
    developed to treat a blood-related cancer are now used or being tested
    as treatments for other forms of cancer. Combination chemotherapy and
    bone marrow transplants are two striking examples of treatments first
    developed for treating blood cancer patients. More recently, specific
    targeted therapies have proven useful for treating patients with solid
    tumors as well as blood-related 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 six years
    when Congress appropriated $4.5 million annually--for a total of $28
    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, the CML program was not included in January's
    Continuing Resolution funding other fiscal year 2007 CDMRP programs.
    This omission seriously jeopardizes established and promising research
    projects that have clear and compelling application to our armed forces
    as well as pioneering research for all cancers. As if to add insult to
    injury, blood cancers were also not included as eligible conditions to
    be the subject of grants under the DOD's Peer-Reviewed Medical Research
    Program--inexplicably reversing a six-year precedent and eliminating a
    critical avenue of investigation with direct application to military
    service.
        With all due respect to our colleagues fighting a broad range of
    malignancies that are represented in this program--and certainly not to
    diminish their significance--a cancer research program designed for
    application to military and national security needs would invariably
    include a strong blood cancer research foundation. DOD research on
    blood cancers 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 2008 legislation.
        Recognizing that fact and the opportunity this research represents,
    a bipartisan group of 30 Members of Congress have requested that the
    program be reconstituted at a $10 million level and be expanded to
    include 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.
        The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society strongly endorses and
    enthusiastically supports this effort and respectfully urges the
    Committee to include this funding in the fiscal year 2008 Defense
    Appropriations bill.
        We believe that building on the foundation Congress initiated over
    the past six years should not be abandoned and would both significantly
    strengthen the CDMRP and accelerate the development of all 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 Inouye. Our next witness is Mr. Martin B. Foil,
    representing the Board of Directors of the National Brain
    Injury Research, Treatment, & Training Foundation.
    STATEMENT OF MARTIN B. FOIL, MEMBER, BOARD OF
                DIRECTORS, NATIONAL BRAIN INJURY RESEARCH,
                TREATMENT, & TRAINING FOUNDATION
        Mr. Foil. Chairman Inouye, it's good to be here. Good to
    see you again, sir. As you know or may remember, I'm the father
    of a severely brain injured young man and a member of the Board
    of Directors of the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment,
    & Training Foundation, and also a veteran.
        I'm here today to request a plus-up of $12.5 million in
    funding for the DVBIC, the Defense Veterans Brain Injury Center
    and the Brain Injury Program, Head Injury Program. We already
    have $7 million in the DOD's budget, but this plus-up will fund
    the program at $19.5 million. As you know and as we've heard
    today among our colleagues, TBI is a signature injury of the
    global war on terror. These blasts from improvised explosive
    devices in Iraq and Iran and, well, Iraq and Afghanistan are
    causing our, are harming our troops at an alarming rate.
        Blast injury, unlike a sports injury, you know, harms the
    whole body. It takes in everything. It's not like anything
    we've ever seen, it can't be compared to anything else. We need
    more research to understand the biomechanics of blast injury to
    develop best practices for the optimum treatment and rehab.
        The DVBIC, our Center for Excellence for clinical care,
    military education, and treatment, relevant clinical research
    for the DOD and VA, is our definitive source for assessing TBI
    in the theater, and also for tracking TBI. The DVBIC staff has
    seen and treated some 2,000 troops involved in the global war
    on terror. Research at Fort Carson reveals that over 28 percent
    of our returning service members have tested positive for
    possible brain injury. Nineteen percent of our military TBIs
    are severe, they require long-term support and without
    interventions, such troops are relegated to nursing homes.
    That's absolutely not the right place.
        Military needs to provide care for up to 1 year for these
    people with moderate and severe injuries. Twelve and one-half
    million would fund such care through Project Hope for Troops,
    with altered states of consciousness resulting from TBI. Dr.
    George Zitnay, the founder of DVBIC in Denver, has just
    returned from Landstuhl, and George, could you stand up?
        George actually made rounds in Landstuhl while he was
    there. He saw first hand the grave need for more TBI
    specialists and resources. NBIRTT strongly supports the plan
    offered by the congressional brain injury task force to improve
    treatment and research in the military. It recommends a blast
    injury Center of Excellence, pre-deployment, cognitive baseline
    development, better training for front-line medics, funding for
    care coordinators at each State to prevent gaps in care,
    community reentry programs, cooperative efforts with veterans
    organizations, medical rehab advocacy research.
        Well, despite the numbers of troops returning, there has
    not been a compensatory increase in professionals to treat. The
    healthcare providers need to be trained to understand and treat
    unique issues involved with TBI. It is a difficult thing, with
    self-diagnosis you just can't do that. Stigma remains a
    problem.
        Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your support of the
    $12.5 million for 2008. I want to thank you for your
    leadership. We hope you will continue to support our efforts to
    provide the best possible care for our brave men and women.
    Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. Your request is reasonable, and I think
    very important. And I can assure we're going to do everything
    possible to see that it is carried out.
        Mr. Foil. Thank you very much and thank your subcommittee.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Martin B. Foil, Jr.
        My name is Martin Foil 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\ Professionally, I am the Chief Executive
    Officer and Chairman of Tuscarora Yarns in Mt. Pleasant, North
    Carolina.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NBIRTT is a non-profit national foundation dedicated to the
    support of clinical research, treatment and training.
        \2\ I receive no compensation from this program; rather, I have
    raised and contributed millions of dollars to support brain injury
    research, treatment, training and services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On behalf of the thousands of military personnel sustaining brain
    injuries, I respectfully request $19.5 million be provided in the
    Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008
    for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC). This request
    includes the $7 million in the DOD's POM, and an additional $12.5
    million to allow the important work of the program to continue during
    this critical time in the War on Terrorism.
    TBI is the signature injury of the Global War on Terror
        It is now common knowledge that blasts from improvised explosive
    devices (IEDs) in Iraq are causing traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) in
    many of our service men and women at an alarming rate. From numerous
    media stories, including the special report by Bob Woodruff of ``ABC
    News'' about his own experiences with TBI to the Congressional hearings
    on the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal to the report of the
    Department of Veterans Affairs' Task Force on Global War on Terror
    Heroes, there is acknowledgement that not enough is being done to care
    for our injured troops.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ We await the reports of the Army Surgeon General's Task Force
    on Traumatic Brain Injury which we expect to be released May 17, 2007,
    and the Task Force headed by former Senator Bob Dole and former HHS
    Secretary Shalala, to be released in July, 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NBIRTT has long been an advocate for improved research, treatment
    and training in TBI in the military and civilian sectors. While we
    would like to see improvements, we continue to support the good work
    being done by the experts in TBI at DVBIC. NBIRTT supports many
    proposals that seek to address the shortfalls in the DOD and VA health
    care systems, but cautions against recreating systems that are already
    in existence. It is NBIRTT's view that any and all efforts to improve
    TBI research and care be built around the work of the DVBIC.
    DVBIC is the DOD-VA TBI Center of Excellence
        The DVBIC, formerly known as the Defense and Veterans Head Injury
    Program (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
    DVBIC seeks to ensure that all military personnel and veterans with
    brain injury receive brain injury-specific evaluation, treatment and
    follow-up.
        DVBIC staff have seen and treated some 2,000 military personnel
    involved in the Global War on Terror. Research at Fort Carson revealed
    28 percent of returning service members tested positive for possible
    TBI. 19 percent of military TBIs are severe, requiring life long
    support, and without intervention, such troops are relegated to nursing
    homes.
        Clinical care and research is currently undertaken at seven DOD and
    DVA sites and two civilian treatment sites. In addition to providing
    treatment, rehabilitation and case management at each of the nine
    primary DVBIC centers,\4\ the DVBIC 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 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; Laurel Highlands Neuro-Rehabilitation
    Center, Johnstown, PA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All DVBIC 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 DVBIC
    headquarters and clinical staff. The DVBIC 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.).
        DVBIC has reached out to screen troops returning from the field to
    make sure no one with a brain injury falls through the cracks. Teams
    from DVBIC have been sent to Fort Dix, Fort Campbell, Fort Knox, Camp
    Pendleton, Fort Carson, Fort Irwin, Fort Bragg, Tripler Army Medical
    Center and others as requested by base commanders. Teams have also
    traveled to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany to provide
    evaluation and treatment on an ongoing basis.
        The DVBIC developed a screening tool, called the MACE (Military
    Acute Concussion Evaluation) for use in all operational settings,
    including in-theater and it is now widely used. DVBIC has also
    developed management guidelines for mild, moderate, and severe TBI in-
    theater, and established a telemedicine network linking DVBIC's
    military and VA sites.
        While DVBIC clinical and educational programs remain its backbone,
    the program has conducted research into the effects of blast on the
    brain, the therapeutic use of nano-particles, and enhanced head
    protection using novel materials in conjunction with the conventional
    helmet.
        NBIRTT urges funding for the DVBIC to:
      --Enhance its Care Coordination Network in order to better serve
            patients with TBI throughout the country.
      --Build and implement a web-based care coordination and patient
            tracking program to improve its ability to provide
            comprehensive follow-up to a population whose cognitive
            impairments place them at increased risk of loss to follow-up.
            Use of this advanced technology will assist its network in
            providing a more integrated, seamless support structure and
            will also improve its ability to monitor patients' progress.
      --Augment clinical care targeted for the largest military bases with
            individuals with TBI will be implemented.
      --Expand TBI Surveillance Operational Data from OIF/OEF as more
            military sites participate to help create a more comprehensive
            picture of the scope of TBI occurring in the current theatres
            of operation.
        DVBIC is the definitive source for TBI tracking for DOD Health
    Affairs. With necessary funding, NBIRTT expects DVBIC to continue to
    function as the DOD-VA TBI Center of Excellence for clinical care,
    military education, and treatment-relevant clinical research.
    Improvements Are Needed To Assure A Continuum of Care
        The DVBIC is an important tool to assure a continuum of care, but
    it requires an increased level of POM funding and a solid commitment by
    the DOD to assist in improving the military and VA health care systems.
    Since many of the soldiers with brain injuries will have life long
    needs resulting from their injuries, we need to make sure community
    services are available wherever the soldier lives. This can be done
    through local case management program and linkage to DVBIC sites.
    NBIRTT also supports a proposal by the National Association of State
    Head Injury Administrators (NASHIA) to connect returning service
    personnel with state resources in their home states (copy attached).
        Persons with TBI may have difficulty with self diagnosis and
    because of cognitive impairments are at greater risk of not following
    up for outpatient care. In addition, town hall discussions by the Army
    Surgeon General's Task Force on TBI have revealed that stigma remains
    an obstacle for troops to admit they may have sustained a TBI. For
    these reasons, there is an increased need for family resources and
    support.
        Last year we requested funding for the DVBIC to improve treatment
    capacity, particularly at the community reentry level, and an expanded
    care coordination system that meets the special needs of persons with
    TBI and their families and is widely distributed across the country.
    NBIRTT emphasizes that the need is all the greater this year.
    The Congressional Brain Injury Task Force's Road Map for a Continuum of
            Care Based on a Proposal for Supplemental Funding for TBI
        NBIRTT strongly supports the plan offered by the Congressional
    Brain Injury Task Force, to improve TBI treatment and research in the
    military. Entitled the ``National Collaborative Plan for Military
    Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Within the Tri-Services'' it provides for
    baseline pre-injury cognitive evaluation and post-injury TBI diagnosis,
    evaluation, screening, treatment, and neuro-rehabilitation to the time
    of re-entry in to the active duty military or re-entry into the local
    community with follow-up services. The plan encompasses all branches of
    the military (i.e., Army, Navy, and Air Force) including National Guard
    and Reserves plus collaboration with the VA, civilian partners and
    veterans/military organizations at the national, state and community
    level. The idea is to create a network of services for military
    personnel with TBI and their families. The plan is as follows:
      --Pre-deployment Cognitive Baseline Development.--In order to better
            understand the impact of blast exposure and other situations
            that may cause brain injury including mild TBI a cognitive pre-
            test will be performed by all military personnel prior to
            deployment. A protocol that utilizes novel computer technology
            will be used for establishing a baseline similar to what is
            currently used in sports at the high school, college and
            professional level. Off-the-shelf systems, (e.g., ``Detect'',
            ``ImPaCT'', or ``CNS Vital Signs'') will require only minor
            modifications for this purpose. Through brief cognitive
            assessment prior to deployment followed by screening upon
            return, the accurate measurement of exposure to blast injury
            and potential mild TBI will be enhanced. This will reduce the
            number of false positives (incorrect diagnosis of TBI) and
            false negatives (failure to diagnose TBI) that occur with post-
            blast exposure screening only.
      --Care, training and assessment in theatre.--Staff training for
            frontline medics will be provided on the battlefield evaluation
            of concussion and the symptoms of blast injury. This will
            include development of a concussion tool, utilization of the
            MACE, and development of protocols for removal from duty to
            prevent second concussion syndrome. In addition, the
            battlefield evaluation of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
            will be included. The clinical guidelines for management will
            be updated and made available for all trauma specialists.
            Staffing at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center will be increased
            to provide brain injury specialist and care coordination. Post
            Deployment coordination-Screening instruments will be used to
            screen all returning personnel to determine if further
            neuropsychological testing is required to make the
            determination that a brain injury has occurred.
      --Military care and acute management of TBI.--All programs will
            follow both JACHO and CARF standards for the treatment and
            rehabilitation of TBI. At WRAMC, a complete interdisciplinary
            team of brain injury specialists will be employed to establish
            a state of the art comprehensive care and neurorehabilitation
            center. In addition, care coordinators, neuropsychologists and
            mental health specialists will be integral to the brain injury
            team. At the Bethesda Naval Hospital, a platform will be
            provided to establish a state-of-the-art brain injury center.
            Interdisciplinary brain injury specialist staffing will be
            provided at every military hospital throughout the country to
            insure proper treatment of survivors of TBI. Care coordinators
            will be stationed at military sites to link services.
      --Specialized care center.--Four centers will be established across
            the country to provide complete medical and neurorehabilitation
            for the most severely brain injured persons. At the centers,
            patients may stay up to one year for comprehensive
            Neurorehabilitation and will be provided cutting edge therapies
            available to maximize any potential for recovery of function.
            This proposal includes Project Hope in Johnstown that will
            specialize in stimulating recovery in those patients which are
            minimally conscious, locked-in, or in a persistent vegetative
            state.
      --Civilian DVBIC core sites.--Four community re-entry programs to
            serve active duty military personnel which require additional
            treatments prior to returning to active or return to home upon
            military discharge will be created utilizing state-of-the-art
            technology and cognitive rehabilitation. These will be in
            addition to existing sites in Charlottesville, Virginia and
            Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
      --Care Coordinators.--These specialists will be responsible for
            preventing any gaps in care of brain injured service personnel
            and to maintain the highest level of therapeutic intensity
            until discharge. The Care Coordinators will cooperate with
            state and community partners, as well the Reserve and National
            Guard, for the seamless delivery of services. Every state will
            have at least one care coordinator specialized for that
            particular state.
      --Education and Training.--Despite the overwhelming numbers of
            service personnel returning with TBI, there has not been a
            compensatory increase in trained professionals to treat them.
            Additional healthcare professionals are needed to be trained in
            order to understand and treat the brain injured service
            personnel returning from OIF and OEF. This will include
            training local professionals in rural areas so that they can
            attend to the needs of head injured veterans and/or participate
            as a mentor during tele-rehabilitation sessions. Seminars
            should be held to train care coordinators on the intricacies of
            the available services in each state. DVBIC will conduct an
            international meeting of experts in the fields of TBI
            (including imaging, physiatry, pharmacology, neuro-
            rehabilitation, neuropsychology, assistive technologies, and
            molecular biology, etc.) to gather recent treatment modalities,
            applications, and research to improve outcome in military
            personnel injured in OIF and OEF.
      --TBI Research.--There is a current dearth of research in several
            areas of brain injury therapy. This includes telemedicine-
            related neuro-rehabilitation, stimulation therapy for patients
            with disorders of consciousness (DOC), development of neuro-
            protectants, development of new generations of treatments that
            would be adjuncts or enhancements for neuro-rehabilitation, and
            development of application technologies in the areas of
            imaging, screening, telemedicine, and diagnostics.
      --Extramural cooperative program with veterans' organizations,
            medical, rehabilitation, advocacy, and research communities
            (e.g., CDC, NIH, NASHIA, BIAA, DAV).
      --Blast Injury Center.--A center of excellence in research will be
            established to better define, and understand the patho-
            physiological impact of blast injury on the brain. The center
            will conduct research leading to better protective helmets and
            other technological tools, and to develop treatment materials
            for better outcomes. The center will collaborate with leading
            research institutions, universities, biotechnology companies,
            and pharmaceuticals.
      --Providing the administrative structure personnel, benefits,
            oversight for financial expenditures, and preparation of
            progress reports and evaluation of programmatic effectiveness.
        This plan was produced in anticipation of some $450 million for TBI
    in the War Supplemental for fiscal year 2007 earlier this spring. The
    Conference Report to the bill that was vetoed included some $600
    million for TBI and PTSD. NBIRTT acknowledges that the final funding
    level is yet to be determined, but in the meantime supports the work of
    the DVBIC within this plan. DVBIC would continue to be the center of
    all DOD and VA coordination efforts and implementation of best
    practices throughout the wider military and VA systems.
        While efforts to make significant system wide changes are underway,
    we should look to build upon the work that has already been done by the
    experts currently in the field.
    $19.5 million is needed in fiscal year 2008 for the DVBIC
        Since the Global War on Terror began, there has not been a steady,
    consistent, reliable funding stream for the work of the DVBIC. While
    efforts are underway to gain a permanent commitment from the Pentagon
    to support this important work, we urge your support for adequate
    funding in fiscal year 2008. NBIRTT applauds the work of the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to include substantial funding
    for TBI in the War Supplemental. Ideally, we would like to see a
    permanent increase in the DOD's POM for TBI so that plus-up requests
    and supplementals can be used to address emergencies and not basic
    needs. At this juncture, however, $12.5 million is needed for DVBIC
    merely to continue research, treatment and training in TBI.
        Please support $19.5 million for the DVHIP in the fiscal year 2008
    Defense Appropriations bill under AMRMC, Fort Detrick to continue this
    important program.
     Role of State Government in Serving Returning Soldiers with Traumatic
                                  Brain Injury
    Introduction
        Recently, national attention has focused on the need for improved
    treatment and care for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan
    with traumatic brain injuries. Most of this focus has been on the acute
    and rehabilitation care provided by the Department of Defense and
    Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC), the Veterans Administration (VA)
    Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers and the VA health care system.
    Congressional hearings have also been held on transitioning between and
    among these programs through care coordinators who have been placed
    within key programs of these systems. While this attention is certainly
    well deserved, little commentary has been provided on those soldiers
    who require long-term care, services and community supports offered by
    state and local governmental programs.
        Thus, this paper has been developed to initiate discussion and to
    further collaboration among all federal, state and local entities that
    may be involved in some aspect of assessment and identification,
    rehabilitation, long-term care, service coordination, community and
    family supports for individuals who are serving in our military and are
    at risk of experiencing the consequences of a traumatic brain injury
    (TBI), as well as other co-occurring conditions (Post Traumatic Stress
    Disorder and substance abuse). The intent is to ensure that returning
    soldiers receive the necessary services in a coordinated fashion, and
    that all local, state and federal resources are maximized and used
    effectively.
    Background
        Over the past 20 years, several states have developed service
    delivery systems to meet the needs of individuals with traumatic brain
    injury and their families. These systems generally offer information
    and referral, service coordinators, rehabilitation, in-home support,
    personal care, counseling, transportation, housing, vocational and
    return to work and other support services that are funded by state
    appropriations, designated funding (trust funds), Medicaid and by
    programs under the Rehabilitation Act. These services may be
    administered by programs located in the state public health, vocational
    rehabilitation, mental health, Medicaid, developmental disabilities or
    social services agencies.
        To help states to further expand, improve and coordinate service
    delivery the TBI Act of 1996, as amended in 2000, provides federal
    funding to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health
    Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the State Grant
    Program. Currently, almost all states receive TBI Act funding. The
    federal program also contracts with the National Association of State
    Head Injury Administrators (NASHIA) to provide technical assistance to
    states through the TBI Technical Assistance Center, which has also
    become a clearinghouse of information and materials available to assist
    states in developing ``best practices''. NASHIA was created in the
    early 1990s by state government employees responsible for public brain
    injury policies, programs and services.
    How can states help returning soldiers?
        State TBI programs can help families, soldiers and the VA to
    identify or screen for traumatic brain injury, assess needs of soldiers
    with traumatic brain injury, provide information on TBI and available
    resources, and provide and coordinate services. Of particular concern
    to states are soldiers, who may not be initially identified by the VA
    system, yet experience the consequences of a traumatic brain injury
    long after they return home. As a result, state TBI and disability
    systems may be the point of contact for information and referral for
    these families and returning soldiers. Some of these returning soldiers
    may not be affiliated with military installations and, therefore, may
    not seek health care from the VA, but rather from their own family care
    physician. Their physicians may not even know to inquire about their
    time in Iraq or Afghanistan to determine if their symptoms could
    possibly be stemming from a TBI, or even to be able to distinguish TBI
    from Post Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD).
        Combined screening for TBI and PTSD could be especially beneficial
    and should be considered by all potentially involved agencies, since
    the symptoms overlap, the treatments differ, and both can be seriously
    disabling. Through collaboration among state and local mental health
    and substance abuse programs, TBI state programs may be able to promote
    collaborative screening efforts.
        There are a few states that are addressing the needs of returning
    soldiers from various angles. Two states, New York and Massachusetts,
    are currently conducting efforts to identify soldiers with TBI and link
    them to needed resources and services. Both of these states are using
    federal grant funds administered by the U.S. Health Resources and
    Services Administration (HRSA) for these efforts. In Massachusetts the
    Statewide Head Injury Program under the Brain Injury & Statewide
    Specialized Community Services Department, known as SHIP, administered
    by the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission is partnering with the
    Veterans Administration, Veterans Organizations, TBI providers and the
    Brain Injury Association of Massachusetts in conducting outreach,
    information and referral services.
        Other state TBI programs that offer service coordination and array
    of support services are collaborating with their state Veterans
    Commissions and the National Guard to solve individual problems. States
    are also fielding calls from families, participating in state
    conferences on PTSD and TBI, and at least one state vocational
    rehabilitation agency has entered into a MOU with the Veterans
    Administration. Several groups have also developed materials on TBI for
    returning soldiers, including Massachusetts and New York.
    Recommendations
        Collaboration among states, NASHIA, federal agencies (DVBIC, VA and
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and military branches
    should include:
      --Developing and disseminating screening questions to help alert
            families and soldiers that have symptoms associated with TBI,
            who have not been previously identified. These efforts should
            be coordinated with efforts to screen for PTSD and substance
            abuse problems.
      --Disseminating information on available state and community
            resources and supports, including state TBI service
            coordinators who coordinate a myriad of federal and state
            resources to support individuals to live and work in the
            community.
      --Training and disseminating information on TBI as the result of war-
            related injuries to civilian medical providers, local
            physicians, social workers and mental health community centers.
      --Availing existing resources, such as telerehabilitation programs
            that provide evaluation and expertise to providers in rural
            areas, family support information and resources, family
            training, etc.
      --Communicating and partnering with state advisory boards on TBI and
            lead state agencies as to the needs of returning soldiers who
            may not be accessing the VA, but may be in need of the array of
            community and family supports, in order for states to plan and
            address how to meet those needs.
      --Communicating and partnering with state task forces on the needs of
            returning soldiers to ensure that TBI, as well as PTSD and
            substance abuse are included in these deliberations.
      --Partnering with all veterans and state brain injury systems to pool
            and maximize state and federal resources to ensure that
            resources are available when their family member returns home.
        For further information contact Kenneth H. Currier, Executive
    Director, NASHIA at 301-656-3500 or khcurrier@nashia.org.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Dr. Andrew Pollack of
    the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, together with Ms.
    Kimberly Dozier of CBS News.
    STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW N. POLLACK, M.D., ORTHOPEDIC
                SURGEON, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL
                CENTER AND CHAIR, EXTREMITY WAR INJURIES
                PROJECT TEAM, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
                ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS
    ACCOMPANIED BY KIMBERLY DOZIER, CBS NEW CORRESPONDENT

        Mr. Pollack. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. I'm Andy Pollack, an orthopedic surgeon in shock
    trauma at the University of Maryland Medical Center in
    Baltimore. I represent the American Academy of Orthopedic
    Surgeons and our special effort to advocate for the peer-
    reviewed orthopedic extremities research program.
        This critical program is operated by the Defense
    Department. I'm fortunate to be accompanied today by CBS News
    correspondent, Kimberly Dozier. She's one of those rare
    individuals willing to put herself in harm's way to chronicle
    the work of our American servicemen and women in Iraq. She's an
    inspiration on many different levels, and I'm one of the many
    surgeons who's had the privilege to have worked with her.
    Please allow me to introduce Kimberly Dozier.
        Ms. Dozier. Mr. Chairman, amputation, debridement,
    acinetobacter, and heterotrophic ossification, there are words
    that I never wanted to learn, much less experience. But a 500-
    pound car bomb last Memorial Day changed that. My rapid-fire
    education started in Baghdad, as it does for so many injured
    troops.
        More than 80 percent of the wounded coming out of Iraq and
    Afghanistan have injuries exactly like mine, and more of us are
    surviving than ever before in any other conflict and medical
    miracles are happening every day. The fact that I'm here is
    testament to that.
        But that also means that we are living long enough to
    develop secondary conditions that doctors have rarely seen
    before, much less done research on how to treat. Now, some of
    them you've heard of. In terms of amputation, they thought they
    would have to take off one or both of my legs, but they took a
    chance. One of my legs, by the time I'd reached Landstuhl, had
    turned black. They gave it an extra day and it proved that it
    could work, came back. The next time they see a situation like
    mine, they might give it another 24 to 48 hours before taking
    the limb off.
        Debridement is what they did to the burned tissue from my
    hips to my ankles, courtesy of the 130 millimeter round
    illumination shell that made up the bulk of the car bomb. Now,
    it's a process of removing dead tissue from the living, but it
    depends on the instincts of each particular surgeon to decide
    what's viable and what's not. The fact that the surgeons, in my
    case, were able to salvage much of the quads in my femurs,
    means that I can walk and run almost normally. You get a
    different surgeon, you get a different outcome, and that all
    depends on their research.
        Acinetobacter is a normally harmless bacteria found in
    Iraqi soil and throughout Europe, but give it in--blow it into
    the injuries of an immune-compromised person and it can become
    deadly. It's multidrug resistant. In my case, as in the case of
    many of the troops I've met, I had to choose between continuing
    on the one medication that treats it, but risking losing my
    kidneys, to which this drug is toxic, or going off of the drug
    and hoping for the best. In my case, I was lucky, my body
    fought back and I kept my kidneys.
        Heterotrophic ossification--say that 10 times fast--we
    don't know why the body does it, but when it heals bones
    shattered by blasts, it often goes a little haywire, and the
    bones keep going, keep healing, turning into coral that spikes
    into your muscles. The only way to take it out right now, is to
    chisel it out and that means a second long-term surgery and it
    doesn't mean the bone won't come back. Then you've got to
    radiate the area, that's more risk.
        Now, all of that was fairly easy to fix, in my case. I was
    lucky. The two soldiers on either side of me had it much worse.
    Sergeant Justin Ferrar had his knee, part of it blown out. They
    had to put in a cadaver's patella. That means you've got to
    immobilize the leg for a long time. Justin is still using a
    cane, I'm not. Staff Sergeant Reed, on the other side of me, he
    got his knee blown out. In a normal situation you could do
    total knee replacement. In a blast injury, that doesn't work.
    There's too much infection. He had to choose between having one
    solid leg or amputation. He chose amputation so he could go
    back to active duty.
        Now, these are the battles troops face when they come home,
    and the battles that the medical profession is fighting on our
    behalf, and they need your help. Thank you.
        Mr. Pollack. As you heard from Ms. Dozier, over 80 percent
    of war injuries now involve the extremities, often severely
    mangled and multiple injuries to the arms and legs. As in
    Kimberly's case, most wounds are caused by exploding ordinance.
    This targeted research program is desperately needed to provide
    information that will lead to improvement in quality of life
    for our injured heroes. The funding you provide is being well
    spent. The new knowledge we gain advances our ability to better
    understand and better treat these serious injuries.
        Mr. Chairman, you've recognized the urgent need to support
    this important peer-reviewed program over the past 2 years and
    most recently in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental
    appropriations bill, and we're most grateful for that support.
    Based on the level of scientific need and the amount of
    unfunded research still outstanding, our goal is to see this
    program receive an operating level of $50 million per year. We
    most sincerely thank you and the entire subcommittee for your
    vision and leadership in responding to this appeal. We strongly
    urge your continued support.
        Senator Inouye. As one who has some experience in this
    area, I can assure you of our support.
        But with all the medical miracles that we are now
    experiencing and enjoying, one has caused us much trouble. For
    example, in World War II, it took a little while to be
    evacuated.
        In my case, I left the front at 3 o'clock in the afternoon
    and I was in the field hospital at midnight. Today, the same
    injury very likely would be in a hospital within 30 minutes. As
    a result, many, many survive, unlike World War II, they did not
    survive. In my hospital, I can recall only one double amputee.
    Double amputations are commonplace now, and I agree with you.
    Our personnel is inadequate, our resources are inadequate, and
    we will do what you say is right.
        Thank you very much, Ms. Dozier.
        Mr. Pollack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Andrew N. Pollak, M.D.
        Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Members of the Senate
    Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. I am Andrew N. Pollak, M.D., and I speak today on behalf
    of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), of which I am
    an active member, as well as on behalf of military and civilian
    orthopaedic surgeons involved in orthopaedic trauma research and care.
        I am Chair of the Academy's Extremity War Injuries and Disaster
    Preparedness Project Team, immediate past-chair of its Board of
    Specialty Societies, and a subspecialist in orthopaedic traumatology. I
    am Associate Director of Trauma and Head of the Division of Orthopaedic
    Traumatology at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center and the
    University of Maryland School of Medicine. My Division at Shock Trauma
    is responsible for providing education and training in orthopaedic
    traumatology to residents from eight separate training programs
    nationally, including the Bethesda Naval, Walter Reed Army and Tripler
    Army orthopaedic residency programs. In addition, Shock Trauma serves
    as the home for the Air Force Center for Sustainment of the Trauma and
    Readiness Skills (CSTARS) program. I also serve as a Commissioner on
    the Maryland Health Care Commission and on the Board of Directors of
    the Orthopaedic Trauma Association.
        Accompanying me is CBS News Correspondent Kimberly Dozier, who is
    recovering from severe wounds to her legs and head. Kimberly sustained
    these extremity injuries last Memorial Day on the streets of Baghdad
    while covering American soldiers on patrol with Iraqi security forces.
    She had been imbedded with the Army's 4th Infantry Division. The patrol
    was the victim of a car bombing which critically injured Kimberly and
    killed her cameraman, soundman, a U.S. Army captain they were following
    and his Iraqi translator.
        As one of the many doctors who have worked with Kimberly, I am
    happy to say her recovery is progressing well. She is one of those rare
    individuals willing to put herself in harm's way to chronicle the work
    of our brave American servicemen and women in Iraq.
        Please allow me to take this opportunity today to thank the Members
    of this Subcommittee for your vision and leadership in providing
    significant new funding for the Peer Reviewed Orthopaedic Extremity
    Trauma Research Program in the fiscal year 2007 Supplemental
    Appropriations Bill and urge your continued support for this critical
    effort in the future.
        I will discuss the spectrum of orthopaedic trauma being sustained
    by U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan and offer a
    perspective on the importance of orthopaedic extremity research in
    providing new clinical knowledge that will enable improved treatments
    for soldiers suffering from orthopaedic trauma. Finally, I will provide
    an update on the progress of the Peer Reviewed Orthopaedic Extremity
    Trauma Research Program, which is administered by the Medical Research
    and Materiel Command's U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research
    (USAISR).
        It is important to point out that unique to this conflict is a new
    type of patient, a warfighter with multiple and severely mangled
    extremities who is otherwise free of life-threatening injury to the
    torso because of improvements in protective body armor. Current
    challenges that often compound the injuries include serious infections
    due to the nature of the injuries and the environment where they are
    sustained, the need for immediate transport for more complex surgery,
    the need for better medical understanding of the internal effects of
    blast injury, and the need for a joint service database that
    encompasses the multilevel spectrum of orthopaedic extremity injury
    care.
    Orthopaedic Trauma from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
            Freedom
        The likelihood of surviving wounds on the battlefield was 69.7
    percent in WWII and 76.4 percent in Vietnam. Now, thanks in part to the
    use of body armor, ``up-armored'' vehicles, intense training of our
    combat personnel and surgical capability within minutes of the
    battlefield, survivability has increased dramatically to 90.2 percent
    as of February 2007.
        The Armed Forces are attempting to return significantly injured
    soldiers to full function or limit their disabilities to a functional
    level in the case of the most severe injuries. The ability to provide
    improved recovery of function moves toward the goal of keeping injured
    soldiers part of the Army or service team. Moreover, when they do leave
    the Armed Forces, these rehabilitated soldiers have a greater chance of
    finding worthwhile occupations outside of the service to contribute
    positively to society. The Army believes that it has a duty and
    obligation to provide the highest level of care and rehabilitation to
    those men and women who have suffered the most while serving the
    country and our Academy fully supports those efforts.
        It probably comes as no surprise that the vast majority of trauma
    experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan is orthopaedic-related, especially
    upper and lower extremity and spine. A recent article in the Journal of
    Orthopaedic Trauma reports on wounds sustained in Operation Iraqi
    Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) based on data from
    the Joint Theater Trauma Registry, a database of medical treatment
    information from theater of combat operations at U.S. Army medical
    treatment facilities. From October, 2001 through January, 2005, of
    1,566 soldiers who were injured by hostile enemy action, 1,281 (82
    percent) had extremity injuries, with each solider sustaining, on
    average, 2.28 extremity wounds. These estimates do not include non-
    American and civilians receiving medical care through U.S. military
    facilities. (Owens, Kragh, Macaitis, Svoboda and Wenke.
    Characterization of Extremity Wounds in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
    Operation Enduring Freedom. J Orthopaedic Trauma. Vol. 21, No. 4, April
    2007. 254-257.)
        An earlier article reported on 256 battle casualties treated at the
    Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during the first two
    months of OIF, finding 68 percent sustained an extremity injury. The
    reported mechanism of injury was explosives in 48 percent, gun-shot
    wounds in 30 percent and blunt trauma in 21 percent. As the war has
    moved from an offensive phase to the current counter-insurgency
    campaign, higher rates of injuries from explosives have been
    experienced. (Johnson BA. Carmack D, Neary M, et al. Operation Iraqi
    Freedom: the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center experience. J Foot Ankle
    Surg. 2005; 44:177-183.) According to the JTTR, between 2001 and 2005,
    explosive mechanisms accounted for 78 percent of the war injuries
    compared to 18 percent from gun shots.
        While medical and technological advancements, as well as the use of
    fast-moving Forward Surgical Teams, have dramatically decreased the
    lethality of war wounds, wounded soldiers who may have died in previous
    conflicts from their injuries are now surviving and have to learn to
    recover from devastating injuries. While body armor does a great job of
    protecting a soldier's torso, his or her extremities are particularly
    vulnerable during attacks.
                Characteristics of Military Orthopaedic Trauma
        At this point we are approaching 40,000 casualties in the Global
    War on Terror. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority have injuries to
    their extremities--often severe and multiple injuries to the arms,
    legs, head and neck. Most wounds are caused by exploding ordinance--
    frequently, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), rocket-propelled
    grenades (RPGs), as well as high-velocity gunshot wounds. Military
    surgeons report an average of 3 wounds per casualty.
        According to the New England Journal of Medicine, blast injuries
    are producing an unprecedented number of ``mangled extremities''--limbs
    with severe soft-tissue and bone injuries. (``Casualties of War--
    Military Care for the Wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan,'' NEJM,
    December 9, 2004). The result of such trauma is open, complex wounds
    with severe bone fragmentation. Often there is nerve damage, as well as
    damage to tendons, muscles, vessels, and soft-tissue. In these types of
    wounds, infection is often a problem. According to the JTTR, 53 percent
    of the extremity wounds are classified as penetrating soft-tissue
    wounds, while fractures compose 26 percent of extremity wounds. Other
    types of extremity wounds composing less than 5 percent each are burns,
    sprains, nerve damage, abrasions, amputations, contusions,
    dislocations, and vascular injuries.
                Military versus Civilian Orthopaedic Trauma
        While there are similarities between orthopaedic military trauma
    and the types of orthopaedic trauma seen in civilian settings, there
    are several major differences that must be noted.
        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.
        Injuries from IEDs and other explosive ordnance in Iraq and
    Afghanistan differ markedly from those of gunshot wounds sustained in
    civilian society. The contamination, infection and soft-tissue injury
    caused by exploding ordnance requires more aggressive treatment and new
    techniques, especially when the individual is in proximity to the blast
    radius.
        Soldiers are usually in excellent health prior to injury. However,
    through the evacuation process they may not be able to eat due to
    medical considerations resulting in impaired body nitrogen stores and
    decreased ability to heal wounds and fight infections. This presents
    many complicating factors when determining the most appropriate care.
        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. Imagine
    teams of medical specialists working in close quarters to save an
    injured serviceman while mortars or rockets are raining down on the
    hospital. In fact, a considerable percentage of the care provided by
    military surgeons is for injured Iraqis, both friendly and hostile.
    Finally, the surgical team is faced with limited resources that make
    providing the highest level of care difficult.
        While, as I have stated, there are many unique characteristics of
    orthopaedic military trauma, there is no doubt that research done on
    orthopaedic military trauma benefits trauma victims in civilian
    settings. Many of the great advancements in orthopaedic trauma care
    have been made during times of war, such as the external fixateur,
    which has been used extensively during the current conflict as well as
    in civilian care.
    Future Needs of Orthopaedic Extremity Trauma Research
        An important development in this scientific effort has been the
    convening of two major Extremity War Injury Symposia in January of 2006
    and 2007. These widely attended medical conferences in Washington, D.C.
    brought together leading military and civilian clinicians and
    researchers to focus on the immediate needs of personnel sustaining
    extremity injuries. Presentations and discussions at the conferences
    confirmed that there is tremendous interest in the military and
    civilian research community and much unmet research capacity in the
    nation at military and civilian research institutions.
        These extraordinary scientific meetings were a partnership effort
    between organized orthopaedic surgery, military surgeons and industry.
    They were attended by key military and civilian physicians and
    researchers committed to the care of extremity injuries. The first
    conference addressed current challenges in the management of extremity
    trauma associated with recent combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The major
    focus was to identify opportunities to improve the care for the sons
    and daughters of America who have been injured serving our nation. The
    second focused on the best way to deliver care at all five of the
    military's echelons of treatment. Proceedings from the 2006 symposia
    were published by our Academy last year and the proceedings from the
    2007 meeting will be published shortly. Both include a list of
    prioritized research needs which I will summarize:
      --Timing of Treatment.--Better data are necessary to establish best
            practices with regard to timing of debridement, timing of
            temporary stabilization and timing of definitive stabilization.
            Development of animal models of early versus late operative
            treatment of open injuries may be helpful. Prospective clinical
            comparisons of treatment groups will be helpful in gaining
            further understanding of the relative role of surgical timing
            on outcomes.
      --Techniques of Debridement.--More information is necessary about
            effective means of demonstrating adequacy of debridement.
            Current challenges, particularly for surgeons with limited
            experience in wound debridement, exist in understanding how to
            establish long-term tissue viability or lack thereof at the
            time of an index operative debridement. Since patients in
            military settings are typically transferred away from the care
            of the surgeon performing the initial debridement prior to
            delivery of secondary care, opportunities to learn about the
            efficacy of initial procedures are lost. Development of animal
            models of blast injury could help establish tissue viability
            markers. Additional study is necessary to understand ideal
            frequencies and techniques of debridement.
      --Transport Issues.--Clinical experience suggests that current air
            evacuation techniques are associated with development of
            complications in wound and extremity management although the
            specific role of individual variables in the genesis of these
            complications is unclear. Possible contributing factors include
            altitude, hypothermia and secondary wound contamination.
            Clinical and animal models are necessary to help develop an
            understanding of transport issues. Development, testing and
            approval of topical negative pressure devices for use during
            aeromedical transport should be facilitated.
      --Coverage Issues.--Controlled studies defining the role of timing of
            coverage in outcome following high-energy extremity war
            injuries are lacking. Also necessary is more information about
            markers and indicators to help assess the readiness of a wound
            and host for coverage procedures. Both animal modeling and
            clinical marker evaluation are necessary to develop
            understanding in this area.
      --Antibiotic Treatments.--Emergence of resistant organisms continues
            to provide challenges in the treatment of infection following
            high-energy extremity war injuries. Broader prophylaxis likely
            encourages development of antibiotic resistance. In the context
            of a dwindling pipeline of new antibiotics, particularly those
            directed toward gram-negative organisms, development of new
            technologies to fight infection is necessary. This patient
            population offers opportunity to assess efficacy of vaccination
            against common pathogens. Partnerships with infectious disease
            researchers currently involved in addressing similar questions
            should be developed.
      --Management of Segmental Bone Defects.--A multitude of different
            techniques for management of segmental bone defects is
            available. These include bone transport, massive onlay grafting
            with and without use of recombinant proteins, delayed allograft
            reconstruction, and acute shortening. While some techniques are
            more appropriate than others after analysis of other clinical
            variables, controlled trials comparing efficacy between
            treatment methods are lacking. Variables that may affect
            outcome can be grouped according to patient characteristics
            including co-morbidities, injury characteristics including
            severity of bony and soft-tissue wounds, and treatment
            variables including method of internal fixation selected.
            Evaluation of new technologies for treatment of segmental bone
            defects should include assessment of efficacy with adequate
            control for confounding variables and assessment of cost-
            effectiveness.
      --Development of an Animal Model.--A large animal survival military
            blast injury model is necessary to serve as a platform for
            multiple research questions including: VAC v. bead pouch v.
            dressing changes; wound cleaning strategy; effect of topical
            antibiotics; modulation of inflammatory response; timing of
            wound closure; and vascular shunt utilization.
      --Amputee Issues.--Development and validation of ``best practice''
            guidelines for multidisciplinary care of the amputee is
            essential. Treatment protocols should be tested clinically.
            Studies should be designed to allow for differentiation between
            the impacts of the process versus the device on outcome.
            Failure mode analysis as a tool to evaluate efficacy of
            treatment protocols and elucidate shortcomings should be
            utilized. Clinically, studies should focus on defining
            requirements for the residual limb length necessary to achieve
            success without proceeding to higher level amputation. Outcomes
            based comparisons of amputation techniques for similar injuries
            and similar levels should be performed. Use of local tissue
            lengthening and free tissue transfer techniques should be
            evaluated. In the context of current results and increasing
            levels of expectation for function following amputation,
            development of more sensitive and military appropriate outcomes
            monitors is necessary.
      --Heterotopic Ossification.--This condition, known as ``H.O.'' by the
            many soldiers who experience it, is abnormal and uncontrolled
            bone growth that often occurs following severe bone destruction
            or fracture. Animal models of heterotopic ossification should
            be utilized to develop early markers for heterotopic
            ossification development that could identify opportunities for
            prevention. Better information is needed about burden of
            disease including prevalence following amputation for civilian
            versus military trauma and frequency with which symptoms
            develop. Treatment methods such as surgical debridement, while
            effective, necessarily interrupt rehabilitation. Prevention
            could expedite recovery and potentially improve outcome.
      --Data Collection System.--A theme common to virtually all
            discussions on research and patient care for our soldiers has
            been the need for access to better longitudinal patient data.
            Current patient care processes both in theatre and at higher
            echelon care centers do not include data captured in a way that
            allows simple electronic linkage of medical records from one
            level of care to the next. At least two electronic medical
            records systems are in use, and they are not necessarily
            compatible with one another. Any electronic medical record used
            should be web based to allow for linkage of patient data from
            the earliest echelon of documented care through the VA system.
            The system must be user friendly and not cumbersome to
            encourage entry of information critical to outcomes analysis.
            An example of one system with some of the necessary components
            is the current Joint Patient Tracking Application (JPTA). The
            system unfortunately lacks integration with a trauma registry
            or database to allow for retrospective or prospective analyses
            of specific injuries and treatments. Funding is necessary for
            platform development, information systems infrastructure and
            data entry personnel.
    Stories from the frontlines
        There have been many heroic stories of injured soldiers struggling
    to regain function and to return to normal life, or even back to
    service. A story highlighted in a March 2005 National Public Radio
    (NPR) series titled ``Caring for the Wounded: The Story of Two
    Marines,'' followed two Marines injured in Iraq: 1st Sgt. Brad Kasal
    and Lance Cpl. Alex Nicoll. Lance Cpl. Nicoll had to have his left leg
    amputated as a result of his injuries from gunshot wounds. Nicoll has
    undergone physical therapy at Walter Reed to adjust to his new
    prosthetic leg, made from graphite and titanium. While Sgt. Kasal was
    so seriously injured that he lost four inches of bone in his right leg,
    due to medical advances in limb salvaging, he did not have to have his
    leg amputated. Kasal underwent a bone growth procedure, called the
    Illizarov Technique, which grows the bone one millimeter a day.
        The Iraq war has created the first group of female amputees. Lt.
    Dawn Halfaker is one of approximately 11 military women who have lost
    limbs from combat injuries in Iraq, compared to more than 350 men. She
    lost her arm to a life- threatening infection, after sustaining major
    injuries, along with another soldier, when on a reconnaissance patrol
    in Baqouba, Iraq, a rocket-propelled grenade exploded inside her
    armored Humvee. Maj. Ladda ``Tammy'' Duckworth lost both legs when a
    rocker-propelled grenade slammed into her Black Hawk helicopter near
    Balad. Juanita Wilson, an Army staff sergeant, lost her left hand when
    an improvised bomb exploded near her Humvee on a convoy mission north
    of Baghdad. All three women are successfully moving forward in military
    or civilian careers.
        Bone problems, seldom seen in soldiers from previous wars who have
    lost limbs, have complicated recoveries for Iraq and Afghanistan-
    stationed soldiers. Heterotopic ossification has developed in nearly 60
    percent of the first 318 amputees treated at Walter Reed Army Medical
    Center. Over 70 patients from across the military have been treated for
    H.O. at Brooke Army Medical Center. Rarely occurring in civilian
    amputees, high-intensity blasts, which can shred muscles, tendons and
    bone, appears to stimulate adult stem cells to heal damage, but repair
    signals often go awry. Advances in body armor resulting in higher
    survival rates and ability to preserve more damaged tissue, have lead
    to the high number of ``H.O.'' cases where little research exists on
    how to treat the condition among amputees. (``Bone condition hampers
    soldiers' recovery,'' USA TODAY, February 12, 2006.)
        These stories clearly illustrate the benefits of, and need for,
    orthopaedic extremity trauma research for America's Soldiers, Sailors,
    Airmen and Marines.
    The Peer Reviewed Orthopaedic Extremity Trauma Research Program
        Your Congressional action initiated this targeted, competitively-
    awarded research program where peer reviewers score proposals on the
    degree of (1) military relevance, (2) military impact, and (3)
    scientific merit. Military orthopaedic surgeons are highly involved in
    determining the research topics and evaluating and scoring the
    proposals. This unique process ensures that research projects selected
    for funding have the highest chance for improving treatment of
    battlefield injuries. The AAOS and military and civilian orthopaedic
    surgeons and researchers are very grateful that your Subcommittee
    created the Peer Reviewed Orthopaedic Extremity Trauma Research Program
    in the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill. The program is
    administered by the Medical Research and Material Command's research
    program at the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR) at
    Fort Sam Houston, Texas. This is the first program created in the
    Department of Defense dedicated exclusively to funding peer-reviewed
    intramural and extramural orthopaedic trauma research. Having the
    program administered by the USAISR ensures that the research funding
    follows closely the research priorities established by the Army and the
    Armed Forces, and ensures collaboration between military and civilian
    research facilities. USAISR has extensive experience administering
    similar grant programs and is the only Department of Defense Research
    laboratory devoted solely to improving combat casualty care.
        The design of the program fosters collaboration between civilian
    and military orthopaedic surgeons and researchers. Civilian researchers
    have the expertise and resources to assist their military colleagues
    with the growing number of patients and musculoskeletal war wound
    challenges, to build a parallel research program in the military.
    Civilian investigators are interested in advancing the research and
    have responded enthusiastically to engage in these efforts, which will
    also provide wide ranging spin-off benefits to civilian trauma patients
    as well.
        It is important to note that military orthopaedic surgeons, in
    addition to personnel at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel
    Command, Fort Detrick, have had significant input into the creation of
    this program and fully support its goals. Appropriations for this
    program are building a stronger focus of a core mission in the military
    to dedicate Department of Defense research resources to injured
    soldiers.
        The program's first Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for grants was
    released on February 13, 2006, and identified the following basic,
    transitional and clinical research funding priorities: improved healing
    of segmental bone defects; improved healing of massive soft tissue
    defects; improved wound healing; tissue viability assessment and wound
    irrigation and debridement technologies; reduction in wound infection;
    prevention of heterotopic ossification; demographic and injury data on
    the modern battlefield and the long-term outcomes of casualties (i.e.
    joint theatre trauma registry); and improved pre-hospital care of
    orthopaedic injuries.
        Close to 100 pre-proposals were received for consideration, with 76
    invited to compete with a full proposal. This number is relatively high
    considering the shortened time period that was available for submitting
    pre-proposals. An upper limit of $500,000 was established for any one
    grant, to give a reasonable number of grantees an opportunity to
    participate. Ordinarily grants would generally be awarded for much
    higher amounts to support the research required. Larger multi-
    institutional studies had to limit what they were proposing.
        Sixty proposals were evaluated and found meritorious and militarily
    relevant, however only 14 grants could be funded for their first year
    of research based on available funding. The amount that would have been
    needed to fund the remaining 46 grants totals $44,852,549.
        A second BAA was issued March 29, 2007 based on funding provided in
    the fiscal year 2007 Appropriations bill. USAISR staff estimate that
    only an additional 4 or 5 grants will be awarded after second-year
    costs of the initial multi-year grants are covered. If the fiscal year
    2007 Supplemental Appropriations Bill is enacted, significant new
    funding would allow for a broader scope of work and multi-institutional
    collaboration.
    Conclusion
        With orthopaedic trauma being the most common form of trauma seen
    in military conflicts, it is crucial that there be funding dedicated
    specifically to the advancement of orthopaedic trauma research. The
    AAOS has worked closely with the top military orthopaedic surgeons, at
    world-class facilities such as the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical
    Research, Brooke Army Medical Center, and Walter Reed Army Medical
    Center to identify the gaps in orthopaedic trauma research and care and
    the needs are overwhelming.
        There is a profound need in the nation for this targeted medical
    research to help military surgeons find new limb-sparing techniques to
    save injured extremities, avoid amputations and preserve and restore
    the function of injured extremities. Research supported by civilian
    agencies such as the National Institutes of Health has contributed to
    the general orthopaedic science base over the years, but the current
    war has presented orthopaedic surgeons with a unique situation with
    very specific new problems and injuries not seen in civilian medical
    practice. Thus the urgent need for an immediate, robust and targeted
    effort to improve care for our injured service men and women.
        I hope that I have given you a well-rounded perspective on the
    extent of what orthopaedic trauma military surgeons are seeing and a
    glimpse into the current and future research for such trauma. Military
    trauma research currently being carried out at military facilities,
    such as WRAMC and the USAISR, and at civilian medical facilities, is
    vital to the health of our soldiers and to the Armed Forces' objective
    to return injured soldiers to full function in hopes that they can
    continue to be contributing soldiers and active members of society.
        The 17,000 members of our Academy thank you for sustaining the Peer
    Reviewed Orthopaedic Extremity Trauma Research Program this year. While
    Congress funds an extensive array of medical research through the
    Department of Defense, with over 80 percent of military trauma being
    orthopaedic-related, no other type of medical research would better
    benefit our men and women serving in the Global War on Terror and in
    future conflicts. Especially because this program is only in its early
    stage, continuity is critical to its success.
        Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice 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. We applaud the action taken by your
    Committee in the fiscal year 2007 Supplemental Appropriations to
    provide significantly increased funding to cover the backlog of
    unfunded research capacity. This investment to improve treatment for
    our soldiers will be well spent. It is imperative that the federal
    government--when establishing its defense health research priorities in
    the future--continue to ensure that orthopaedic extremity trauma
    research remains a top priority.

        Senator Inouye. And now may I call upon, Rear Admiral Casey
    Coane, United States Navy, retired, Executive Director Naval
    Reserve Association.
        Admiral, welcome, sir.
    STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL CASEY W. COANE, UNITED STATES
                NAVY (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAL
                RESERVE ASSOCIATION
        Admiral Coane. Chairman Inouye, on behalf of our 23,000
    members and in advocacy for the 70,000 Navy Reservists serving
    today, it is certainly our privilege to appear before you today
    and we appreciate this opportunity.
        There are a number of issues that are on the Navy unfunded
    and Navy Reserve unfunded list that, we believe, deserve your
    attention. And, we have indicated those in our written
    testimony. I'm going to use my time today to address just one
    that we consider critical, in terms of capability for the Navy
    to carry out its mission.
        That issue is the continuing purchase of the C-40 Clipper
    aircraft, which is scheduled to replace the remaining 17 DC-9
    series aircraft that currently average more than 31 years of
    service. The C-40 is significantly more capable with respect to
    payload, fuel efficiency, and range. These aircraft and the
    Navy C-130s are the sole source of Navy organic intra-theater
    airlift. They are all fully scheduled to support time-critical
    Navy missions. Unfortunately, procurement has been deferred in
    the budgetary process, with only four anticipated to be
    purchased between now and fiscal year 2013.
        This is where you can help. The Navy has a habit of
    prioritizing its front-line carrier strike aircraft high and
    all other aircraft much lower on the ladder. The result is a
    continuing shift of those other programs to the right in the
    budget years until a true crisis or a tipping point finally
    overwhelms us. That is exactly what happened to the P-3
    replacement program, and the entire Reserve P-3 community was
    dismantled to keep the Active Force flying until the new P-8
    can arrive. The bottom line is, the company is accepting risk
    in that program. We are on the verge of the same sort of crisis
    in the DC-9/C-40 replacement program, which directly affects
    combat effort, and we ask you to intervene.
        Last week, I asked Secretary Winter what the Navy needed to
    do to get out of this cycle of continued deferment. And, he
    responded that the Navy needed a comprehensive aircraft
    procurement plan like the 30-year ship building plan that is
    receiving a lot of acclaim here. That plan, the naval aviation
    capabilities 2030 plan, is in development, but we won't have it
    in time to solve this problem.
        Allow me to tick off just a few of the facts of the DC-9
    program. It is fragile. They are old, 31-plus years. Commercial
    airlines get rid of their aircraft--and I was a commercial
    airline pilot--they get rid of their aircraft at 20 years,
    partly because of cycles accumulated, but primarily because at
    that point in the life cycle the maintenance cost curves turn
    sharply upward.
        That is what accelerated the departure of the Navy F-14
    fighter--maintenance costs. A recent inspection of the DC-9
    resulted in an unplanned strike of that aircraft and more will
    follow. Between 2009 and 2012, they will all be noncompliant
    with European airspace requirements. And the cost to make them
    compliant is truly prohibitive, new engines, new avionics, et
    cetera. This will take the aircraft out of the Mediterranean
    theater where we have permanent detachments now. This is a huge
    issue.
        The DC-9 cannot operate in Iraq in the summer heat, the C-
    40 can. The DC-9 cannot cross the African continent unrefueled
    as Ambassador Negroponte recently found out, the C-40 can. The
    DC-9 frequently cannot make the leg from Hawaii to Japan
    against the wind with any kind of meaningful load, the C-40 has
    no such restrictions. DC-9 pilot training is done in the
    aircraft using nearly 50 percent of its flight ability. Almost
    100 percent of C-40 training is done in the simulators, saving
    millions of dollars and allowing 95 percent of its availability
    for mission scheduling.
        We urge you to purchase at least four C-40 aircraft in the
    fiscal year 2008 budget cycle. That is our testimony subject to
    your questions, sir.
        Senator Inouye. Admiral, we understand your problem very
    well because this subcommittee is now faced with many
    procurement problems.
        For example, it has nothing to do with the Naval Reserves,
    but in the supplemental appropriations bill, which we are now
    considering, there's $1 billion for the purchase of Humvees.
    And in the fiscal year 2008 bill, there's a request for $2.9
    billion for Humvees. Last week, the Acting Navy Secretary
    announced that they will replace all Humvees with MRAPs. So,
    where do we stand, do we keep Humvees or do we have MRAPs? And
    who's going to pay for the MRAPs?
        So, your problem is one of many with us, but we will try
    our best to resolve them.
        Admiral Coane. Yes, sir, we appreciate that consideration.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Casey W. Coane
                          the navy reserve association
        The Naval Reserve Association traces its roots back to 1919, and is
    devoted solely to service to the Nation, Navy, the Navy Reserve and
    Navy Reserve officers and enlisted. It is the premier national
    education and professional organization for Navy Reserve personnel, and
    the Association Voice of the Navy Reserve.
        Full membership is offered to all members of the services and Naval
    Reserve Association members come from all ranks and components.
        The Association has just under 23,000 members from all fifty
    states. Forty-five percent of the Naval Reserve Association membership
    is drilling and active reservists and the remaining fifty-five percent
    are made up of reserve retirees, veterans, and involved civilians. The
    National Headquarters is located at 1619 King Street Alexandria, VA.
    703-548-5800.
                   disclosure of federal grants or contracts
        The Naval Reserve Association does not currently receive, has not
    received during the current fiscal year, or either of two previous
    years, any federal money for grants. All activities and services of the
    Association are accomplished free of any direct federal funding.
        Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee: On behalf of our 23,000 members, and in advocacy for the
    70,000 active Navy 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 current and pressing 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 Navy
    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 many issues that need to be addressed by this
    Committee and this Congress. However, there is one specific issue that
    I wish to address of utmost importance for this year's budget. The
    requirement for C-40A for the Navy's Air Logistics Program.
        First:
      --It is the Navy's only world-wide intra-theater organic airlift,
            operated by the U.S. Navy.
      --Navy currently operates 9 C-40As, in three locations: Fort Worth,
            Jacksonville, San Diego.
      --A pending CNA study--substantiates the requirements for 31-35 C-
            40As to replace aging C-9s.
        Second:
      --CNO, SECNAV, and DOD support the requirement for at least 4 more C-
            40As with a fiscal year 2008 Unfunded List (See Attachment #1).
      --Commander, Naval Air Force 2007 Top Priority List stated the
            requirement for at least 32 aircraft.
      --These four C-40As sought in the fiscal year 2008 budget, keep the
            Navy replacement of C-9s alive, and maintains the production
            line of the C-40A.
        Third:
      --Current average age of remaining C-9s that the C-40 replaces is: 36
            years!
      --There will be no commercial operation of the C-9s or derivates by
            2011.
      --C-9s cannot meet the GWOT requirement, due to MC rates, and
            availability of only 171 days in 2006.
      --Modifications required to make C-9s compliant with stage III Noise
            compliance, and worldwide Communications/Navigation/
            Surveillance/Air Traffic Management compliance--are cost
            prohibitive.
      --There are growing indications that the availability and Mission
            Capability rates of the C-20Gs, stationed in Hawaii and
            Maryland, need to be addressed for GWOT requirements (See
            Attachment #2).
        Fourth:
      --737 Commercial Availability is slipping away, if we do not act now;
            loss of production line positions in fiscal year 2008-09--due
            to commercial demand would slip to 2013, and increase in DOD,
            Service expenditures.
      --Lack of DOD, Navy activity on C-40 this fiscal year 2008, could
            potentially mean loss of the C-40A for the Navy.
        The C-40A is a time critical transportation capability for the
    Naval Wartime effort and DOD emergent operational requirements. It also
    provides critical peacetime operational support. The C-40A is the
    replacement for the C-9B.
        The C-40A meets or betters all operational requirements of the
    Navy, and most importantly--can operate in the changing civilian arena
    of CNS/Air Traffic Management Phase I and Phase II requirements,
    allowing the aircraft to fly in any airspace of the future. The
    aircraft can operate with cargo, with passengers, or with a combination
    of cargo and passengers meeting many different logistical requirements.
        Resource constraints have moved this critical asset to the right in
    funding lines, and this could impact: carrier and expeditionary asset
    deployments, and critical transportation of high value cargo to
    Combatant Commanders areas of responsibilities. Sliding the funding to
    the right is not a good option with the increasing civilian demand for
    production line positions. To restart the C-40A line production, after
    it is closed would be extremely costly to the Department of Defense,
    and the Navy.
        Without your direct and immediate input on this critical Navy and
    Navy Reserve requirement, the requirement will be lost, and if needed
    would cost two to three times more for the taxpayers.
      --The C-9 Full Mission Capability and Mission Capability has
            decreased dramatically.
      --Most interestingly and surprisingly--the C-20G aircraft (a
            commercial derivative of the Gulfstream 5 aircraft) full
            mission capability and mission capabilities has decreased to:
        --FMC--1994 97.1 percent to a low of 2006 72.0 percent.
        --MC--1994 97.1 percent to a low of 2006 68.9 percent.
        --You can see--the operational requirements have impacted the C-
                20G.
    Additionally:
        People join the Reserve Components to serve their country and
    operate equipment. Recruiting and retention issues have moved to center
    stage for all services and their reserve components. In all likelihood
    the Navy will not meet its target for new Navy Reservists and the Navy
    Reserve will be challenged to appreciably slow the departure of
    experienced personnel this fiscal year. We've heard that Reserve Chiefs
    are in agreement, expressing concern that senior personnel will leave
    in droves.
        Besides reenlistment bonuses which are needed, we feel that
    dedicated Navy Reserve equipment and Navy Reserve units are a major
    factor in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel in the Navy
    Reserve.
        Overwhelmingly, we have heard Reserve Chiefs and Senior Enlisted
    Advisors discuss the need and requirement for more and better equipment
    for Reserve Component training. The Navy Reserve is in dire need of
    equipment to keep personnel in the Navy Reserve and to keep them
    trained. Approximately 4,500 Navy Reserve personnel are on recall each
    and every month since 9/11. We must have equipment and unit cohesion to
    keep personnel trained. This means--Navy Reserve equipment and Navy
    Reserve specific units with equipment.
        In recent statements, the Chairman of the Commission on the
    National Guard and Reserve Components has stated that cross-leveling
    and lack of equipment is breaking the Reserve Components abilities to
    be an operational reserve force. I feel that the Navy Reserve should
    maintain up-to-date unit equipment, if we are to be able to respond to
    mobilization.
        The following are critically needed for the Navy Reserve to respond
    to continued mobilization, and is supported by the Chief of Navy
    Reserve unfunded program requirements: Naval Coastal Warfare Equipment;
    Explosive Ordnance Disposal Equipment; Naval Construction Force
    Equipment; and Navy Expeditionary Logistics Support Equipment.(See
    Attachment # 3).
        We ask you to fund this Navy Reserve equipment, and that you fund
    the NGREA accounts that are critical for supporting Reserve forces in
    today's Global War on Terrorism. 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.
        In summary, we believe the Committee needs to address the following
    issues for Navy Reservists in the best interest of our National
    Security:
      --First and foremost, fund four (4) C-40A for the Navy Reserve, per
            the unfunded list; we must replace the C-9s and replace the C-
            20Gs in Hawaii and Maryland.
      --Increase funding for Naval Reserve equipment in NGREA
        --Naval Coastal Warfare Equipment
        --Explosive Ordnance Disposal Equipment
      --Establish an End-strength cap of 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 force.
        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.

                   ATTACHMENT 1.--POM-08 UNFUNDED PROGRAM LIST
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
     ITEM                TITLE (Program/Issue)                     2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1 LPD-17                                                  1,696.00
        2 T-AKE                                                   1,200.00
        3 Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat                    8.70
           (JIEDDO) Sustainment
        4 Critical ASW Enhancements                                  95.70
        5 F/A-18E/F/G                                               720.00
        6 MH-60R                                                    140.00
        7 MH-60S                                                    207.00
        8 C-40A                                                     332.00
        9 T-6B                                                       23.60
       10 MK XII /MKXIIA IFF                                         68.70
       11 LCAC Sustainment and Personnel Transport Modules           27.80
           (PTMs)
       12 Transit Protection System                                  21.40
       13 MPS Lease Buyout                                          432.00
       14 AMRAAM (AIM-120D) Inventory                                72.73
       15 Facility Sustainment                                      240.00
       16 Coronado Homeport Ashore Bachelor Quarters                 75.00
       17 Japan Homeport Ashore Bachelor Quarters                   151.00
       18 Fitness Center, Pearl Harbor, HI                           45.00
       19 Aircraft Depot Maintenance                                 77.00
       20 Navy Recruiting Advertising                                29.00
                                                           -----------------
                Total                                             5,662.63
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      ATTACHMENT 2.--C-20G FMC AND MC RATES
                                  [In percent]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Year                            FMC         MC
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1994..............................................      97.15      97.15
    1995..............................................      93.59      95.08
    1996..............................................      93.40      93.86
    1997..............................................      72.57      83.95
    1998..............................................      87.14      93.26
    1999..............................................      94.61      95.50
    2000..............................................      85.05      91.09
    2001..............................................      89.09      93.48
    2002..............................................      82.03      85.29
    2003..............................................      92.62      94.01
    2004..............................................      86.40      93.90
    2005..............................................      81.72      86.81
    2006..............................................      68.86      71.99
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  ATTACHMENT 3.--CHIEF OF NAVY RESERVE UNFUNDED PRIORITY LIST--FISCAL YEAR 2008 NAVY RESERVE UNFUNDED PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS LIST
                                                                      [Dollars in millions]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year 2008                                                                          Fiscal year
        Fiscal year 2007 NGRER           CNO UPL             NGRER              CNR              APPN                  Title (Program)               2008
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1.............................  1................  1...............  1...............  OPN.............  Naval Coastal Warfare Equipment...        $11.0
    2.............................  2................  2...............  2...............  OPN.............  Explosive Ordnance Disposal Table           4.9
                                                                                                              of Allowance Equipment.
    3.............................  3................  3...............  3...............  OPN.............  Naval Construction Force Equipment         16.1
    6.............................  6................  4...............  4...............  OPN.............  Navy Expeditionary Logistics                6.0
                                                                                                              Support Group Equipment (NAVELSG).
    5.............................  4................  5...............  5...............  APN.............  C-40A.............................        371.0
    7.............................  5,7,8,10.........  6...............  6...............  APN.............  C-130 Upgrades....................         33.3
    8.............................  N/L..............  7...............  7...............  APN.............  C-9 Upgrades......................         32.0
    N/L...........................  N/L..............  9...............  8...............  APN.............  C-9 Interior and engine upgrades..         15.0
    N/L...........................  N/L..............  N/L.............  9...............  APN.............  C-40A.............................          4.2
    9.............................  N/L..............  10..............  10..............  APN.............  F-5 Radar and EA jammer upgrades..         56.1
                                                                                                                                                ------------
                                                                                                                   Total.......................        549.6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Inouye. The next witness is Dr. Don Coffey,
    National Prostate Cancer Coalition. I'm sorry Senator Stevens
    is not here, he is a survivor, as you know.
    STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD S. COFFEY, Ph.D., MEMBER,
                NATIONAL CANCER ADVISORY BOARD, NATIONAL
                CANCER INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
                HUMAN SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
                PROSTATE CANCER COALITION
        Dr. Coffey. Mr. Chairman, listening to these problems that
    you must face, I salute you. This is most difficult.
        I'm honored to speak to you because 8 days ago I watched
    you receive an award from the American Association of Cancer
    Research on their 100th anniversary for your long-time effort
    in behalf of doing something about cancer in this country and
    in the world. And, so I salute you for that.
        I'm Don Coffey, I was elected President of that
    organization several years back, and I was also 47 years doing
    research at Johns Hopkins on prostate cancer.
        President Bush recently appointed me for a 6-year term to
    his National Cancer Advisory Board. So, I've been involved with
    the Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Program all the way
    back, 10 years ago, when it first got underway. And I must tell
    you, this has been one of the most effective programs that I've
    seen.
        It does not repeat a lot of the research going on at the
    National Cancer Institute. And I'm here today on behalf of the
    National Prostate Cancer Coalition, who's asked me to come and
    address you. And what they're requesting is that the money in
    prostate cancer, which as you know, is one of the devastating
    diseases for many males in this country--one of the highest
    cancer rates, about 33 percent, of the cancers are here, and
    one out of six men will get prostate cancer in their lifetime.
        What they are requesting is that these funds--since 1997--
    have been decreasing and they have come from $100 million down
    to $80 million. So, we've lost $20 million in this incredible
    program. They're requesting that this be replaced, the $20
    million, to bring it back to $100 million.
        Now, what does that mean? It means that we have received--
    the Department of Defense's Prostate Cancer Program--receives
    about 1,100 applications for research in this field. Now, that
    wouldn't have been possible a few years ago, there was
    practically nobody working in this, and they really stimulated
    a vast amount of research. But they can only fund 200. And of
    those others, over 200 of those, an equal number, are
    outstanding from bright young investigators, these unique types
    of grants. And, we're requesting that the $20 million be
    restored so we can bring those grants back to a reasonable
    level of funding.
        I want to remind everyone that I go all the way back. I was
    in the field a decade or so before President Nixon declared the
    war on cancer in this country. And at that time, 40 percent of
    all the grants that were approved, found to be worthy, were
    funded. Now, that number is down, as you heard, to about 20
    percent and now it's even fallen below 10 in some programs for
    young people, and things at the National Cancer Institute.
        So I really want to stress my congratulations to this
    subcommittee for having formed this program, and how effective
    it is. And, I will end by saying, I'm just going to share two
    things with you, I could have picked 100.
        As you know, the death rate is falling for prostate cancer
    and one of the things is we've got to find out what causes
    this. Example, if you're from the rural area of China--and I've
    worked very closely and set up the United States-Chinese
    Urological Research Society with China earlier, with the
    leaders in China. And what happens if you're born in that area,
    you have very little chance of getting prostate or breast
    cancer as you age.
        But, if you move to Hawaii it jumps, and if you move to the
    mainland United States, it jumps again. And by the second
    generation, it is very high. This has been traced to some
    things that we're coming down on, related to how we process
    foods and some protective factors. The way we process foods by
    burning them, the meats, produces a carcinogen that is one of
    the most strongest carcinogens that we have seen for prostate
    cancer.
        And, so I would like to thank you. I know I could go on and
    on, but time is short, sir. I want to thank you for all you do
    for this Nation, for cancer, and we hope you can restore these
    prostate cancer funds. Thank you.
        Senator Inouye. It may be of interest to people here, this
    subcommittee will be considering budget requests in excess of
    $716 billion during this session. And we will have to somehow
    find the money to do this. And Senator Stevens and I are pretty
    good jugglers, so we will get it.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Donald S. Coffey, Ph.D.
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Stevens and distinguished members
    of the committee, I am Dr. Donald S. Coffey. I am the former Director
    of Research at Johns Hopkins University, Brady Urological Institute in
    Baltimore, the past-president of the American Association for Cancer
    Research and also The Society for Basic Urologic Research. I have
    recently been appointed to the National Cancer Advisory Board at the
    National Cancer Institute (NCI).
        I very much appreciate this opportunity to be able to speak once
    again to you about important issues in cancer research. Today, I am
    testifying on behalf of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition about a
    research program for prostate cancer eradication. That program is among
    the Department of Defense (DOD) Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Programs,
    which, taken together, have effected unique advances for the health and
    well-being of millions of Americans. I am here to request a long
    overdue funding increase to these innovative and successful programs.
        I have been involved in prostate cancer research for 47 years,
    eleven years before the inception of the National Cancer Act by
    President Richard Nixon in 1971. I have a first hand understanding of
    how far we have come toward eliminating suffering and death due to this
    disease, and much of our success has been contributed uniquely by the
    DOD special research program. I ask you to adequately support the
    program.
        Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in
    American men. It accounts for roughly 33 percent of all male cancer
    cases. More than 230,000 men will learn they have prostate cancer in
    2007. About 27,000 will die from the disease. One in six men will get
    prostate cancer at some point in his life. For those with a family
    history of prostate cancer and African American men this number becomes
    1 in 3.
                                   background
        For a decade, the Department of Defense (DOD) Prostate Cancer
    Research Program (PCRP) has funded over 1,455 awards and granted over
    $636 million in funding to universities, hospitals, not-for-profit
    institutions, private industry and state and federal agencies targeted
    toward eliminating prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research
    Program has developed a multidisciplinary research portfolio that
    encompasses both basic and clinical research aimed at preventing,
    detecting, treating and improving the quality of life by those
    afflicted with prostate cancer. The funding strategy of the PCRP
    complements awards made by other agencies and specifically avoids
    duplication of long-term basic research supported by the National
    Institutes of Health.
        In a unique fashion, the PCRP incorporates a peer reviewed and
    programmatic review process. This two-tier review process ensures the
    scientific merit of proposals and that the program meets the goals of
    actual cancer patients and survivors. A decade of successful innovative
    research and cost efficiency has encouraged Congress to continue this
    program. Grant requests fall into 11 areas including Idea Development,
    Clinical Trial Development, and Health Disparity Research.
        Since its inception in 1997, the Prostate Cancer Research Program
    (PCRP) has been an environment in which creative ideas and first rate
    research have been able to flourish by urging investigators to come up
    with innovative ideas that will return results.
                              research highlights
        The DOD PCRP has conducted several studies on the impact of diet,
    nutrition, and lifestyle that could ultimately prevent prostate cancer
    from developing or spreading. Over the ten years that the PCRP has
    operated, the program has funded 50 projects that received a total of
    $20.25 million in research support for early prevention.
        One example is a study which is designed to look at the role of
    Selenium and Vitamin E in prostate cancer in prevention.
        In 2003, Dr. Yan Dong, a researcher at the Roswell Park Cancer
    Institute in Buffalo, New York began a study to look at the impact of
    Selenium and Vitamin E on genes that are potential tumor suppressors.
    The amazing results from this three-year study could potentially lay
    the groundwork for developing a customized selenium intervention
    strategy as part of the treatment for men at high risk of prostate
    cancer.
        It is important to note that this research effort followed the NCI
    Selenium and Vitamin E Chemoprevention Trial (or SELECT) which
    initially found these chemicals can prevent the onset and growth of
    prostate cancer.
        At Johns Hopkins, we have a distinguished history in prostate
    cancer prevention research. For example, several of my colleagues have
    been interested in studying the role of soy proteins and chemicals in
    broccoli as preventives--or in the role of carbon deposits in well-
    cooked meat as a stimulant to cancer development.
        Prevention research conducted at the DOD PCRP could interface with
    and contribute to other important organ site cancer research. While
    Selenium research will potentially impact the course of prostate
    cancer, it will also likely have a role in lung cancer and colon cancer
    prevention as well.
        But, most important, the DOD PCRP program is structured to be a
    ``first responder'' for special needs in prostate cancer research.
    While the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer
    Institute are structured to lay battalions into the nation's war on
    cancer, this unique research program puts special forces into crucial
    research targets, something the larger agencies may find hard to do.
        The Prostate Cancer Research Program conducted by the Department of
    Defense through the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs
    (CDMRP) is setting the bar for administering cancer research. Prostate
    cancer advocates and scientists continue to praise this program and its
    unique peer and consumer driven approach to research. PCRP is a special
    program within the government's prostate cancer research portfolio
    because it makes significant use of public/private partnerships,
    quickly awards competitive grants for new ideas and does not duplicate
    the work of other research funders. Its mission and its results are
    clear. Each year, the program issues an annual report detailing what it
    has done to fight prostate cancer. This transparency allows taxpayers--
    among them prostate cancer survivors--to clearly understand what this
    government entity is doing to fight the disease. Additionally, only 10
    percent of the funding for these programs goes towards administrative
    costs.
        Unfortunately despite excellent reviews from all communities
    regarding achievements and fiscal efficiency, funding to this
    innovative program has been substantially reduced from $100 million in
    fiscal year 2001 to $80 million in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year
    2006, 1,117 proposals were received and only 207 funded. Of the 910
    proposals remaining over 200 met the standards set by the DOD PRCP but
    were turned away due to funding constraints. What if one of these
    researchers held the knowledge to discover the cause of prostate
    cancer?
        According to its business plan laid out in 1998, the DOD PRCP
    should be receiving over $200 million to fully meet its potential. We
    call on this committee to take a bold step forward and open the
    opportunities for this program to progress as the original founders had
    intended and increase funding to the PCRP by $20 million in fiscal year
    2008.
                                    request
        To properly fight the war on prostate cancer, I respectfully
    request this committee appropriate $100 million for the DOD
    Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program's (CDMRP) Prostate
    Cancer Research Program (PCRP).
        Mr. Chairman, the prostate cancer community has done remarkable
    work. This work is continuing to make progress. Public-private
    collaboration and new scientific discoveries are moving us toward a
    better understanding of how prostate cancer develops and kills, but, it
    must continue to develop. Investments in research now make the
    difference to future patients and their families. The War on Cancer
    must be funded appropriately so researchers can find new treatments,
    test them in the clinical setting and deliver them to patients.
        On behalf of the prostate cancer patient community and the National
    Prostate Cancer Coalition, I thank you for your time and ask you to
    continue to help funding the war against this terrible disease.

        Senator Inouye. Our next witness is Ms. Sue Vento, a member
    of the Board of Directors of the Mesothelioma Research
    Foundation.
        Welcome back, ma'am.
    STATEMENT OF SUSAN VENTO, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
                MESOTHELIOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
        Ms. Vento. Good afternoon, Chairman Inouye.
        Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here less than
    2 weeks before Memorial Day to address a fatal disease
    afflicting our military veterans and many others.
        My name is Sue Vento. I serve on the Board of Directors of
    the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, the national
    nonprofit collaboration of researchers, physicians, advocates,
    patients, and families dedicated to advancing medical research
    to improve treatment for mesothelioma.
        Please consider the irony--a hard working science teacher
    who went on to become a leading national advocate for workers
    and for the environment, dies suddenly because of an
    environmental carcinogen he was exposed to in the workplace.
    This future Member of Congress grew up in a large Italian and
    German family on St. Paul's east side, the second oldest of
    eight children. From an early age, he learned the importance of
    hard work from his parents as he delivered newspapers and
    bussed tables in a hotel restaurant. Later he worked at
    factories and a brewery in order to pay his college tuition to
    become a science teacher. At 30, he was elected to the
    Minnesota State House. Six years later he was elected to his
    first of 12 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where
    he served on the Resources and Banking Committees. His name was
    Bruce Vento, he was my best friend, and my husband.
        In January 2000, Bruce was on a congressional trip. He
    mentioned on one of our evening phone calls that he wasn't
    feeling well. He noted a shortness of breath and back pain.
    Immediately upon returning, he went to the House physician and
    was then taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The following day,
    Bruce was told he had lung cancer. He flew home that evening
    and we spent the weekend talking about how best to proceed. He
    decided he wanted to see specialists at the Mayo Clinic in
    Rochester, Minnesota for further testing. On January 29, Bruce
    was told that he did not have lung cancer, but instead was
    diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma.
        Mesothelioma is a diffused tumor of the linings of lungs,
    abdomen, or heart, which kills approximately 3,000 Americans
    each year and many thousands more worldwide. It relentlessly
    invades the tissues of the chest and abdomen, crushing the
    lungs and causing excruciating pain in most afflicted patients
    at the end of their lives. The average survival for individuals
    with mesothelioma is only 1 year.
        Bruce's diagnosis was puzzling because the cause of
    mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos. Bruce racked his brain to
    determine where he could have been exposed to this deadly
    carcinogen. He later recalled those jobs at the factories and
    the brewery during the 1960s. His exposure to asbestos was
    similar to that of millions of Americans, who have also been
    exposed in their work and home settings.
        Until its fatal toxicity became fully recognized, asbestos
    was widely utilized in this country because of its
    fireproofing, insulating, filling, and bonding properties.
    Starting in the late 1930s and through the late 1970s, the Navy
    used asbestos extensively. It was used in engines, nuclear
    reactors, decking materials, pipe covering, hull insulation,
    valves, pumps, gaskets, boilers, distillers, evaporators, soot
    blowers, air conditioners, rope packing, and brake and clutches
    on winches. In fact, it was used all over Navy ships, even in
    living spaces, where pipes were overhead, and in kitchens where
    asbestos was used in ovens, and in the wiring of appliances.
        Aside from Navy ships, asbestos was also used on military
    planes, on military vehicles, and as insulating material in
    Quonset huts and living quarters.
        As in Bruce's case, thousands of veterans have been
    stricken with mesothelioma many years after their exposure to
    the substance. On Valentine's Day 2000, surgeons removed
    Bruce's right lung, the lining of the lung, and one-half of his
    diaphragm. At the end of March, he began chemotherapy, followed
    by 6 weeks of radiation therapy. Following the completion of
    the radiation, we were confident that Bruce was through the
    worst of it. But within a few weeks, we were told that the
    cancer had spread to Bruce's other lung. In September, we were
    urged to arrange for hospice care, which we did the next day.
    On a beautiful autumn morning, the morning of October 10, just
    8\1/2\ months after being diagnosed, Bruce died at our home
    with his family at his side.
        Since Bruce's death, I have learned about other victims of
    the disease. Many of them veterans of our Nation's armed
    services. Approximately one-third of today's mesothelioma
    victims served in the United States on Navy ships or in
    shipyards. These Navy victims include former Chief Naval
    Officer, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, Jr., who led the Navy during
    Vietnam and was renowned for his concern for enlisted men.
    Despite his rank, prestige, power, and leadership in protecting
    the health of Navy servicemen and veterans, Admiral Zumwalt
    died in January 2000, just 3 months after being diagnosed with
    mesothelioma.
        Lewis Deets was another veteran stricken with mesothelioma.
    Four days after turning the legal age of 18, Lewis joined the
    Navy. He served in the Vietnam war from 1962 to 1967 as a ship
    boiler man. For his valiance in combat operations against the
    guerilla forces in Vietnam, Lewis received a letter of
    commendation and the Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon for
    exceptional service.
        In December 1965, while Lewis was serving aboard the U.S.S.
    Kitty Hawk in the Gulf of Tonkin, a fierce fire broke out. The
    boilers filled with asbestos were burning. Two sailors were
    killed and 29 were injured. Lewis was one of the 29 injured. He
    suffered smoke inhalation while fighting the fire. After the
    fire, he helped rebuild the boilers, replacing the burned
    asbestos blocks. In 1999, he developed mesothelioma and died
    just 4 months later at age 55.
        Bob Tragget is a 56-year-old retired sailor who was
    diagnosed with mesothelioma a few years ago. Bob was exposed to
    asbestos as a sailor in the U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1972, proud
    to serve his country aboard a nuclear submarine whose mission
    was to deter a nuclear attack upon our country. To treat his
    disease, Bob had what today is, what is today, state of the art
    for mesothelioma treatment. He had 3 months of systemic
    chemotherapy with a new and quite toxic drug combination. Then
    he had a grueling surgery to open up his chest, remove his
    sixth rib, amputate his right lung, remove the diaphragm and
    parts of the linings around his lungs and his heart. After 2
    weeks of post-operative hospitalization to recover and still
    with substantial pain, he had radiation, which left him with
    second degree burns on his back, in his mouth, and in his
    airways. Recently, the tumor returned on Bob's left side, but
    he continues the battle.
        Regrettably, mesothelioma has been an orphan disease in
    medical research. Three years ago the first treatment for
    mesothelioma patients was approved by the FDA. Even this
    approved treatment, which is regarded as the new standard of
    care, is associated with only a 3-month survival advantage in
    the majority of cases, which are detected in an advanced state.
    Hence, funding for early detection and improved treatment of
    this disease is critically important.
        With a huge Federal investment in cancer research through
    the National Cancer Institute and $3.75 billion spent in
    biomedical research through the Department of Defense
    Congressionally Directed Research Program since 1992, we are
    making important progress in the treatment of many types of
    cancers and other diseases. But for mesothelioma, the National
    Cancer Institute has provided limited funding in the range of
    only $1.7 to $3 million annually over the course of the last 5
    years. And the Department of Defense does not yet invest any
    mesothelioma research, despite the pronounced military service
    connection.
        Advancements in the treatment of mesothelioma have lagged
    far behind other cancers. On behalf of families like mine,
    impacted by mesothelioma, I urge you to direct the Department
    of Defense to please include mesothelioma as an area of
    emphasis in the DOD's peer-reviewed medical research program.
    Inclusion in the list of the congressionally identified
    priority research areas will enable mesothelioma researchers to
    compete for Federal funds, based on the scientific merit of
    their work. This will provide urgently needed resources to
    explore new treatments and build a better understanding of this
    disease.
        Admiral Zumwalt and Lewis Deets would not have wanted you
    to remember them by the cancer that took their lives, nor would
    Bruce. Indeed, Congress can be inspired by these men and take
    up the challenge of identifying a cure for a disease that
    particularly impacts our Nation's veterans. Veterans like Bob
    Tragget, who are now struggling with mesothelioma.
        Navy personnel and shipyard workers exposed decades ago are
    developing the disease today. Many others are being exposed now
    and will develop the disease in 10 to 50 years. While active
    asbestos usage is not as heavy today as in the past, even low-
    dose incidental exposures can cause mesothelioma, as my family
    learned when Bruce was stricken.
        On behalf of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation,
    I appeal to you for your help in ensuring a vigorous Federal
    response to mesothelioma and I thank you for your
    consideration.
        Senator Inouye. I have a 16-inch incision on my chest. I
    was scheduled for a pneumonectomy, and so I know something
    about this.
        Ms. Vento. Yes, you do.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Susan Vento
                                    summary
        Mesothelioma is a deadly cancer which is caused by exposure to
    asbestos. In 2000, this long-overlooked disease took the life of
    Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota, who had served in the House of
    Representatives for twelve terms. His wife, Sue Vento, has become a
    passionate advocate for increased investment in mesothelioma research.
    Today, on behalf of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, Ms.
    Vento comes before the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to
    urge the subcommittee to direct the Department of Defense (DOD) to
    include mesothelioma as an area of emphasis in the DOD's Peer Reviewed
    Medical Research Program. Inclusion in the list of Congressionally
    identified priority research areas will enable mesothelioma researchers
    to compete for federal funds to assist in identifying more effective
    treatments for this challenging cancer.
        Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Stevens, and distinguished members
    of the U.S. Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee: Thank you for
    this opportunity, less than two weeks before Memorial Day, to address a
    fatal disease afflicting our military veterans and many others--
    mesothelioma. My name is Sue Vento, I serve on the Board of Directors
    of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, the national nonprofit
    collaboration of researchers, physicians, advocates, patients and
    families dedicated to advancing medical research to improve treatments
    for mesothelioma.
        Consider the irony: A hard working science teacher who went on to
    become a leading national advocate for workers and the environment dies
    suddenly because of an environmental carcinogen he was exposed to in
    the workplace.
        This future Member of Congress grew up in a large Italian and
    German family on St. Paul's Eastside, the second oldest of eight
    children. From an early age, he learned the importance of hard work
    from his parents as he delivered newspapers and bussed tables in a
    hotel restaurant. Later, he worked at factories and a brewery in order
    to pay his college tuition to become a science teacher. At 30, he was
    elected to the Minnesota State House. Six years later, he was elected
    to his first of 12 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he
    served on the Natural Resources and Banking Committees. He was Bruce
    Vento; he was my best friend and my husband.
        There was little that ever slowed down Bruce. He was a very active
    person--traveling almost every weekend back to Minnesota's 4th
    Congressional District to meet with constituents and to do his best as
    their representative in the U.S. House. In mid-January 2000, Bruce was
    on a Congressional trip. He mentioned on one of our evening phone calls
    that he wasn't feeling well--he noted a shortness of breath and back
    pain. Immediately upon returning he went to the House physician and was
    then taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The following day, Bruce was
    told he had lung cancer.
        He flew home that evening, and we spent the weekend talking about
    how best to proceed. He decided he wanted to see specialists at the
    Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, for further testing. On the
    morning of January 29th, 2000, Bruce was told that he did not have lung
    cancer, but instead he was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma.
        Mesothelioma is a diffuse tumor of the linings of the lungs,
    abdomen or heart which kills approximately 3,000 Americans each year,
    and many thousands more worldwide. It relentlessly invades the tissues
    of the chest and abdomen, crushing the lungs and causing excruciating
    pain in most afflicted patients at the end of their life. The average
    survival for individuals with mesothelioma is only one year.
        Bruce's diagnosis was puzzling because the cause of mesothelioma is
    exposure to asbestos. Bruce wracked his brain to determine where he
    could have been exposed to this deadly carcinogen. He later recalled
    those jobs at the factories and the brewery during the early 1960's.
    His exposure to asbestos was similar to that of millions of Americans
    who have also been exposed in their work and home settings. Until its
    fatal toxicity became fully recognized, asbestos was widely utilized in
    the United States because of its fireproofing, insulating, filling and
    bonding properties.
        Starting in the late 1930's and through the late 70's the Navy used
    asbestos extensively. It was used in engines, nuclear reactors, decking
    materials, pipe covering, hull insulation, valves, pumps, gaskets,
    boilers, distillers, evaporators, soot blowers, air conditioners, rope
    packing, and brakes and clutches on winches. In fact it was used all
    over Navy ships, even in living spaces where pipes were overhead and in
    kitchens where asbestos was used in ovens and in the wiring of
    appliances. Aside from Navy ships, asbestos was also used on military
    planes, on military vehicles, and as insulating material on quonset
    huts and living quarters. As in Bruce's case, thousands of veterans
    have been stricken with mesothelioma many years after their exposure to
    the substance.
        On Valentine's Day, surgeons removed Bruce's right lung, the lining
    of the lung, and half of his diaphragm. At the end of March he began
    chemotherapy followed by six weeks of radiation therapy. Following the
    completion of the radiation, we were confident that Bruce was through
    the worst of it. But within a few weeks, we were told that the cancer
    had spread to Bruce's other lung. On September 25th, we were urged to
    arrange for Hospice care, which we did the next day. On the beautiful,
    autumn morning of October 10, 2000--just ten months after being
    diagnosed, Bruce died at our home with his family at his side.
        Since Bruce's death, I have advocated for more medical research on
    behalf of mesothelioma patients and their families because the threat
    of this deadly cancer remains very real. Through my work on the Board
    of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, I have learned about
    other victims of the disease--many of them veterans of our nation's
    armed services. Approximately one-third of today's mesothelioma victims
    served the United States on Navy ships or in shipyards. A study at the
    Groton, Connecticut shipyard found that over one hundred thousand
    workers had been exposed to asbestos over the years at just this one
    worksite. Because of the ten to fifty year latency of the disease, many
    of the millions of exposed servicemen and shipyard workers are just now
    developing mesothelioma.
        These Navy victims include former Chief Naval Officer Admiral Elmo
    Zumwalt, Jr., who led the Navy during Vietnam and was renowned for his
    concern for enlisted men. Despite his rank, prestige, power, and
    leadership in protecting the health of Navy servicemen and veterans,
    Admiral Zumwalt died the same year as Bruce, just three months after
    being diagnosed with mesothelioma.
        Lewis Deets was another veteran stricken with mesothelioma. Four
    days after turning the legal age of eighteen, Lewis joined the Navy. He
    served in the Vietnam War for over four years, from 1962 to 1967, as a
    ship boilerman. For his valiance in combat operations against the
    guerilla forces in Vietnam he received a Letter of Commendation and The
    Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon for Exceptional Service. In December
    1965, while Lewis was serving aboard the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk in the Gulf
    of Tonkin, a fierce fire broke out. The boilers, filled with asbestos,
    were burning. Two sailors were killed and 29 were injured. Lewis was
    one of the 29 injured; he suffered smoke inhalation while fighting the
    fire. After the fire, he helped rebuild the boilers, replacing the
    burned asbestos blocks. In 1999, he developed mesothelioma and died
    four months later at age 55.
        Commander Harrison F. Starn Jr., joined the Navy before college to
    serve in World War II, then became an officer and served in the Korean
    War, the Cuban missile crisis and the Vietnam War. During his career he
    served aboard a cruiser, destroyers and landing-troop ships, all of
    which had heavy asbestos. After retiring from the Navy, he opened a
    scuba diving center in Virginia, and actively supported fire
    departments, rescue squads and law-enforcement agencies. This patriot
    died last year of mesothelioma at the National Naval Medical Center in
    Bethesda.
        Bob Tregget is a 56 year old retired sailor who was diagnosed with
    mesothelioma a few years ago. Bob was exposed to asbestos as a sailor
    in the U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1972, proud to serve his country aboard a
    nuclear submarine whose mission was to deter a nuclear attack upon the
    United States. To treat his disease, Bob had what today is the state of
    the art for mesothelioma treatment. He had three months of systemic
    chemotherapy with a new, and quite toxic, drug combination. Then he had
    a grueling surgery, to open up his chest, remove his sixth rib,
    amputate his right lung, remove the diaphragm and parts of the linings
    around his lungs and his heart. After two weeks of postoperative
    hospitalization to recover and still with substantial postoperative
    pain, he had radiation, which left him with 2nd degree burns on his
    back, in his mouth, and in his airways. Recently, the tumor returned on
    his left side, but Bob is hanging on.
        Approximately 23 million Americans have been occupationally exposed
    to asbestos over the past 50 years and are now at risk. There is grave
    concern now for the heroic first responders from 9/11 who were exposed
    to hundreds of tons of pulverized asbestos at Ground Zero and
    throughout the city. The destruction wrought by Katrina has potentially
    exposed countless more. Asbestos is virtually omni-present in all the
    buildings constructed before the late 1970s. Asbestos exposures have
    been reported among the troops now in Iraq. The utility tunnels in the
    U.S. Capitol building may have dangerous levels. For those who could
    develop mesothelioma as a result of these exposures, the only hope is
    effective treatment.
        Regrettably, mesothelioma has been an orphan in medical research.
    Until three years ago, there was not even one treatment for
    mesothelioma approved by the FDA as better than doing nothing at all.
    Even this approved treatment, which is regarded as the new standard of
    care, is associated with only a three month survival advantage in the
    majority of cases which are detected in an advanced state. Hence,
    funding for early detection and improved treatment of the disease is
    critically important.
        Since 1999, research and advocacy for mesothelioma has been
    championed by the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, which has
    awarded over $4 million in seed money grants to the brightest
    investigators around the world. Researchers are learning which genes
    and proteins can give a signature for the disease, and which of these
    also control the pathways that will turn a normal cell into a
    mesothelioma. Now we need the federal government to partner with us in
    order to make sure that promising findings receive the funding
    necessary to be fully developed into effective treatments for patients.
        With the huge federal investment in cancer research through the
    National Cancer Institute, and $3.75 billion spent in biomedical
    research through the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed
    Research Program since 1992, we are making important progress in the
    treatment of many types of cancer and other diseases. But for
    mesothelioma, the National Cancer Institute has provided virtually no
    funding, in the range of only $1.7 to $3 million annually over the
    course of the last five years, and the Department of Defense does not
    yet invest in any mesothelioma research despite the pronounced
    military-service connection. Advancements in the treatment of
    mesothelioma have lagged far behind other cancers.
        Therefore, on behalf of families like mine directly impacted by
    mesothelioma, I urge the subcommittee to direct the Department of
    Defense to include mesothelioma as an area of emphasis in the DOD's
    Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. Inclusion in the list of
    congressionally identified priority research areas will enable
    mesothelioma researchers to compete for federal funds based on the
    scientific merit of their work. This will provide urgently needed
    resources to explore new treatments and build a better understanding of
    this disease.
        My husband Bruce Vento, Admiral Zumwald, Commander Starn and Lewis
    Deets would not have wanted you to remember them by the cancer that
    took their lives. Instead, Congress can be inspired by these men and
    take up the challenge of identifying a cure for a disease that
    particularly impacts our nation's veterans--veterans like Bob Teggett
    who are now struggling with mesothelioma. Navy servicemen and shipyard
    workers exposed decades ago are developing the disease today. Many
    others are being exposed now and will develop the disease in 10 to 50
    years. While active asbestos usage is not as heavy today as in the
    past, even low-dose, incidental exposures can cause mesothelioma as my
    family learned when Bruce was stricken.
        On behalf of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, I appeal
    to you for your help in ensuring a vigorous federal response to
    mesothelioma. Thank you for you consideration.

        Senator Inouye. Our last witness is Mr. D. Michael Duggan,
    Deputy Director of the American Legion National Security
    Commission.
        Welcome, Mr. Duggan.
    STATEMENT OF D. MICHAEL DUGGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
                AMERICAN LEGION NATIONAL SECURITY
                COMMISSION
        Mr. Duggan. Thank you very much, sir. Good afternoon. We
    thank you for this great opportunity. As the Nation's largest
    organization of war time veterans, I and my organization thank
    you and your subcommittee for over the years, continuing to
    fund Defense budgets and especially at higher levels during
    times of war. The Armed Forces and our men and women in uniform
    know they can count on you, and this particular subcommittee as
    well, and that is deeply appreciated.
        According to the Department of Defense, fiscal year 2008
    Defense budget would advance ongoing efforts to prevail in the
    global war on terrorism, defend the homeland against threats,
    maintain America's military superiority, and to support
    military members and their families. The American Legion
    believes that this budget must also continue to increase active
    Army and Marine Corps end-strengths. Our major concerns are
    that we hope the Army is, in fact, not being broken, not only
    by this war, but by their load strength and trying to do too
    much with too few.
        We also urge the full funding of TRICARE healthcare
    programs and not to have DOD TRICARE fees increased. Continue
    to increase and support military quality of life issues to
    include a 3.5-percent military pay raise, in lieu of the 3
    percent administration's requested pay raise level.
        Severely wounded service members recovering in military
    hospitals, such as Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda
    Navy Hospital, need to receive the very best of care,
    particularly for traumatic brain injuries, the signature wound,
    not only for their treatment, but of course, for their
    research. Combat stress also needs more help, we think, as well
    as post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as, of course,
    therapies for missing or prosthetic limbs, as well.
        DOD, we think has to do a better job, though, in
    interfacing with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We would
    like to see also, the Wounded Warrior Program fully funded, as
    well, too. That is a really worthwhile program. The military's
    medical evaluation boards, the PEBs and MEBs.
        And, we feel as military disability retirement process has
    to be seriously reformed. And perhaps, even the rating and the
    evaluation of airmen and soldiers be done, not by the military
    necessarily, but by the VA, which has a lot more experience in
    rating and evaluation, as well, too.
        Walter Reed is still a national treasure. Despite its
    shortcomings and it's the only military hospital in the world,
    we believe, that can treat up to 1.1 million outpatients, as
    well as some 26,500 inpatients and an increasing, over 3,000
    severely wounded soldiers who are still coming in. We think,
    therefore, particularly during the war years, that Walter Reed
    should not be torn down, that it should be renovated to the
    best that it can, the space and whatever it needs to still be
    able to support that staggering workload, as well.
        As a matter of fact, the American Legion signed a
    memorandum of understanding with Walter Reed, so as to provide
    a manned office there to assist military members in
    transferring from military healthcare to veterans healthcare.
        Other than that, Senator, thank you for your continued
    support. We would ask, also and urge, that there be any
    additional funding or full funding for the POW/MIA structures
    as well, too, for their, so that they can continue their
    recovery operations, as well as fund any new initiatives, such
    as the issuance of electronic beepers to service members who
    are going into combat and could wind up being captured or
    missing in action.
        Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't ask for continued
    funding support for the concurrent receipt of military retired
    pay and veterans disability compensation, as well as the
    elimination of the SBP/DIC offset, which has affected so many
    military survivors and widows over the years.
        Again sir, thank you for your leadership, thank you for
    being a great veteran, and thank you for this opportunity.
        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of D. Michael Duggan
        Mr. Chairman: The American Legion is grateful for the opportunity
    to present its views on defense appropriations for fiscal year 2008.
    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 Robert Gates has noted, the war in Iraq is part of a long,
    dangerous global war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is being waged
    on two fronts: overseas against armed insurgents and at home protecting
    and securing the Homeland. Casualties in the shooting wars, in terms of
    those killed and seriously wounded, continue to mount daily. Indeed,
    most of what we as Americans hold dear is made possible by the peace
    and stability that the Armed Forces provide by taking the fight to the
    enemy.
        The American Legion adheres to the principle that this nation's
    armed forces must be well-manned and equipped, not just to pursue war,
    but to preserve and protect the peace. The American Legion strongly
    believes past and current military downsizing were budget-driven rather
    than threat-focused. Once Army divisions, Navy warships and Air Force
    fighter squadrons are downsized, eliminated or retired from the force
    structure, they cannot be reconstituted quickly enough to meet new
    threats or emergency circumstances. The Active-Duty Army, Army National
    Guard and the Reserves barely met 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 for active duty, and
    now, National Guard units alerted for their second tour.
        The Administration's fiscal year 2008 budget requests more than
    $481 billion for defense or about 17 percent of the total budget. The
    fiscal year 2008 defense budget represents a 11.3 percent increase in
    defense spending over current funding levels. It also represents about
    4.0 percent of our Gross National Product. Active duty military
    manpower end-strength is now over 1.55 million. Selected Reserve
    strength is about 863,300 or reduced by about 25 percent from its
    strength levels during the Gulf War of 16 years ago.
        Mr. Chairman, this budget must advance ongoing efforts to prevail
    in the global war on terrorism, defend the homeland against threats,
    maintain America's military superiority, and to support Servicemembers
    and their families. A decade of over-use of the military and past
    under-funding, necessitates a sustained investment. The American Legion
    believes the budget must continue to increase Army and Marine Corps
    end-strengths, fully fund Tricare programs, accelerate improved Active
    and Reserve Components' quality of life features, provide increased
    funding for the concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA
    disability compensation (``Veterans Disability Tax'') and elimination
    of the offset of survivors benefit plan (SBP) and Dependency and
    Indemnity Compensation (DIC) ``Widow's Tax'' that continues to penalize
    military survivors.
        If we are to win the war on terror and prepare for the wars of
    tomorrow, we must take care of the Department of Defense's greatest
    assets--the men and women in uniform. They do us proud in Iraq,
    Afghanistan and around the world. They need our help. Therefore, The
    American Legion urges this Subcommittee and this Congress to continue
    to fund the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as our troops
    and their families.
        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 2008 defense budget requests over $10.8
    billion for military pay and allowances, including a 3.0 percent
    across-the-board pay raise. This pay raise is inadequate and needs to
    be increased to 3.5 percent so as to close the pay gap. It also
    includes billions to improve military housing, putting the Department
    on track to eliminate most substandard housing several years sooner
    than previously planned. The fiscal year 2007 budget further lowered
    out-of-pocket housing costs for those living off base. The American
    Legion encourages the Subcommittee to continue the policy of no out-of-
    pocket housing costs in future years and to end the military pay
    differential with the private sector.
        Together, these investments in people are critical, because smart
    weapons are worthless to us unless they are in the hands of smart,
    well-trained Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guard
    personnel.
        The American Legion National Commander has visited American troops
    in Europe and the Far East as well as a number of installations
    throughout the United States, including Walter Reed Army Medical Center
    and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center. During these visits, he was
    able to see first-hand the urgent, immediate need to address real
    quality of life challenges faced by service members and their families.
    Severely wounded service members who have families and are convalescing
    in military hospitals clearly need to continue to receive the best of
    care, particularly for PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injuries and therapies;
    and the DOD interface with the VA must be more seamless. Also, the
    medical evaluation board process needs to be reformed and expedited so
    that military severance and disability retirement pays will be more
    immediately forthcoming. The soldiers' best interests must be fairly
    represented before the medical evaluation boards. To this end, The
    American Legion has established an office at Walter Reed AMC to assist
    the medical evaluation system and the transition of discharging
    patients to the VA. Our National Commanders have spoken with families
    on Women's and Infants' Compensation (WIC) which is an absolute
    necessity to larger military families. Quality-of-life issues for
    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, to include multiple combat tours, must be reduced or
    curtailed. Military missions were on the rise before September 11 and
    deployment levels remain high. The only way to reduce repetitive
    overseas tours and the overuse of the reserves is to increase, recruit
    and fill active and reserve Army and Marine Corps end-strengths.
        Military pay must be on a par with the competitive civilian sector.
    Activated reservists must receive the same equipment, the same pay and
    timely health care as active duty personnel. The Reserve Montgomery GI
    Bill must be as lucrative as the MGI Bill for active duty personnel. If
    other benefits, like health care improvements, commissaries, adequate
    quarters, quality child care and impact aid for DOD education are
    reduced, they will only serve to further undermine efforts to recruit
    and retain the brightest and best this nation has to offer.
        Despite frequent visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, The
    American Legion was shocked and disappointed by the publicized
    shortcomings that surfaced at Walter Reed. Clearly, the first
    priorities are to beef up its military medical staff, improve its
    facilities, expand its treatment and living space, and most
    importantly, evaluate and improve the Medical Evaluation Board process:
    Clearly, the MEB/PEB process is too time-consuming and too often
    inappropriate judgments and ratings are being rendered and appear to be
    shortchanging the troops. The military MEB/PEB process must be reformed
    in favor of a system which fairly rates and compensates disabled
    soldiers while affording these disabled soldiers the retirement
    benefits they so rightly earned and deserved.
        Walter Reed Army Medical Center is a National Treasure, not merely
    the Army's flagship hospital. Two years ago, Walter Reed AMC treated
    over 1.1 million Army outpatients, and 26,500 inpatients and hundreds
    of severely wounded soldiers from the combat zones. Walter Reed
    continues to treat Active Army, Army Reservists, Army National
    Guardsmen, and Army military retiree veterans and their families. There
    is no other military or civilian medical center or hospital in the
    United States that can treat patients of this magnitude or severity;
    and Walter Reed has been doing this since the turn of the last century.
        Frankly, The American Legion has overwhelmingly opposed having
    Walter Reed on the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) List, and
    continues to oppose its closure. The American Legion recommends, in
    light of the emergent need to renovate the Medical Center, that Walter
    Reed be removed from the BRAC list and that military construction
    funding be dedicated for major phased-in renovations of the Medical
    Center, rather than constructing other medical facilities and tearing
    Walter Reed down. This appears to be the practical and economical thing
    to do especially during time of war when severely wounded soldiers need
    the best in medical care.
        As a major step toward resolving the problems brought to light at
    Walter Reed AMC, The American Legion signed a Memorandum of
    Understanding with Walter Reed which will establish an office there to
    assist in the transition of wounded service members from Department of
    Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The American Legion also
    supports the retention of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, on
    the grounds of Walter Reed as an absolute necessity and is valued both
    to the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
        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 three to five years. The Defense
    Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 provided the funding for the
    first year force level increases of 10,000. The Army's end-strength
    increased 30,000 and the Marine Corps end-strength increased 3,000.
        The budget deficit is projected to be over $427 billion which is
    the largest in U.S. history, and it appears to be heading higher
    perhaps to $500 billion. National defense spending must not become a
    casualty of deficit reduction.
                         force health protection (fhp)
        As American military forces are again engaged in combat overseas,
    the health and welfare of deployed troops is of utmost concern to The
    American Legion. The need for effective coordination between the
    Department of Veterans Affairs and the DOD in the force protection of
    U.S. forces is paramount. It has been fifteen 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 early signs of Combat Stress, PTSD, and the Traumatic Brain
    Injuries must be detected early-on and completely treated by the
    military and the VA. The entire medical issue of Traumatic Brain
    Injuries (TBIs) needs to be recognized, reported, treated and
    researched. 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 proposed 3.0 percent pay-raise
    needs to be significantly increased. The 3.1 percent military
    comparability gap with the private sector needs to be eliminated; the
    improved Reserve MGIB for education needs to be completely funded as
    well; combat wounded soldiers who are evacuated from combat zones to
    military hospitals need to retain their special pays, and base pay and
    allowances continued at the same level so as not to jeopardize their
    family's financial support during recovery. Furthermore, the medical
    evaluation board process needs to be reformed and fair and considerate
    of the soldiers' best interest so that any adjudicated military
    severance or military disability retirement payments will be
    immediately forthcoming; recruiting and retention efforts, to include
    the provision of more service recruiters, needs to be fully funded as
    does recruiting advertising. The Defense Health Program and, in
    particular, the Tricare healthcare programs need to be fully funded.
        The Defense Department, Congress and The American Legion all have
    reason to be concerned about the rising cost of military healthcare.
    But it is important to recognize that the bulk of the problem is a
    national one, not a military specific one. It is also extremely
    important, in these days of record deficits, that we focus on the
    government's unique responsibility and moral obligation to fully fund
    the Defense Health program, particularly its Tricare programs, to
    provide for the career military force that has served for multiple
    decades under extraordinarily arduous conditions to protect and
    preserve our national welfare. In this regard, the government's
    responsibility and obligations to its servicemembers and military
    retirees go well beyond those of corporate employers. The Constitution
    puts the responsibility on the government to provide for the common
    defense and on the Congress to raise and maintain military forces. No
    corporate employer shares such awesome responsibilities.
        The American Legion recommends against implementing any increases
    in healthcare fees for uniformed services and retiree beneficiaries.
    Dr. William Winkenwerder, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense
    (Heath Affairs), briefed The American Legion and other VSOs/MSOs that
    rising military healthcare costs are ``impinging on other service
    programs.'' Other reports indicate that the DOD leadership is seeking
    more funding for weapons programs by reducing the amount it spends on
    military healthcare and other personnel needs. The American Legion
    believes strongly that America can afford to, and must, pay for both
    weapons and military healthcare. The American Legion also believes
    strongly that the proposed defense budget is too small to meet the
    needs of national defense. Today's defense budget, during wartime, is
    about 4 percent of GDP, well short of the average for the peacetime
    years since WWII. Defense leaders assert that substantial military fee
    increases are needed to bring military beneficiary costs more in live
    with civilian practices. But such comparisons with corporate practices
    is inappropriate as it disregards the service and sacrifices military
    members, retirees and families have made in service to the nation.
        The reciprocal obligation of the government to maintain an
    extraordinary benefit package to offset the extraordinary sacrifices of
    career military members is a practical as well as moral obligation.
    Eroding benefits for career service can only undermine long-term
    retention and readiness. One reason why Congress enacted Tricare for
    Life is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time said that inadequate
    retiree healthcare was affecting attitudes among active duty troops.
    The American Legion believes it was inappropriate to put the Joint
    Services in the untenable position of being denied sufficient funding
    for current readiness needs if they didn't agree to beneficiary benefit
    cuts.
        Reducing military retirements budgets, such as Tricare healthcare,
    would be penny-wise and pound-foolish when recruiting is already a
    problem and an overstressed and overstrengthened force is at increasing
    retention risks. Very simply the DOD should be required to pursue
    greater efforts to improve Tricare and find more effective and
    appropriate ways to make Tricare more cost-effective without seeking to
    ``tax'' beneficiaries and making unrealistic budget assumptions.
        Likewise, military retiree veterans as well as their survivors, who
    have served their Country for decades in war and peace, require
    continued quality of life improvements as well. First and foremost, The
    American Legion strongly urges that FULL concurrent receipt and Combat-
    Related Special Compensation (CRSC) be authorized for disabled retirees
    whether they were retired for longevity (20 or more years of service)
    or military disability retirement with fewer than 20 years. In
    particular, The American Legion urges that disabled retirees rated 40
    percent and below be authorized CRPD and that disabled retirees rated
    between 50 percent and 90 percent disabled be authorized non-phased-in
    concurrent receipt. Additionally, The American Legion strongly urges
    that ALL military disability retirees with fewer than 20 years service
    be authorized to receive CRSC and VA disability compensation provided,
    of course, they're otherwise eligible for CRSC under the combat-related
    conditions. The funding for these military disability retirees with
    fewer than 20 years is a ``cost of war'' and perhaps should be paid
    from the annual supplemental budgets.
        Secondly, The American Legion urges that the longstanding inequity
    whereby military survivors have their survivors benefit plan (SBP)
    offset by the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) be
    eliminated. This ``Widows' Tax'' needs to be corrected as soon as
    possible. It is blatantly unfair and has penalized deserving military
    survivors for years. A number of these military survivors are nearly
    impoverished because of this unfair provision. As with concurrent
    receipt for disabled retirees, military survivors should receive both
    SBP AND DIC. They have always been entitled to both and should not have
    to pay for their own DIC. The American Legion will continue to convey
    that simple, equitable justice is the primary reason to fund FULL
    concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA disability
    compensation, as well as the SBP and DIC for military survivors. Not to
    do so merely perpetuates the same inequity. Both inequities need to be
    righted by changing the unfair law that prohibits both groups from
    receiving both forms of compensation.
        Mr. Chairman: The American Legion as well as the armed forces and
    veterans continue to owe you and this Subcommittee a debt of gratitude
    for your continuing 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 a proposed 3.5
            percent military pay raise as well as increases in Basic
            Allowance for Housing (BAH).
      --Commissaries: The American Legion urges the Congress to preserve
            full federal subsidizing of the military commissary system and
            to retain this vital non-pay compensation benefit for use by
            active duty families, reservist families, military retiree
            families and 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans
            and others.
      --DOD Domestic Dependents Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS):
            The American Legion urges the retention and full funding of the
            DDESS as they have provided a source of high quality education
            for military children attending schools on military
            installations.
      --Funding the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill for Education.
      --Providing FULL concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA
            disability compensation for those disabled retirees rated 40
            percent and less; providing non-phased concurrent receipt for
            those disabled retirees rated between 50 percent and 90 percent
            disabled by the VA; and authorizing those military disability
            retirees with fewer than 20 years service to receive both VA
            disability compensation and Combat-Related Special Compensation
            (CRSC).
      --Eliminating the offset of the survivors benefit plan (SBP) and
            Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for military
            survivors.
                       other quality of life institutions
        The American Legion strongly believes that quality of life issues
    for retired military members and their families are augmented by
    certain institutions which we believe need to be annually funded as
    well. Accordingly, The American Legion believes that Congress and the
    Administration must place high priority on insuring these institutions
    are adequately funded and maintained:
      --The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences: The
            American Legion urges the Congress to resist any efforts to
            less than fully fund, downsize or close the USUHS through the
            BRAC process. It is a national treasure, which educates and
            produces military physicians and advanced nursing staffs. We
            believe it continues to be an economical source of CAREER
            medical leaders who enhance military health care readiness and
            excellence and is well-known for providing the finest health
            care in the world.
      --The Armed Forces Retirement Homes: The United States Soldiers' and
            Airmen's Home in Washington, D.C. and the United States Naval
            Home in Gulfport, Mississippi, have been under-funded as
            evidenced by the reduction in services to include on-site
            medical health care and dental care. Increases in fees paid by
            residents are continually on the rise. The medical facility at
            the USSAH has been eliminated with residents being referred to
            VA Medical Centers or Military Treatment Facilities such as
            Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Naval Home at Gulfport,
            Mississippi was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, The American
            Legion recommends that the Congress conduct an independent
            assessment of the USSAH facilities and the services being
            provided with an eye toward federally subsidizing the Home as
            appropriate. The facility has been recognized as a national
            treasure until recent years when a number of mandated services
            had been severely reduced and resident fees have been
            substantially increased.
      --Arlington National Cemetery: The American Legion urges that the
            Arlington National Cemetery be maintained to the highest of
            standards. We urge also that Congress mandate the eligibility
            requirements for burial in this prestigious Cemetery reserved
            for those who have performed distinguished military service and
            their spouses and eligible children.
      --2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission: The American
            Legion was disappointed that certain base facilities such as
            military medical facilities, commissaries, exchanges and
            training facilities and other quality of life facilities were
            not preserved for use by the active and reserve components and
            military retirees and their families. The American Legion urges
            the phased-in renovation and the retention of Walter Reed
            particularly for the duration of the War
                   the american legion family support network
        The American Legion continues to demonstrate its support and
    commitment to the men and women in uniform and their families. The
    American Legion's Family Support Network is providing immediate
    assistance primarily to activated National Guard families as requested
    by the Director of the National Guard Bureau. The American Legion
    Family Support Network has reached out through its Departments and
    Posts to also support the Army' Wounded Warrior program (AW2). Many
    thousands of requests from these families have been received and
    accommodated by the American Legion Family across the United States.
    Military family needs have ranged from requests for funds to a variety
    of everyday chores which need doing while the ``man or woman'' of the
    family is gone. The American Legion, whose members have served our
    nation in times of adversity, remember how it felt to be separated from
    family and loved ones. As a grateful Nation, we must ensure than no
    military family endures those hardships caused by military service, as
    such service has assured the security, freedom and ideals of our great
    Country.
                                  conclusions
        Thirty-four 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 2008 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.

        Senator Inouye. Today we've received testimony from 26
    witnesses, and it may surprise you to know that most of them
    supported programs that are considered evil--add-ons, and
    earmarks. Most of the programs that you have supported today
    are in those categories--either earmarks or add-ons--which is
    to show that the Constitution is still correct, the Congress
    does have a role to play in establishing the budget.
        Mr. Duggan. Absolutely.
        Senator Inouye. And, I can assure you that we were not
    elected to be rubber stamps.
        Mr. Duggan. Thank you, sir.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Inouye. With that, the scheduled hearings have now
    been completed, and this subcommittee will now consider the
    bill. And, we will stand in recess, subject to the call of the
    Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., Wednesday, May 16, 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
    Arthur, Vice Admiral Donald C., Surgeon General, Department of
      the Navy, Department of Defense................................    47
        Prepared Statement of........................................    49
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   119

    Benge, Seth, Director of Legislation, Reserve Enlisted
      Association on behalf of the Associations for America's Defense   734
        Prepared Statement of........................................   736
    Bergman, Lieutenant General John W., Commander, Marine Forces
      Reserve, United States Marine Corps Reserve, Department of
      Defense........................................................   549
        Prepared Statement of........................................   550
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   579
    Black, Sherry Salway, Executive Director, Ovarian Cancer National
      Alli-
      ance...........................................................   764
        Prepared Statement of........................................   765
    Blum, Lieutenant General H Steven, Chief, National Guard,
      Department of Defense..........................................   431
        Prepared Statement of........................................   435
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   506
    Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................    37
    Bradley, Lieutenant General John A., Chief, Air Force Reserve,
      Department of Defense..........................................   557
        Prepared Statement of........................................   557
    Bruzek-Kohler, Rear Admiral Christine M., Director, Navy Nurse
      Corps, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense...........    95
        Prepared Statement of........................................    97
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   128
    Bursell, Dr. Sven-Erik, Director, Telehealth Research, Joslin
      Diabetes Cen-
      ter............................................................   767
        Prepared Statement of........................................   768
    Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
      Questions Submitted by.........325, 507, 513, 576, 579, 626, 694, 704

    Campbell, Lieutenant General Kevin T., Commanding General, U.S.
      Army Space and Missile Defense Command/U.S. Army Forces
      Strategic Command and Joint Functional Component Command for
      Integrated Missile Defense, Missile Defense Agency, Department
      of Defense.....................................................   600
        Prepared Statement of........................................   602
    Coane, Rear Admiral Casey W., United States Navy (retired),
      Executive Director, Naval Reserve Association..................   811
        Prepared Statement of........................................   812
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
        Prepared Statements of......................................20, 348
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   28,
                            30, 250, 332, 344, 423, 426, 427, 509, 513, 516
    Coffey, Dr. Donald S., Ph.D., Member, National Cancer Advisory
      Board, National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and
      Human Services, on behalf of the National Prostate Cancer
      Coalition......................................................   816
        Prepared Statement of........................................   817
    Conway, General James T., Commandant, United States Marine Corps,
      Office of the Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of
      Defense........................................................   387
        Prepared Statement of........................................   388
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   427
    Cotton, Vice Admiral John G., Chief, Navy Reserve, Department of
      Defense........................................................   542
        Prepared Statement of........................................   543
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   574

    Dahlman, George, Senior Vice President for Public Policy,
      Leukemia and Lymphoma Society..................................   791
        Prepared Statement of........................................   793
    Davis, John R., Director, Legislative Programs, The Fleet Reserve
      Association....................................................   771
        Prepared Statement of........................................   773
    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
      Questions Submitted by..........28, 121, 125, 253, 332, 509, 641, 697
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
      Questions Submitted by...................................27, 221, 630
    Dozier, Kimberly, CBS New Correspondent..........................   802
    Duggan, D. Michael, Deputy Director, American Legion National
      Security Commission............................................   825
        Prepared Statement of........................................   826
    Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
      Submitted by.......................................119, 123, 695, 706

    England, Hon. Gordon, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of
      Defense........................................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     2
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    27

    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by........................222, 329, 341, 425, 631
    Foil, Martin B., Member, Board of Directors, National Brain
      Injury Research, Treatment, & Training Foundation..............   796
        Prepared Statement of........................................   797

    Gates, Hon. Robert M., Secretary of Defense, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Defense...............................   643
        Opening Statement............................................   644
        Prepared Statement of........................................   646
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   687
    Geren, Hon. Pete, Acting Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Army, Department of Defense..................   131
    Giambastiani, Admiral Edmund P., Jr., Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs
      of Staff, Department of Defense................................     1
        Question Submitted to........................................    30
    Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   258

    Hanson, Captain Marshall, United States Navy (retired), Co-
      Director, National Military and Veterans Alliance..............   728
        Prepared Statement of........................................   729
    Harvey, Honorable Francis J., Prepared Statement of..............   136
    Hurd, Captain Robert C., United States Navy (retired), Naval Sea
      Cadet Corps....................................................   777
        Prepared Statement of........................................   778

    Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii:
        Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 33
        Prepared Statement of........................................   644
        Questions Submitted by.......................................  126,
                 128, 214, 322, 337, 506, 512, 515, 569, 574, 625, 687, 700
        Statements of.....................131, 261, 347, 431, 585, 643, 707

    Jonas, Hon. Tina, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
      Department of Defense..........................................1, 643
    Jones, Rick, Legislative Director, National Association for
      Uniformed Services.............................................   784
        Prepared Statement of........................................   785

    Kiley, Lieutenant General Kevin C., Surgeon General, Department
      of the Army, Department of Defense.............................    33
        Prepared Statement of........................................    41

    Lappe, Dr. Joan, Ph.D., Clinical Scientist, Osteoporosis Research
      Center, Creighton University, on behalf of the National
      Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases...........   752
        Prepared Statement of........................................   754
    Leland, Dr. John, Ph.D., Director, University of Dayton Research
      Institute and Chair, American Society of Mechanical Engineer's
      Department of Defense Task Force...............................   715
        Prepared Statement of........................................   717

    McCarthy, Lieutenant General Dennis M., United States Marine
      Corps (retired), National Executive Director, Reserve Officers
      Association of the United States...............................   719
        Prepared Statement of........................................   720
    McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    38
        Questions Submitted by................................257, 427, 699
    McKinley, Lieutenant General Craig R., Director, Air National
      Guard, Department of Defense...................................   466
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   515
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Questions Submitted by................................226, 331, 696
        Statement of.................................................    37
    Moakler, Kathleen, Director, Government Relations, National
      Military Family Association....................................   756
        Prepared Statement of........................................   757
    Moseley, General T. Michael, Chief of Staff, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense..
      291............................................................
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   337
    Mullen, Admiral Michael G., Chief of Naval Operations, Office of
      the Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense...   357
        Prepared Statement of........................................   359
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   425
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Statement of    36

    O'Neail, Shawn, Associate Vice President, National Multiple
      Sclerosis So-
      ciety..........................................................   707
        Prepared Statement of........................................   709

    Obering, Lieutenant General Henry A. III, United States Air
      Force, Director, Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.   585
        Prepared Statement of........................................   589

    Pace, General Peter, United States Marine Corps, Chairman, Joint
      Chiefs of Staff, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense   649
        Prepared Statement of........................................   650
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   700
    Phillips, Chief Petty Officer James, United States Naval Sea
      Cadet Corps....................................................   777
    Pollack, Dr. Andrew N., M.D., Orthopedic Surgeon, University of
      Maryland Medical Center and Chair, Extremity War Injuries
      Project Team, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons..........   802
        Prepared Statement of........................................   804
    Pollock, Major General Gale S., Deputy Surgeon General, U.S.
      Army, and Chief, Army Nurse Corps, Department of the Army,
      Department of Defense..........................................   104
        Prepared Statement of........................................   106

    Rank, Major General Melissa A., Assistant Surgeon General for
      Nursing Services, Department of the Air Force, Department of
      Defense........................................................    85
        Prepared Statement of........................................    87
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   126
    Roudebush, Lieutenant General James G., Surgeon General,
      Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.............    55
        Prepared Statement of........................................    57
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   123

    Schoomaker, General Peter, Chief of Staff, United States Army,
      Office of the Secretary, Department of the Army, Department of
      Defense........................................................   190
        Prepared Statement of........................................   136
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    35
        Questions Submitted by.....................................258, 511
        Statement of.................................................    35
    Staben, Dr. Chuck, Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Research
      and Acting Head, Office of the Vice President for Research,
      University of Kentucky on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR/
      IDEA States....................................................   710
        Prepared Statement of........................................   712
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Prepared Statements of..................................2, 132, 644
        Questions Submitted by.....................................577, 639
        Statements of......................35, 132, 262, 348, 432, 586, 644
    Strickland, Dr. William J., Ph.D., Vice President, Human
      Resources Research Organization, on behalf of the American
      Psychological Association......................................   740
        Prepared Statement of........................................   742
    Stultz, Lieutenant General Jack C., Chief, Army Reserve,
      Department of Defense..........................................   519
        Prepared Statement of........................................   521
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   569

    Vaughn, Lieutenant General Clyde A., Director, Air National
      Guard, Department of Defense...................................   465
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   512
    Vento, Susan, Member, Board of Directors, Mesothelioma Research
      Foundation.....................................................   819
        Prepared Statement of........................................   822
    Visco, Fran, J.D., President, National Breast Cancer Coalition...   746
        Prepared Statement of........................................   747

    Winter, Hon. Donald C., Secretary of the Navy, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.......   347
        Prepared Statement of........................................   350
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   423
        Summary Statement of.........................................   348
    Wynne, Hon. Michael W., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.............   261
        Prepared Statement of........................................   265
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   322

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    27
    Air Force Special Operations Command.............................    19
    Base Realignment and Closure.....................................    11
    Bomber...........................................................    14
    Budget...........................................................    12
        Requests.....................................................     3
    B-52s............................................................    13
    Categories.......................................................     3
    Context and Vision...............................................     3
    Contract Issues..................................................    16
    C-17.............................................................     8
    Equipment........................................................    18
        Shortfalls...................................................    17
    Future Combat Systems............................................    28
    High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF).................    29
    Medal of Honor...................................................    15
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization...............................    10
    Reconstitute the Force...........................................    17
    Recruiting.......................................................     7
    Sea and Land Based...............................................    22
    Shipbuilding.....................................................    21
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Programs.................................24, 27
    What the:
        Base Budget Buys.............................................     4
        2007 Supplemental Buys.......................................     6
        2008 GWOT Request Buys.......................................     7

                          Department of the Air Force

                            Office of the Secretary

    Access to Cyberspace.............................................   300
    Active Duty Air Force Learning From Vermont Guard Members........   317
    Active, Guard, and Reserve Funding...............................   313
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   322
    AESA Radar.......................................................   345
    Aging Aircraft...................................................   341
    Air Force:
        Budget Priorities............................................   321
        Executive Agency for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles................   337
    Aircraft Acquisition in Tactical Arena...........................   306
    Army and Air Force Coordination..................................   336
    BRAC Funds for Transition of AFRL to Kirtland....................   334
    Challenges of Maintaining Aircraft Inventory.....................   293
    Civil Air Patrol.................................................   344
    Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter..............................   341
    C-130 Aircraft...................................................   296
    C-17...........................................................329, 341
    C-40 Aircraft....................................................   323
    C-5 Fleet........................................................   325
    Delivering Excellence............................................   288
    Developing and Caring for Our Airmen.............................   274
    Dual Mission of the Air National Guard...........................   315
    Educational Opportunities for Airmen.............................   299
    End Strength.....................................................   322
    E-10:
        Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A).............   340
        Program......................................................   331
    Fighting and Winning the Global War on Terror....................   269
    Fiscal Year 2008 Unfunded Request for C-17s......................   329
    Flying Hours.....................................................   321
    F-22:
        Beddown......................................................   332
            At Holloman AFB........................................308, 309
    46th Test Wing...................................................   333
    Global Reach.....................................................   263
    Home Station Simulators for ANG..................................   345
    Joint:
        Army and Air Force Training..................................   336
        Cargo Aircraft.............................................324, 332
        Strike Fighter...............................................   324
            Engine...................................................   297
        Training and Testing Initiatives.............................   336
    KC-X Program.....................................................   298
    Maintaining America's Edge.......................................   265
    Military Construction for Cannon AFB, New Mexico...............310, 334
    Minding the Future...............................................   291
    Missions at:
        Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico............................   309
        Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico..........................   308
    Mobility Capabilities Study....................................330, 343
    MP-RTIP..........................................................   331
    New Missions:
        At Cannon and Holloman AFBs..................................   337
        For Cannon AFB...............................................   333
        For Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico......................   333
    150th Fighter Wing F-16s.........................................   336
    Operations in Cyberspace.........................................   263
    Our Nation's Airmen..............................................   262
    Outstanding Airmen...............................................   292
    Pararescue/Combat Rescue Training Center.........................   334
    Phase Four Total Force Initiative................................   313
    Recapitalization:
        And Modernizing the Force....................................   278
        Of Aging Air and Space Inventories...........................   264
    Reserve Component Equipment and Training.........................   312
    Restrictions on Retiring Aircraft..............................294, 301
    Role of the Air Force in GWOT....................................   340
    Satellite Acquisition............................................   323
    Special Operations Assets for Cannon AFB.........................   333
    Strategic Airlift................................................   305
        Requirements.................................................   330
    Strategic Lift...................................................   323
    36th Rescue Flight at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington.......   311
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.........................................   302

                             Department of the Army

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional:
        Airlift Requirements.........................................   223
        Committee Questions..........................................   213
    Altered Medical Evaluations in 3rd Infantry Division...........202, 203
    Army:
        Disability Benefits System...................................   226
        Growth.......................................................   135
        Lift Needs...................................................   259
        Outpatient Services..........................................   200
        Readiness..................................................193, 210
        Recruiting...................................................   208
        Reset/Depot Maintenance......................................   218
    Aviation Priorities..............................................   219
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)............................194, 205
        Milcon.......................................................   228
    Counterinsurgency Operations.....................................   215
    Davis-Bacon Act..................................................   257
    Disability Ratings.............................................202, 205
    Equipment Readiness..............................................   216
    Extended Range/Multi-Purpose.....................................   223
    Fire Scout Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).......................   251
    Fiscal Year 2008 Army Appropriations Request.....................   134
    Fort Knox Brigade Combat Team....................................   257
    Future Combat Systems (FCS)...............................191, 214, 222
    Grow the Force...................................................   217
    High Energy Laser System Test Facility (HELSTF)..................   255
    Intra-Theater Lift...............................................   222
    Introduction of Soldiers.........................................   190
    Joint:
        Cargo Aircraft (JCA).........................................   223
        High Speed Vessel (JHSV).....................................   252
    Manning the Force--RC Mobilizations..............................   252
    Medical Technology in Fiscal Year 2008 Army Budget Request.......   251
    Mine Resistance Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs).........196, 220, 221
    Mobilizing the Nation............................................   197
    National Guard Equipment and Readiness.........................250, 253
    Passage of the Supplemental In a Timely Fashion..................   193
    Patriot:
        Configuration 3..............................................   258
        Pure Fleet...................................................   260
    Preserving Peace and Freedom for the Nation......................   159
    Procurement Practices w/Small & Disadvantaged Businesses.........   228
    Quality of Care..................................................   257
    Recruiting:
        And Retention................................................   256
        Goals and Standards..........................................   224
    Reducing Threat From the Air/ASE.................................   252
    Reserve Component Equipment......................................   135
    Retaliation Against Soldiers for WRAMC Complaints................   249
    Retribution for Talking Outside the Chain of Command.............   201
    Seamless Transition to the Veterans Administration...............   206
    Simultaneous Field Radiation Technology..........................   251
    Soldier:
        Protection...................................................   135
        Protective Equipment.........................................   211
    State of the Army................................................   227
    Stryker Brigade..................................................   212
    Stryker's........................................................   220
    21st Century Security Environment: An Era Of Uncertainty And
      Unpredictability...............................................   142
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)................................198, 258
    Walter Reed:
        Army Medical Center..........................................   133
        Base Realignment and Closure Issues..........................   199
    White Sands Missile Range........................................   254

                             Department of the Navy

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   423
    Beyond the Horizon--Posturing the Marine Corps for the Future....   403
    Budget:
        Process......................................................   419
        Request......................................................   421
    Build a Fleet for the Future.....................................   375
    City of Coronado Traffic.........................................   426
    Deployments......................................................   408
    Detention Facilities at Guantanamo Bay...........................   418
    Develop 21st Century Leaders...................................367, 384
    Global Fleet Station.............................................   426
    Home Schooling...................................................   418
    IBuild a Fleet for the Future....................................   364
    Improve the Quality of Life for Our Marines and Our Families.....   405
    Industrial Base..................................................   410
    Infrastructure Improvements for Carrier..........................   426
    Investing in the:
        Future.......................................................   351
        Present......................................................   350
    Joint Strike Fighter.............................................   417
        Second Engine................................................   418
    Littoral Combat Ship...........................................411, 421
        Cost Overruns................................................   424
    Marine Corps:
        Amphibious Ship Requirements.................................   428
        Commitments in the Long War..................................   389
        End Strength Increase........................................   413
        Equipment....................................................   420
        Lightweight Howitzers........................................   428
        Seabasing Plan...............................................   429
    Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP).................414, 427
    Missile Defense..................................................   419
    Modernize for Tomorrow, to be ``the Most Ready When the Nation is
      Least Ready''..................................................   397
    National Surface Treatment Center................................   427
    Naval:
        Flight Officer Strike Syllabus--Budget Savings...............   424
        Operating Forces and Concepts................................   401
    Persian Gulf.....................................................   412
    Priorities.......................................................   360
    Recruiting:
        And Retention................................................   416
        Standards....................................................   417
    Resetting the Force..............................................   351
        And Preparing for the Next Contingency.......................   392
    Right-size Our Marine Corps......................................   390
    Role of Marines..................................................   415
    Safeguarding our Forces in Harms Way.............................   351
    Shipboard Materials..............................................   425
    Shipbuilding.....................................................   409
    Sustain Combat Readiness.......................................360, 373
    U.S.S. ``Carl Vinson's'' Homeport................................   425
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicle..........................................   413
    VH-71............................................................   415
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center..................................   412

                            Medical Health Programs

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   119
    Advanced Joint Nursing Education.................................   129
    Air Force Nurses...............................................126, 127
    A-76 Studies.....................................................    78
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC):
        Integration..................................................    95
        Recommendation...............................................    61
    Caring For Our Own...............................................    91
    Case Management..................................................   116
    Clinical Successes...............................................    90
    Collaboration/Innovative Delivery................................   111
    Combat Casualty Care.............................................    50
    Communication....................................................   104
    Continuity of Care...............................................    79
    Defense Health Program and Navy Medicine Budget for Fiscal Year
      2008...........................................................    49
    Deployment.......................................................   107
    Disability Ratings...............................................    80
    Education Programs and Policies..................................    99
    Efficiency Wedges................................................    65
    Expeditionary Nursing............................................    88
    Force Shaping....................................................   101
    Humanitarian:
        And Joint Missions...........................................    51
        Missions Effect on Navy Nurse Corps..........................   128
    Impact of Deployments on Retention of Navy Nurses................   129
    Joint Endeavors..................................................    94
    Leadership:
        Development..................................................   103
        In Research..................................................   110
    Medical:
        Personnel and Quality of Care................................    52
        Readiness..................................................123, 125
    Military Medicine and Veterans Administration....................    82
    Military-to-Civilian Conversion..................................    62
        Effect on Navy Nurse Corps...................................   129
    Navy:
        Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs..............    55
        Nurses in Outpatient Care....................................   130
    Nurse Corps:
        Recruiting...................................................   120
        Shortage:
            Challenges...............................................   119
            Impacts..................................................   119
    Nurses and the Continuum of Care.................................   115
    Operational Skills Sustainment...................................    89
    Our Way Ahead....................................................    95
    Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Identification and
      Treatment......................................................   122
    Privatization....................................................    75
    Productivity.....................................................   103
    Professional Development.........................................    91
    Readiness and Clinical Proficiency...............................    98
    Recognition......................................................    91
    Recruiting and Retention........................................92, 112
    Recruitment and Retention Efforts of Medical Department Personnel    53
    Research.........................................................    94
        And Development Efforts......................................    54
    Taking Care of:
        Each Other...................................................    60
        Our Air Force Family.........................................    59
        Our Expeditionary Force and Joint Warfighter.................    58
    Transformation:
        Advancing Professional Nursing...............................   107
        Initiatives..................................................    93
    Transition of Cases of Servicemembers Suffering From PTSD/TBI to
      VA Facilities and Civilian Life................................   122
    Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)...............................68, 120, 121

                             Missile Defense Agency

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   624
    Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense..................................   620
    Air and Missile Defense--an Overview of the Fiscal Year 2008 Army
      Budget Submission..............................................   604
    Airborne Laser............................................610, 621, 630
    Army Space and Missile Defense Command Commander's Role..........   601
    Ballistic Missile Defense:
        Budget Accuracy..............................................   616
        Sensors......................................................   619
        System Fielding Plans........................................   595
    Ballistic Missile Threats Against the United States..............   613
    Base Realignment and Closure.....................................   611
    Benefits of Consolidating Army Ballistic Missile Defense
      Activities as a Result of Base Realignment and Closure.........   611
    Building Confidence through Spiral Testing.......................   593
    Cooperation With Japan...........................................   623
    Cost.............................................................   631
    Cost of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Space Test Bed.....   622
    Cruise Missile Defense.........................................607, 630
    Degree of Confidence in Ballistic Missile Defense System
      Effectiveness, When Deployed...................................   618
    Degree of Interservice Cooperation in Ballistic Missile Defense
      Systems Development............................................   617
    Descriptions of Radars Used in Ballistic Missile Defense.........   619
    Design Redundancies to Overcome Ballistic Missile Defenses
      Vulnerabilities................................................   619
    Developing Options for the Future................................   597
    Effectiveness....................................................   637
    European Site Negotiations.......................................   609
    Extent of Allied Cooperation in Ballistic Missile Defense Radar
      and Interceptor Placement......................................   617
    Force Protection.................................................   608
    Ground-based Missile Defense...................................626, 639
    International:
        Cooperation..................................................   617
        Participation................................................   599
    Japanese Ballistic Missile Defense Development Participation.....   623
    Midcourse Defense................................................   621
    Performance and Testing..........................................   632
    Potential Threats................................................   613
    Relationship Between Near-term and Long-term Ballistic Missile
      Defense Efforts................................................   611
    Space Test Bed.................................................622, 638
    Status of Ground-based Midcourse Defense.........................   608
    Terminal Defense.................................................   616
    Terminal High Altitude Area Defense:
        Program Status...............................................   616
        System:
            Testing..................................................   624
            Transition to the Army.................................620, 621
    Terminal Phase Ballistic Missile Defenses........................   606
    Terrorist Missile Threats Against the United States..............   615
    Testing..........................................................   612
    The Evolving Security Environment................................   590
    U.S. Ballistic Missile Defenses--A Report Card...................   590
    United States Strategic Command JFCC-IMD.........................   602
    Use of Procurement Funds Would Set Back Missile Defense Progress.   592
    Value of Test Ranges to Missile Defense Agency (MDA).............   641

                                 National Guard

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   506
    Air National Guard Reset.........................................   503
    ARNG Equipping Requirements Versus Resources.....................   469
    Base Realignment and Closure.....................................   475
    Capability of Responding to Natural Disasters....................   467
    Community Basing.................................................   479
    Deployment Cycle.................................................   498
    Equipping National Guard.........................................   474
    Homeland Defense.................................................   440
    Joint Staff Overview.............................................   456
    Maintaining the Force............................................   490
    Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)...........................   493
    National Guard:
        Empowerment HCI..............................................   500
        End Strength.................................................   502
        Equipping....................................................   481
        Force Structure..............................................   480
        Funding......................................................   476
        Future Funding Needs.........................................   505
        Healthcare...................................................   488
        Readiness....................................................   489
    Returning Soldiers...............................................   495
    State Adjutants General..........................................   464
    The National Guard Posture Statement 2008........................   436
    Traumatic Brain Injury...........................................   499
    TRICARE Coverage.................................................   497

                            Office of the Secretary

    A 2 Month $50 Billion Appropriation..............................   666
    Accelerate Transformation........................................   652
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   687
    Air Assets.......................................................   675
    Apprehending al-Qaeda Leadership.................................   683
    Approach for Combating Future Adversaries........................   678
    Army:
        Guard and Reserve Mobilization Policy........................   688
        Modernization..............................................692, 703
    ARNG Equipping Requirements Versus Resources.....................   658
    Budget...........................................................   657
        Support for End Strength Increase............................   656
    B-52s............................................................   684
    Cannon Air Force Base............................................   687
    Communications...................................................   675
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)................   693
    Deployment Policies..............................................   690
    Dual Hatting.....................................................   701
    End State for Iraq...............................................   679
    Evaluating:
        Progress in Iraq.............................................   670
        The Effectiveness of Troop Surge.............................   677
    Executive Agency for UAVs......................................687, 700
    Fiscal Year 2008 Base Budget.....................................   646
    Forces...........................................................   667
    Fort Dix.........................................................   685
    Future Combat System (FCS).......................................   702
    F-22 Raptor....................................................693, 703
    Global War on Terror Request.....................................   648
    Ground Assets....................................................   674
    Improve the Quality of Life of our Service Members and our
      Families.......................................................   654
    Increase Ground Forces...........................................   647
    Individual Equipment Load........................................   704
    Iraq Withdrawal Emboldening al-Qaeda.............................   665
    Iraqi:
        Forces.......................................................   655
        Security Forces..............................................   681
    Keeping Walter Reed Operational..................................   656
    Leadership.......................................................   677
    Maryland Army National Guard Equipment...........................   674
    Mental Health Issues.............................................   689
    Missile Defense................................................647, 686
    National Guard:
        Equipment..................................................690, 701
            And Readiness............................................   675
        Shortfall....................................................   657
    Personnel........................................................   675
    Power Generation Equipment.......................................   675
    Progress on Political Benchmarks.................................   681
    Prospects for Progress in Iraq...................................   664
    Quality of Life--Sustaining the All-Volunteer Force..............   648
    Readiness........................................................   702
    Recapitalization.................................................   647
    Recruiting and Retention.........................................   685
    Reliable:
        Replacement Warhead..........................................   687
        Warhead Replacement..........................................   680
    Sale of Shadow Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to Poland.......696, 705
    Satellite Acquisition............................................   693
    Science and Technology Funding...................................   691
    Shipbuilding.....................................................   694
    Space Capabilities...............................................   647
    Strategic:
        Environment..................................................   650
        Investments--Modernization...................................   647
        Lift.......................................................688, 701
    Strengthen Joint Warfighting.....................................   653
    Supplemental Budgeting...........................................   692
    Train and Equip Authorities......................................   648
    Training.........................................................   703
    TRICARE Efficiency Wedges........................................   692
    Troop Mental Health..............................................   682
    U.S. Space Policy................................................   690
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.........................................   671
        Oversight....................................................   683
    War Costs Hurting Other Defense Needs............................   668
    Win the War on Terrorism.........................................   651
    Withdrawing Troops From Iraq.....................................   664

                                    Reserves

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   569
    Army:
        And Marine Corp End-Strength.................................   572
        And USMC End-Strength Affect on Navy Reserves................   577
        Reserve Warrior Citizens.....................................   522
    Base Realignment and Closure.....................................   559
    Combat Operation Activities......................................   570
    Developing and Caring for Our Airmen.............................   558
    DOD Policy on the Length of Mobilizations for Reservists.........   577
    Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve........................   556
    Equipment.......................................566, 570, 571, 573, 580
        Shortfalls...................................................   573
        Status.......................................................   551
    Equipping the Force..............................................   533
    Facilities.......................................................   552
    Fiscal Year 2007 National Guard and Reserve Equipment............   561
    Force Readiness..................................................   545
    Funding Request for Officer Bonuses..............................   575
    GWOT Mission Contributions.......................................   558
    Heavy Reliance on the Reserves...................................   576
    Introduction of Army Reserve Soldiers............................   520
    Leading Change and Shaping the Force.............................   525
    Managing Risk....................................................   541
    Manpower.........................................................   544
    Message From the Chief, Army Reserve.............................   521
    Morale of Soldiers...............................................   563
    Naval Reserve Equipment and Program Funding......................   576
    Navy Reserve:
        Equipment Shortfalls.........................................   578
            In the United States for Training........................   579
            Recruiting Goals.........................................   578
    New Mission Areas (Total Force Integration)......................   559
    One Tier of Readiness............................................   561
    Operational Support..............................................   547
    Our People: Mobilization Versus Volunteerism.....................   558
    Pace of Continuing Operations and Strain on Force................   580
    Personnel Readiness..............................................   554
    Policy on Mobilizations..........................................   571
    Predictability for the Future....................................   555
    Providing Trained and Ready Units................................   528
    Purpose and Organization of the 2007 Army Reserve Posture
      Statement......................................................   521
    Quality of Life..................................................   555
    Recapitalizing and Modernizing Our Aging Aircraft and Equipment..   560
    Reconstitution...................................................   561
    Recruiting:
        And Retention................................................   560
        Goals........................................................   572
        Mission......................................................   569
    Reliance on Reserves for Combat Operations.......................   579
    Reserve:
        Equipment....................................................   581
        Mobilization Length..........................................   581
        Recruiting...................................................   583
            And Retention Goals......................................   574
    Shaping the Reserve Force........................................   559
    Strain on Families...............................................   580
    Strategic Overview...............................................   524
    Surge and End Strength Increase Affect on OpTempo for GWOT.......   581
    The Soldier's Creed..............................................   542
    Today's Marine Corps Reserve.....................................   550
    Training.........................................................   553
        Equipment....................................................   583
    Transforming and Modernizing the Air Force Reserve...............   561
    Warrior Citizens Sustaining the All-Volunteer Force..............   535

                                       -