[Senate Hearing 110-394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-394, Pt. 1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 3001
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 1
MILITARY POSTURE
POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY
UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND AND THE UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS
COMMAND
POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND AND UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND
UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND AND UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA
__________
FEBRUARY 6, 26, 28; MARCH 4, 5, 6, 11, 2008
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-629 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN WARNER, Virginia,
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
EVAN BAYH, Indiana ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
JIM WEBB, Virginia MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
Michael V. Kostiw, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Military Posture
february 6, 2008
Page
Gates, Hon. Robert M., Secretary of Defense; Accompanied by Hon.
Tina W. Jonas, Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller.......... 6
Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff..... 13
Posture of the United States Army
february 26, 2008
Geren, Hon. Preston M. ``Pete'', III, Secretary of the Army...... 103
Casey, GEN George W., Jr., USA, Chief of Staff, Army............. 115
Posture of the United States Navy
february 28, 2008
Winter, Hon. Donald C., Secretary of the Navy.................... 180
Roughead, ADM Gary, USN, Chief of Naval Operations............... 196
Conway, Gen. James T., USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps...... 231
United States Central Command and the United States Special Operations
Command
march 4, 2008
Fallon, ADM William J., USN, Commander, United States Central
Command........................................................ 327
Olson, ADM Eric T., USN, Commander, United States Special
Operations Command............................................. 340
Posture of the United States Air Force
march 5, 2008
Wynne, Hon. Michael W., Secretary of the Air Force............... 400
Moseley, Gen. T. Michael, USAF, Chief of Staff, United States Air
Force.......................................................... 419
United States Southern Command and United States Northern Command
march 6, 2008
Renuart, Gen. Victor E., Jr., USAF, Commander, North American
Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command............ 495
Stavridis, ADM James G., USN, Commander, U.S. Southern Command... 509
United States Pacific Command and United States Forces Korea
march 11, 2008
Keating, ADM Timothy J., USN, Commander, United States Pacific
Command........................................................ 572
Bell, GEN Burwell B., III, USA, Commander, United Nations Command
and Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces Command;
Commander, United States Forces Korea.......................... 588
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
MILITARY POSTURE
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Reed,
Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Pryor, Webb, Warner,
Inhofe, Sessions, Collins, Chambliss, Dole, Cornyn, Thune, and
Martinez.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk; and
Mary J. Kyle, legislative clerk.
Majority staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr.,
professional staff member; Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel;
Gabriella Eisen, counsel; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Michael J. Kuiken,
professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K.
Levine, general counsel; Thomas K. McConnell, professional
staff member; Michael J. McCord, professional staff member;
William G.P. Monahan, counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional
staff member; and William K. Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw,
Republican staff director; William M. Caniano, professional
staff member; David G. Collins, research assistant; Gregory T.
Kiley, professional staff member; Lucian L. Niemeyer,
professional staff member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff
member; Robert M. Soofer, professional staff member; Sean G.
Stackley, professional staff member; Kristine L. Svinicki,
professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff
member; Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel; and Dana W. White,
professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Jessica L. Kingston, Benjamin L.
Rubin, and Brian F. Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: Sharon L. Waxman and
Jay Maroney, assistants to Senator Kennedy; James Tuite,
assistant to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed;
Bonni Berge, assistant to Senator Akaka; Christopher Caple and
Caroline Tess, assistants to Senator Bill Nelson; Andrew R.
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey,
assistant to Senator Bayh; M. Bradford Foley, assistant to
Senator Pryor; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb;
Stephen C. Hedger, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Sandra Luff,
assistant to Senator Warner; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to
Senator Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum and Todd Stiefler, assistants
to Senator Sessions; Mark J. Winter, assistant to Senator
Collins; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss;
Lindsey Neas, assistant to Senator Dole; David Hanke, assistant
to Senator Cornyn; John L. Goetchius and Brian W. Walsh,
assistants to Senator Martinez; and Erskine W. Wells III,
assistant to Senator Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee
meets this morning to receive testimony from the Secretary of
Defense, Robert M. Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff (JCS), Admiral Michael J. Mullen. Joining them is
Comptroller of the Department of Defense (DOD), Tina Jonas. Our
witnesses are here to present the President's fiscal year 2009
budget request for DOD, including both the so-called base
budget and the additional bridge fund requested for operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan for just the first part of fiscal year
2009.
I want to start by welcoming if he is here, but he is not,
but I will welcome him anyway, a new member of our committee,
Senator Wicker. We're glad to have him and I will want him to
know that I have it on unassailable authority from a former
colleague of his, a member of the House of Representatives who
I have known for over 70 years, my brother, that he will make a
fine addition to this committee.
First some thanks to our witnesses for their service and
the very positive way that you have worked with this committee.
We very much appreciate the relationships which have been
created and which are so important.
I know our witnesses would agree that our first thanks will
go to the men and women serving in our military. We are all
truly grateful for their professionalism and dedication to our
country and for the sacrifices that they and their families
make.
Last year this committee on a bipartisan basis compiled a
record of accomplishment that we can be very proud of. First,
we enacted the historic Wounded Warrior Act which will improve
the health care and benefits of recovering veterans and service
members and their families. Our law will vastly improve the
coordination between the DOD and Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA). It will end the confusing and conflict system of
disability determinations that have existed for too long
between the DOD and the VA.
We also enacted legislation that requires private security
contractors operating in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan
to comply with orders and directives from military commanders
and with DOD rules relative to the use of force. Our
legislation established a commission on wartime contracting in
Iraq and Afghanistan to investigate Federal agency contracting
for reconstruction, logistics support, and security functions
in those countries. We established a new Special Inspector
General (IG) for Afghanistan reconstruction to provide
oversight and address contracting abuses. We extended the term
of the Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).
We enacted the far-reaching Acquisition Improvement and
Accountability Act, which tightened the rules for DOD
acquisition of major weapons systems, subsystems, and
components, to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost
overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and
performance requirements.
We legislated a defense acquisition workforce development
fund to ensure that DOD has enough skilled people to
effectively manage its contracts; and we strengthened statutory
protections for whistleblowers.
We established a chief management officer for the DOD and
each of the military departments to ensure continuous top level
attention to DOD management problems.
I'm highlighting what we achieved last year in areas of
oversight and accountability because we are here today to talk
about a request for over half a trillion dollars of taxpayer
funds for the DOD for the next fiscal year, excluding the cost
of Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibility exceeding $700 billion
when you include the full cost of those wars next year. We are
jointly responsible with the President for how those funds are
spent.
Last year's actions to strengthen oversight and
accountability were necessary, but they're not sufficient. The
DOD faces huge problems in its acquisition system. Over the
last few years we've seen an alarming lack of acquisition
planning, the excessive use of time and materials contracts,
undefinitized contracts, and other open-ended commitments of
DOD funds. These problems have been particularly acute in
Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are in no way limited to those
two countries.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported
that cost growth on seven of DOD's largest acquisition programs
ranged from 26 to 188 percent. In a period of just 5 years, the
GAO told us, the cost of DOD's top five weapons systems
programs had almost doubled, growing from $290 billion to $550
billion.
The reforms that we adopted last year, now signed into law,
are an important step towards addressing problems in DOD's
acquisition programs. But it will take years of work by DOD and
close oversight by Congress to make sure that we get the job
done.
Many other challenges lie ahead. We have an Army and a
Marine Corps which are way overstretched. The stress on our
forces from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to
build. The media reports that there is a strong possibility
that General Petraeus will recommend that force levels in Iraq
remain at the pre-surge level of approximately 130,000 troops
for some unspecified period of time once the five surge
brigades complete their redeployment this summer.
Meanwhile, our Army troops continue to face multiple tours
of 15-month duration, with only 12 months or less at home
between rotations, and Marines also see more time deployed than
at home. These levels of deployment without adequate rest for
the troops and repair and replacement of equipment simply
cannot be sustained.
Over the past year, 30,000 additional troops have helped
produce a welcome lessening of violence in Iraq and a lower
U.S. casualty rate. But the purpose of the surge as stated by
the President has not been achieved. That purpose, again as
stated by the President, was to ``provide enough space so that
the Iraqi Government can meet certain benchmarks or certain
requirements for a unity government.''
But the Department of State (DOS) reported to us as
recently as November 21, 2007, that ``Senior military
commanders now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-
dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort
in Iraq, rather than al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents, or
Iranian-backed militias.''
The military progress on the ground was achieved with huge
sacrifice and brilliance. We cannot accept that that sacrifice
will be squandered by Iraqi leadership continuing to fail to
achieve the key political benchmarks that they set for
themselves long ago, in particular amending the constitution,
passing a hydrocarbons law that fairly shares Iraq's oil wealth
with all citizens, passing a provincial powers act, and
conducting provincial elections.
The value of the new de-Baathification law, if it is a law,
despite the constitution of Iraq saying that it isn't because
it failed to get the unanimous approval by the presidency
council required for it to become a law, the value will depend
upon how it is implemented.
For years, the Iraqi leaders have failed to seize the
opportunity our brave troops gave them. It's long past the time
that the Iraqi leaders hear a clear, simple message: We can't
save them from themselves. It's in their hands, not ours, to
create a nation by making the political compromises needed to
end the conflict. That message is not the language of
surrender. It's common sense, pragmatism, and the only
realistic path to success.
A critical priority for this and future budgets must be the
war in Afghanistan. Unlike the war in Iraq, the connection
between Afghanistan and the terrorist threat that manifested
itself on September 11, and is clear, and American support for
the Afghanistan mission remains strong. Unfortunately, as a
number of reports issued recently made clear, the
administration's strategy in Afghanistan is not yet producing
the results that we all want.
A report by the Afghanistan Study Group chaired by retired
General Jim Jones and Ambassador Thomas Pickering, finds the
Afghanistan mission is ``faltering.'' The report states that
``violence, insecurity, and opium production have risen
dramatically as Afghan confidence in their government and its
international partners falls.''
Last year was the deadliest year since 2001 for U.S. and
coalition forces in Afghanistan. A separate report from the
Atlantic Council states: ``Make no mistake, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan.''
The United States has recently announced its decision to
commit an additional 3,200 marines to Afghanistan, despite our
already overstressed U.S. forces. Unfortunately, some of our
allies have not demonstrated a similar commitment to providing
troops and equipment which are needed for the Afghanistan
mission.
Finally, I'm disappointed that the budget request does not
include a request for the full amount of the estimated
expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan for next year, as required
by our law. While the monetary cost is not the most important
part of the debate over Iraq or Afghanistan, it does need to be
part of that debate and the citizens of our Nation have a right
to know what those costs are projected to be.
Again, with thanks to our witnesses, I turn to Senator
Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you and all
members of the committee in welcoming our witnesses today.
Senator Levin and I have had quite a few years in the
context of these hearings and I think the Gates-Mullen team is
going to set new high records for cooperation between the
civilian side and the military side of the DOD. I have watched
each of you very carefully here in the past month or so and,
Admiral Mullen, this is your first appearance as Chairman; and
Mr. Secretary, you have a fine teammate there. You really have
earned the respect and the admiration and the confidence, of
not only the Congress of the United States, but indeed the men
and women of the Armed Forces and their families, which is the
bottom line why we're here today.
So I wish you luck.
I join my colleague in drawing your attention to that law.
It was the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007. It was very explicit in requiring the full presentation
of your expected costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless,
I'm sure you have an explanation and we'll receive it.
We are seeing signs of progress in Iraq, some progress in
Afghanistan. But I think by any fair standard that level of
progress to date is falling below the expectations that we had
hoped here as a Nation. Senator Levin quite appropriately
observed that the elected officials in Iraq are simply not
exercising the full responsibility of the reins of sovereignty,
and that puts our forces in a certain degree of continuing
peril and risk. I would hope the administration and indeed the
witnesses before us would do everything we can to expedite and
get some reconciliation, because time and time again I think
every single panel that's been up here in all these years, Mr.
Chairman, has said there is no military solution for that
problem; it has to be a political one.
I also would be interested to know if you're beginning to
lay plans as to how you convey a year hence this Department to
a new administration and what steps you might take to lay that
foundation, to have hopefully a seamless transition, Mr.
Secretary, in your case to the successors who will come in. The
Admiral hopefully will remain on. But I think we should begin
to look at that at this time.
I also join the chairman in recognizing the important work
done by General Jones, Ambassador Pickering, the Atlantic
Council, and the National Defense University that presented
papers here to the Senate in the past week. I stayed throughout
that hearing and found it extremely beneficial--a clear example
of how the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are doing
responsible work and making valuable contributions toward the
problems that face us today.
Dwell times, deployment lengths, terms of service in Iraq,
these are high on our agenda and I do hope both of you give us
your best views as to what period might we anticipate that the
15-month tour can be reduced, hopefully to 12 and even beyond
that if facts justify it. But the young men and women of the
Armed Forces and their families all over the world are going to
follow this hearing, and listen to what you have to say on that
point.
One of our most important duties each year is procurement
and I point out that this committee, and indeed Congress,
passed extensive acquisition reform last year. I urge you to
bring to the attention of Congress how well that is working or,
in the case it is not working to your satisfaction, to draw
that to our attention.
We also had as a committee chartered a commission to study
the Reserve and National Guard. There were excellent
individuals on that committee. They received mixed reviews in
the press, but I would hope that that report did bring to your
attention some necessary corrective measures and that you will
spend some part of the time in your testimony addressing that.
Ms. Jonas, thank you very much for year after year coming
up here with all the figures. Now you have a little extra
money. We're going to watch very carefully how you spend that
money.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Secretary Gates?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE;
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. TINA W. JONAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE-
COMPTROLLER
Secretary Gates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee: It is a pleasure to be here for my
second and last posture statement. Let me first thank you for
your continued support for our military these many years. I
appreciate the opportunity today to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2009 defense budget request.
Before getting into the components of the request, I
thought it might be useful to consider it quickly in light of
the current strategic landscape, a landscape still being shaped
by forces unleashed by the end of the Cold War nearly 2 decades
ago. In recent years, old hatreds and conflicts have combined
with new threats and forces of instability, challenges made
more dangerous and prolific by modern technology, among them
terrorism, extremism, and violent jihadism, ethnic, tribal, and
sectarian conflict, proliferation of dangerous weapons and
materials, failed and failing states, nations discontented with
their role in the international order, and rising and resurgent
powers whose future paths are uncertain.
In light of this strategic environment, we must make the
choices and investments necessary to protect the security,
prosperity, and freedom of Americans for the next generation.
The investment in defense spending being presented today is
$515.4 billion, or about 4 percent of our gross domestic
product (GDP) when combined with war costs. This compares to
spending levels of 14 percent of GDP during the Korean War and
9 percent during Vietnam.
Our fiscal year 2009 request is a 7.5 percent increase, or
$35.9 billion, over last year's enacted level. When accounting
for inflation, this translates into a real increase of about
5.5 percent. The difference consists of four main categories,
which are outlined in more detail in my submitted statement.
Overall, the budget includes $183.8 billion for overall
strategic modernization, including $104 billion for procurement
to sustain our Nation's technological advantage over current
and future adversaries; $158.3 billion for operations,
readiness, and support to maintain a skilled and agile fighting
force; $149.4 billion to enhance quality-of-life for our men
and women in uniform by providing the pay, benefits,
healthcare, and other services earned by our All-Volunteer
Force; and $20.5 billion to increase ground capabilities by
growing the Army and the Marine Corps.
This budget includes new funding for critical ongoing
initiatives, such as global training and equipment to build the
security capacity of partner nations, security and
stabilization assistance, foreign language capabilities, and
the new Africa Command (AFRICOM).
In summary, this request provides the resources needed to
respond to current threats while preparing for a range of
conventional and irregular challenges that our Nation may face
in the years ahead.
In addition to the $515.4 billion base budget, our request
includes $70 billion in emergency bridge funding that would
cover war costs into the next calendar year. A more detailed
request will be submitted later this year when the Department
has a better picture of what level of funding will be needed.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007, as you have pointed out, requires the DOD to provide an
estimate of costs for the global war on terror. We would like
to be responsive to the request. Indeed, I was responsive to a
similar request last year. Some have alleged that the
administration has taken this position in order to somehow hide
the true costs of the war. Nothing could be further from the
truth. DOD has been very open about what we know about our
costs as well as what we don't know.
So the challenge we face is that a realistic or meaningful
estimate requires answers to questions that we don't yet know,
such as when and if the DOD will receive the requested $102
billion balance of the fiscal year 2008 supplemental war
request and for how much, and what if any adjustments to troop
levels in Iraq will result from the upcoming recommendations of
General Petraeus, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), and the JCS.
We should also keep in mind that nearly three-quarters of
the fiscal year 2009 supplemental request will likely be spent
in the next administration, thus making it even more difficult
to make an accurate projection.
I have worked hard during my time in this job to be
responsive and transparent to this committee and to Congress.
Nothing has changed. But while I would like to be in a position
to give you a realistic estimate of what the DOD will need for
fiscal year 2009 supplemental funds, I simply cannot at this
point. There are too many significant variables in play.
I can give you a number. I will give you a number if you
wish. But I will tell you that the number will inevitably be
wrong and perhaps significantly so. So I will be giving you
precision without accuracy.
As I mentioned earlier, Congress has yet to appropriate the
remaining balance of the fiscal year 2008 war funding request,
$102.5 billion. The delay is degrading our ability to operate
and sustain the force at home and in the theater and is making
it difficult to manage DOD in a way that is fiscally sound. The
DOD, as I've said, is like the world's biggest supertanker: It
cannot turn on a dime and it cannot be steered like a skiff.
I urge approval of the fiscal year 2008 request as quickly
as possible.
Finally, I would like to thank the members of this
committee for all you have done to support our troops as well
as their families. I thank you specifically for your attention
to and support of efforts to improve the treatment of wounded
warriors over the past year.
In visits to the combat theaters and military hospitals and
in bases and posts at home and around the world, I continue to
be amazed by the decency, resilience, and courage of our
troops. Through the support of Congress and our Nation, these
young men and women will prevail in the current conflicts and
be prepared to confront the threats that they, their children,
and our Nation may face in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Gates follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Robert M. Gates
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Thank you for your
continued support of our military these many years. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2009 defense budget
request.
Before getting into the components of this request, I thought it
useful to consider it in light of the current strategic landscape--a
landscape still being shaped by forces unleashed by the end of the Cold
War nearly two decades ago. In recent years old hatreds and conflicts
have combined with new threats and forces of instability--challenges
made more dangerous and prolific by modern technology. Among them:
Terrorism, extremism, and violent jihadism;
Ethnic, tribal, and sectarian conflict;
Proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials;
Failed and failing states;
Nations discontented with their role in the
international order; and
Rising and resurgent powers whose future paths are
uncertain.
In light of this strategic environment, we must make the choices
and investments necessary to protect the security, prosperity, and
freedom of Americans for the next generation.
The investment in defense spending being presented today is $515.4
billion, or about 3.4 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. This
request is a 7.5 percent increase--or $35.9 billion--over last year's
enacted level. When accounting for inflation, this translates into a
real increase of about 5\1/2\ percent.
I also strongly support Secretary Rice's request for the
international affairs funding. This request is vital to the Department
of Defense (DOD); in the current strategic landscape, we need civilian
expertise and robust engagement around the world to build goodwill,
represent United States values and commitment to our partners,
complement the contributions of our military, and set the long-term
conditions for peace, prosperity, and an environment inhospitable to
extremism.
strategic modernization--future combat capabilities
The fiscal year 2009 budget request provides $183.8 billion in
strategic modernization to meet future threats, a 4.7 percent increase
over the previously enacted level. This category includes more than
$104 billon for procurement.
Joint Combat Capabilities
The base budget provides $9.2 billion for ground capabilities,
including more than 5,000 Humvees and 4,000 tactical vehicles. This
request provides $3.6 billion to continue development of the Future
Combat System, the Army's major modernization program.
A total of $16.9 billion is allotted for maritime capabilities,
with $14.2 billion for shipbuilding, including:
The DDG-1000, the next generation surface combatant;
Two littoral combat ships;
Two joint high speed vessels;
Two logistics ships; and
One Virginia-class submarine.
The ships being built today must provide the capability and
capacity to maintain the Navy's global presence and influence in the
future. A fleet sized at 313 ships offers the agility required to meet
a broadening array of operations and requirements with allies around
the globe.
To improve air capabilities, the budget includes $45.6 billion, a
$4.9 billion increase over last year's enacted levels.
This includes:
F/A 18 Hornet and E/A-18G Growler fighters;
F-35 Joint Strike Fighters;
F-22 Raptors
V-22 Ospreys;
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; and
Recapitalization of various missiles and other
weapons.
The Air Force's number one acquisition and recapitalization
priority is the tanker fleet, specifically the KC-135, which is an
average of 48.5 years old. This aircraft is increasingly expensive to
maintain and less reliable to fly every day. The Air Force is
proceeding with a traditional acquisition program for the KC-X, which
will be able to refuel Air Force, Navy, and allied aircraft.
Retirement of aging aircraft is a vital component of recapitalizing
our air assets. I urge Congress to continue to authorize aircraft
retirements, lifting restrictions from previous years to help the Air
Force maintain readiness and perform missions more safely.
Space
This request provides $10.7 billion to strengthen joint space-based
capabilities in several categories, including:
Space-based infrared systems; and
Communications, environmental, Global Positioning
System, and Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellites.
The Department's heavy reliance on space capabilities is clear to
potential adversaries, some of whom are developing anti-satellite
weapons. Protecting our assets in space is, therefore, a high priority.
In the past, the Department has been slow to address this
vulnerability, but we are ramping up to properly address this problem.
Research and Development
As changes in this century's threat environment create strategic
challenges--irregular warfare, weapons of mass destruction, disruptive
technologies--this request places greater emphasis on basic research,
which in recent years has not kept pace with other parts of the budget.
This request for $11.5 billion will sustain ongoing science and
technology research. Within this category, the fiscal year 2009 budget
includes $1.7 billion for basic research initiatives. In total, I have
directed an increase of about $1 billion over the next 5 years for
fundamental, peer-reviewed basic research--a 2 percent increase in real
annual growth.
Missile Defense
The 2009 base budget provides $10.4 billion to continue developing,
testing, and fielding a multi-layered system to protect the U.S. and
its allies from tactical and strategic ballistic missile attack.
The Missile Defense Agency has successfully fielded elements of the
ballistic missile defense system since 2004. Today, for the first time
in history, our Nation has an initial missile defense capability. In
coming years, the Department seeks to grow this capability by testing
against more complex and realistic scenarios, and by negotiating with
like-minded nations. Since becoming the Secretary of Defense, I have
been personally involved in ongoing discussions with Poland and the
Czech Republic on hosting U.S. missile defense assets. I will continue
to press for increased cooperation with our partners.
readiness, operations, and support
The fiscal year 2009 request provides $158.3 billion, a 10.4
percent increase over last year's enacted level, for operations and
training, as well as facilities and base support. $68 billion of the
request will maintain combat readiness, focused on next-to-deploy
units. The budget invests in readiness measured in terms of tank miles
driven per month, ship steaming days underway per quarter, and flying
hours per month. Additionally, this request includes:
$33.1 billion for logistical, intelligence, and
service-wide support;
$32.6 billion for facility and base support;
$11.8 billion for equipment maintenance to accommodate
increased requirements, expanded scopes of work for repair and
refurbishment of equipment, and the transition of systems from
development to sustainment in the field;
$10.7 billion for training, recruiting, and retention
to ensure that the All-Volunteer Force has the right people
with the right skills; and
$2.2 billion for sealift efforts and commissary
support.
The Department will continue investing in a number of critical
initiatives that will have long-term implications for the readiness of
our forces and the Nation's ability to meet future threats.
Global Train and Equip
The global train and equip authority provides commanders a means to
fill longstanding gaps in our ability to build the capacity and
capabilities of partner nations. It allows the State and Defense
Departments to act in months, rather than years, to help other
countries build and sustain capable security forces. The program
focuses on places where we are not at war, but where there are emerging
threats and opportunities. It creates the opportunity to reduce stress
on U.S. forces by decreasing the likelihood that troops will be used in
the future. Combatant commanders consider this a vital tool in the war
on terror beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. It has become a model of
interagency cooperation between State and Defense--both in the field
and in Washington, DC, Secretary Rice and I both fully support this
authority. Its benefits will accrue to our successors in future
administrations. The fiscal year 2009 base budget requests $500
million, along with a request for $750 million in authority. I urge
Congress to provide funding and permanent authority to meet enduring
requirements.
Security and Stabilization Assistance
The fiscal year 2009 budget invests $200 million in security and
stabilization assistance along with a corresponding request to increase
the authority. This authority will allow the Department to transfer up
to $200 million to the State Department to facilitate whole-of-
government responses to stability and security missions--bringing
civilian expertise to bear alongside our military. This would give
Secretary Rice additional resources to address security challenges and
defuse potential crises that might otherwise require the U.S. military
to intervene.
Africa Command
This request includes $389 million, or $246 million above
previously enacted funds, to launch the new Africa Command, allowing
the Department to have a more integrated approach than the existing
arrangement dividing the continent up among three different regional
commands. This new command will help:
Strengthen U.S. security cooperation with African
countries;
Train and equip our partners;
Improve health, education, and economic development;
and
Promote peace and stability.
Foreign Languages
The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $586 million for the Defense
Language Program, a $52.3 million increase from last year. Thus far,
our approach to improving language skills is having an impact.
Proficiency in Arabic has increased 82 percent since September 2001.
Although the value of foreign languages and cultural proficiency is
recognized by our Special Forces, these capabilities are essential for
all forces preparing for irregular warfare, training and advising
missions, humanitarian efforts, and security and stabilization
operations.
quality of life
The fiscal year 2009 request includes $149.4 billion in military
pay, health care, housing, and quality of life for Service personnel
and their families.
The request provides for $107.8 billion in pay and benefits an
increase of 9.8 percent over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This
includes a pay raise of 3.4 percent for the military. Since 2001,
military pay has increased by an average of 37 percent. For example, in
fiscal year 2009, the average enlisted E-6 (Army Staff Sergeant) will
see a pay increase of $1,289. The pay of the average O-3 (Army Captain
or Navy Lieutenant) increases by $1,943 in fiscal year 2009.
Family Housing
The budget request includes $3.2 billion that will construct new
family housing, improve existing housing, eliminate inadequate housing
overseas, operate and maintain government-owned housing, and fund the
privatization of 12,324 additional homes. The Basic Allowance for
Housing increases by 5.0 percent and the Basic Allowance for
Subsistence increases by 3.8 percent.
Wounded Warriors
We have a moral obligation to see that the superb lifesaving care
that the wounded receive initially is matched by quality out-patient
treatment. To provide world-class health care to all who are wounded,
ill, or injured serving the Nation, the Department is taking action on
the recommendations made by the President's Commission on Care for
America's Returning Wounded Warriors. To do so, we have formed a senior
oversight committee--chaired by the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and
Veterans Affairs--to examine several key areas:
Case Management--integrate care management throughout
the life of the wounded, ill, or injured servicemember to
ensure they receive, as the President made clear, the ``right
care and benefits at the right time in the right place from the
right person'';
Disability and Compensation Systems--streamline the
disability evaluation system making it a single, supportive,
and transparent process;
DOD and VA Data Sharing--ensure appropriate
information is accessible and understandable between
departments; and
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)/Psychological Health
Issues--improve access and quality of care by reducing the
stigma associated with mental health care and establishing new
programs, such as a TBI registry.
The Department has already approved new standards for all
facilities housing the wounded and we have placed pay management teams
at numerous sites to better educate troops and their families about
pay, entitlements, and benefits.
The budget requests $466 million to support construction of health
care facilities at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, as well as establish a
Warrior Transition Unit at Bethesda. The transition unit will ensure
the wounded receive optimum care, especially during the outpatient
convalescent phase of recovery.
Future Health Care Issues
In fiscal year 2009, DOD military healthcare costs are projected to
be $42.8 billion in order to maintain benefits for 9.2 million eligible
military members and their families, as well as retirees--more than
double the level in 2001. By 2015, the Department's health care costs
are projected to reach $64 billion, or 11.3 percent of the budget.
Because of these concerns, the Department must also seek
legislation to increase out-of-pocket health care expenses for retirees
under age 65. The Department continues to believe that modest increases
to TRICARE out-of-pocket costs for working-age military retirees are
essential to make military health benefits affordable and sustainable
for current and future retired servicemembers.
Global Posture
The base budget requests $9.5 billion to continue U.S. Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) efforts. For the approved fiscal year
2005 BRAC recommendations, the budget fully funds 24 major
realignments, 25 base closures, and 765 lesser actions. The Department
is continuing to reposition U.S. forces at home and abroad in keeping
with post-Cold War realities. Consequently, several units stationed
overseas will be brought home. The Commander of European Command has
requested that the Army activate two heavy brigade combat teams (BCTs)
in Germany in 2008 and 2010 to support near-term security needs and
allow time for construction in the United States.
increase ground forces
Increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps will relieve
stress on the force and enable the Nation to meet its commitments at
home and abroad. This growth in end strength is a continuation of
growth that began last year and is expected to continue through fiscal
year 2013.
U.S. Army
The fiscal year 2009 base budget provides $15.5 billion to increase
Army active end strength to 532,400, which includes an increase of
7,000 over the fiscal year 2008 request. The Army request includes the
cumulative cost of personnel added as part of a temporary increase in
end strength after September 11, 2001--an increase which had previously
been paid for in supplemental appropriations.
The Army plans to grow its active ranks to 547,400 by fiscal year
2012. In fiscal year 2009, the number of active Army BCTs will increase
by 2 BCTs, from 40 to 42, with a goal of 48 BCTs by 2012.
I am concerned that the percentage of new Army recruits with high
school diplomas has declined in recent years. While still above the
minimum standard established by Congress, we are watching these numbers
closely, and are determined to grow the Army in a way that does not
sacrifice the quality we have come to expect in the All-Volunteer
Force.
U.S. Marine Corps
The base budget seeks $5 billion to grow the Marine Corps' end
strength to 194,000, an increase of 5,000 over the fiscal year 2008
request. As with the Army, the Marine Corps' request includes the
cumulative cost of personnel added after September 11, 2001. The Marine
Corps' plans to increase end strength to 202,000 by fiscal year 2011,
in order to achieve three balanced Marine Expeditionary Force units and
to increase time at home station between deployments. This will enable
the Corps to continue to be, as it has historically been a ``two-
fisted'' expeditionary force excelling at conventional warfare and
counterinsurgency.
war funding
In addition to the $515.4 billion base budget, our request includes
$70 billion in emergency bridge funding that would cover war costs into
the next calendar year. A more detailed request will be submitted later
this year when the Department has a better picture of what level of
funding will be needed.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
requires the DOD to provide an estimate of costs for the global war on
terror. We would like to be responsive to this request. The challenge
facing us is that a realistic estimate requires answers the Department
does not currently have to several key questions, such as:
When and if the Department will receive the balance of
the fiscal year 2008 supplemental war request, and for how
much; and
What, if any, adjustments to troop levels in Iraq will
result from the upcoming recommendations of General Petraeus.
We should also keep in mind that nearly three quarters of the
fiscal year 2009 supplemental request will likely be spent in the next
administration, thus making it even more difficult to make an accurate
projection.
In short, while I would like to be in a position to give you a
realistic estimate of what the Department will need for fiscal year
2009 supplemental funds, I simply cannot at this point. There are too
many significant variables in play.
As I mentioned earlier, Congress has yet to appropriate the
remaining balance of the fiscal year 2008 war funding request, $102.5
billion. Delay is degrading our ability to operate and sustain the
force at home and in theater, and is making it difficult to manage this
Department in a way that is fiscally sound. The DOD is like the world's
biggest supertanker. It cannot turn on a dime and cannot be steered
like a skiff. The consequences of not receiving the balance of this
request may include:
Retarding daily efforts in support of Iraqi and Afghan
national security forces, to include training and equipping
efforts;
Halting our ability to pay military personnel and
continue operations; and
Limiting reset of equipment lost and damaged by
ongoing operations.
I urge approval of the fiscal year 2008 global war on terror
request as quickly as possible.
conclusion
At this, my second and also last opportunity to present a budget
before this committee, I thank the members of this committee for all
you have done to support our troops as well as their families. In
visits to the combat theaters, in military hospitals, and in bases and
posts at home and around the world, I continue to be amazed by their
decency, resiliency, and courage. Through the support of Congress and
our Nation, these young men and women will prevail in the current
conflicts and be prepared to confront the threats that they, their
children, and our Nation may face in the future.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Admiral Mullen?
STATEMENT OF ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS
OF STAFF
Admiral Mullen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Senator Warner, distinguished members of this committee. Thanks
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'm honored to
be here alongside Secretary Gates, a man whose leadership and
insight I greatly respect and admire.
We are here to discuss with you the President's fiscal year
2009 budget submission and, more broadly, the state of our
Armed Forces. Let me speak for a moment about the latter. The
United States military remains the most powerful, most capable
military on the face of the Earth. No other nation has or can
field and put to sea the superb combat capabilities resident in
our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
I say this not with false pride or arrogance. I say it with
conviction, for it is an indisputable fact. This stands as
testament, of course, to the brave, talented men and women who
serve, Active-Duty, Reserve, National Guard, and civilian, as
well as their families. I've been on record as saying that they
are the finest I have ever seen. I meant it then, I mean it
now. Each trip to the field, each visit to a base, each bedside
I stand beside, only reaffirms that for me.
I know you have also made such visits and can attest to the
same. So I also believe our enormous strength speaks well of
the hard work of this committee and Congress as a whole, as it
does of the American people, who through you, their elected
representatives, have invested heavily and wisely in their
national defense.
We are grateful. We will continue to need that support,
for, however powerful we may be today, that power is not
assured tomorrow. That is why the budget we are submitting this
week includes more than $180 billion for strategic
modernization, including $3.6 billion for the Army to continue
to develop the Future Combat System (FCS), and another $3.5
billion to procure 20 more F-22 fighters, and another $700
million in research and development.
That's why it calls for money to continue to build the next
generation aircraft carrier and guided missile destroyer,
increased spending on missile defense, as well as funding to
complete the standup of AFRICOM. It's why we are asking for
more than $20 billion to increase the size of the Army and the
Marine Corps.
Some have argued there isn't much new in this budget, no
big surprises. Maybe so. Quite frankly, we ought to take a
little bit of pride in that, because it says to me that we've
looked pragmatically at all our requirements, that we did our
homework, and that from a fiscal perspective we have a good
handle on where we want to go.
A reporter reminded me just the other day that investment
budgets are really a type of strategy. If that's so, and I
believe it is, this budget reveals great balance in our
strategy for the future, a realization that, while we continue
to fight and develop counterinsurgency warfare, we must also
prepare for, build for, and train for a broad spectrum of
traditional war-fighting missions.
We are doing well in Iraq, no question. Violence is down,
business is up, al Qaeda is clearly on the run. Ambassador
Crocker and General Petraeus deserve a lot of credit. The surge
of forces we sent them and their innovative application of
counterinsurgency tactics have markedly improved security on
the ground. As both men have made clear, this progress is
tenuous and must be carefully watched. I understand their
concerns as we keep bringing home the surge brigades.
Conditions on the ground count.
But tenuous, too, sir, are the long risks we are taking to
our security commitments elsewhere in the world if we do not
address the toll that ongoing combat operations are taking on
our forces, our gear, our people, and their families. The well
is deep, but it is not infinite. We must get Army deployments
down to 12 months as soon as possible. People are tired. We
must restore our Marine Corps expeditionary capabilities. They
are dangerously on the wane. We must stay dominant at sea, in
space, as well as in cyberspace. Others are beginning to pace
us in the speed of war.
We must do a better job identifying and treating not only
the wounded we see, but the wounds we do not see. Too many of
our returning warriors suffer in silence. I greatly appreciate
the law that you put into effect last year specifically with
respect to treating our wounded warriors.
This budget allocates $41.6 billion to provide world-class
care and quality-of-life for the entire force. We must honor
military families by enhancing the government-issued (GI)
benefits transferability, by broadening Federal hiring
preferences for military spouses, and by expanding child care
benefits in appreciation for their many sacrifices.
We must continue to stay persistently engaged around the
globe, building partner capacity, improving international and
interagency cooperation, and fostering both security and
stability.
I urge Congress to enact the authorities in the joint DOS
and DOD Building Global Partnerships Act. I was called to
testify before the House Armed Services Committee a few weeks
ago about our progress in Afghanistan. I told them then that we
are seeing only mixed progress and that Afghanistan was by
design an economy of force operation. I told them we do what we
can there. I stand by those comments even as we prepare to send
more than 3,000 marines over there and even as Secretary Gates
continues to press our NATO allies for more support.
The business of war, not unlike governing, is about
choices. Military leaders must make hard decisions every day,
choices that affect the outcome of major battles, whole
nations, and the lives of potentially millions of people. As we
head into this new year with fresh assessments of our progress
in Iraq, a new push in Afghanistan, and a continued fight
against violent extremists, as we consider the depth and
breadth of traditional capabilities, we must improve. Please
know that I and the Joint Chiefs remain committed to making
informed choices, careful choices, and choices which preserve
at all times and in all ways our ability to defend the American
people.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Mullen follows:]
Prepared Statement by ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the
committee, I am privileged to appear before you and report to you on
the posture of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Let me begin by recognizing and thanking our servicemembers and
their families. The brave men and women who answer the noble call to
defend our Nation and the spouses, children, and parents who support
them are our most valuable national asset.
Your Armed Forces, and their families, have faced the challenges of
continuous combat for more than 6 years. Our men and women in uniform
serve our Nation, accepting unwelcome separation from their loved ones,
long hard work under difficult circumstances, and in some cases making
the ultimate sacrifice.
Military families are equally deserving of our gratitude. They bear
the brunt of the loneliness, the uncertainty, and the grief that too
often comes home when our Armed Forces are at war. Acknowledging the
importance of their support, we must consider new initiatives such as
transferring GI bill benefits to military spouses and children,
military spouse employment support, expanded childcare and youth
programs, and long-term comprehensive support of Wounded Warrior
families.
We must provide our servicemembers and their families with the
leadership, the resources and the support required to defend the
homeland, win the Long War, promote security, deter conflict, and win
our Nation's wars.
introduction
Over the past year, your Armed Forces have done much to improve the
security environment. Operating globally alongside allies and partners,
often in concert with the interagency and non-governmental
organizations, they have successfully protected our Nation's vital
interests: a homeland secure from catastrophic attack, assured access
to strategic resources, a strong national and global economy, sustained
military superiority and strategic endurance, and sustained global
influence, leadership, and freedom of action.
A diverse set of perils threaten those interests and demand
sustained action. Those threats include the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and technology, transnational terrorism and rising regional
instability. Today, these challenges manifest themselves most clearly
in the Middle East.
We face additional challenges in other areas: a number of state
actors who appear intent on undermining U.S. interests and regional
stability, a growing global competition for scarce natural resources,
the constant threat of natural disasters and pandemics, as well as
increasing cyber and space threats. Our military is capable of
responding to all threats to our vital national interests, but is
significantly stressed while conducting combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other operations worldwide as part of this
multigenerational conflict against violent extremism. A decline in our
strength or a gap in readiness will undermine the U.S. Armed Forces
capability to complete its range of missions from combat overseas to
providing civil support at home. That is why I believe we must reset,
reconstitute, and revitalize our Armed Forces while balancing global
risk.
We do not--and should not--face these challenges alone. Today, more
nations are free, peaceful, and prosperous than at almost any point in
history. While each has its own heritage and interests, most share our
desire for security and stability. Increasing free trade, regional
security partnerships, treaties, international institutions, and
military-to-military engagements and capacity building strengthen the
bonds between us and other nations. Our engagement with allies and
friends demonstrates our leadership and resolve to fulfill security
commitments, and works toward the common good. Most often, it is by
taking collective action--and not going it alone--that we increase our
ability to protect our vital interests.
With this context in mind, and in consultation with the Secretary
of Defense, I have set three strategic priorities for our military.
First, we need to increase stability and defend our vital national
interests in the broader Middle East. Second, we must reset,
reconstitute, and revitalize our Armed Forces. Third, we need to deter
conflict and be prepared to defeat foes globally by rebalancing our
strategic risk. Finally, to achieve our objectives in each of these
areas we need to place increased emphasis not only on development of
our own capabilities and the capacity of other agencies (State, U.S.
Agency for International Development, Agriculture, Treasury, and
Commerce and so forth), but also on building the capacity of our
foreign partners to counter threats including terrorism and to promote
regional stability.
defend our vital national interests in the broader middle east
Although our vital national interests are clearly global in nature,
the broader Middle East is the epicenter of violent extremism. Too many
countries suffer from burgeoning populations and stagnant economies,
which have increased radicalization. State and non-state actors alike
foment instability. Terrorists and insurgents are at war with
governments in the region. The confrontational posture of Iranian
leaders with respect to nuclear proliferation, the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, Sunni-Shia rivalries, the threat of terrorism, tensions in
Pakistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, political instability in the Maghreb,
and the existence of al Qaeda and like-minded groups, all threaten
regional stability and, ultimately, our vital national interests.
My near-term focus remains combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The surge of U.S. forces to Iraq, a well executed
counterinsurgency strategy and an Iraqi population increasingly weary
of violence, and willing to do something about it, have all combined to
improve security conditions throughout much of the country. Violent
activities against our forces and against the Iraqi people have
substantially decreased. These reductions have come about because of
the hard work of coalition and Iraqi security forces and the decisions
of the Iraqi people and their leaders. Insurgent activity is down and
al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run--although both remain dangerous. Much
hard fighting remains for Iraqi and coalition forces before the job is
done. Increased security has promoted reconciliation in some key
provinces and the beginnings of national level reconciliation. We are
working to secure a long-term security relationship with Iraq that will
serve the mutual interests of both countries. As we continue to
progress forward, congressional support of future warfunding will
remain critical to success. An important component of that funding will
go to building the capacity of increasingly capable Iraqi security
forces.
Security is a necessary condition but is not sufficient for
achieving our strategic end-state in Iraq. Political, diplomatic and
economic development together with expanded governance and the rule of
law form the foundations that will underpin long-term stability and
security in Iraq. We are making solid progress, but we still have a
long way to go. I ask that Congress continue its support for increased
interagency participation in Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs),
stability and reconstruction initiatives, U.S. business investment,
Department of Defense (DOD) business transformation efforts, and good
governance initiatives. I encourage your continued emphasis on the
importance of achieving political and economic goals. Your visits with
the Iraqi Government and other Iraqi political leaders support the
efforts of American, coalition, and Iraqi forces.
In Afghanistan we are seeing a growing insurgency, increasing
violence, and a burgeoning drug trade fueled by widespread poppy
cultivation. In response, more U.S. forces will deploy to Afghanistan.
At the same time, the Afghan National Army and Police have increased in
numbers and capability. The Afghan PRTs continue to aid the local
populations, and President Hamid Karzai is reaching out to support the
provinces. In the U.S. section of RC East, access to basic health care
has more than doubled and provincial councils have become functioning
entities active in development. North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) forces provide a credible fighting force, but the alliance still
faces difficulty meeting its force level commitments and some nations'
forces in theater must be more operationally flexible. These challenges
emphasize the importance of retaining U.S. freedom of action on a
global scale. Just as in Iraq, your continued support for funding U.S.
operations and efforts there, including PRTs, Afghanistan National
Security Force development, and infrastructure development, is needed.
In short, a stable Iraq and Afghanistan that are long-term partners
and share our commitment to peace will be critical to achieving
regional stability and security. This will require years, not months,
and will require the support of the American people, our regional
allies, and concerted action by the Iraqi and Afghan people and their
leaders.
I see daily reminders of other challenges in this part of the
world. Recent irresponsible actions by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps in the Strait of Hormuz could have led to a crisis between
our Nations. Restraint in our response does not signal lack of resolve
or capability to defend ourselves against threats. Much more worrisome
in the long-term, however, is Iran's hegemonic intent, their continued
refusal to verifiably suspend uranium enrichment, their continued
support of terrorism and the resultant instability these actions foster
throughout the region.
Al Qaeda safe havens in the under-governed regions of Pakistan,
combined with the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto, also
contribute to regional instability. In my judgment, the most likely
near term attack on the United States will come from al Qaeda via these
safe havens. Continued congressional support for the legitimate
Government of Pakistan braces this bulwark in the long war against
violent extremism.
Despite--or maybe because of--these diverse challenges, we are
fortunate to enjoy the cooperation of many courageous partner nations
in the region. A recent regional commitment to work toward an Israeli-
Palestinian peace accord is one example. We should not inadvertently
signal ingratitude toward any of these nations. Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training
(IMET) are programs that have the potential to have significant
strategic repercussions. I therefore seek congressional support to
ensure the Department of State's FMF and IMET programs remains fully
funded.
After three visits to the Middle East since becoming Chairman, I am
more convinced than ever that we will not achieve regional security and
stability unless we strengthen all instruments of international
cooperation, regional partnerships, and national power. We need to
ensure our plans sustain current gains and chart a course that both
capitalize on lessons learned while focusing on future demands and
dynamic conditions on the ground. Our forces must remain in theater as
long as necessary to secure our vital interests and those of our
partner nations, and they must operate with the full confidence and
support of the American people and Congress.
reset, reconstitute, and revitalize our forces
To be successful in defeating our enemies and deterring potential
foes, U.S. Armed Forces require talented people who are fully trained
in their specialties and well equipped with warfighting systems. The
pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from fully training
for the full-spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready
to counter future threats. This lack of balance is unsustainable in the
long-term. We must restore the balance and strategic depth required for
national security. Continued operations without the requisite increase
in national resources will further degrade our equipment, platforms,
and people.
Our Nation's servicemen and women--and their families--are the
primary focus of my efforts to reset, reconstitute, and revitalize our
forces. Caring for them is a critical consideration in every decision I
make. Our All-Volunteer Force continues to meet the requirements and
demands of national security, but with great sacrifice. This is the
longest time that our All-Volunteer Force has been at war. Our
servicemembers, in particular our ground forces and their families, are
under significant strain. However, they remain dedicated, they are
resilient and combat hardened, and they are taking the fight to our
enemies. I do not take their service for granted and recognize that
their resilience has limits. I am extremely concerned about the toll
the current pace of operations is taking on them and on their families,
on our equipment, and on our ability to respond to crises and
contingencies beyond ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Secretary of Defense fixed and limited deployment cycles at 15
months deployed/12 months home for the Army, 7 months deployed/7 months
home for the Marines, and 1 year mobilization with 5 years back for the
National Guard and Reserves. I strongly support his decision as it
stabilized rotations and provided predictability. However, at our
current force levels, we cannot sustain these cycles. Fifteen month
deployments are too long. To preserve personal, operational, and family
readiness, we must shift the Army's deployment cycle to 12 months
deployed followed by 12 months at home and then as quickly as possible
to 12 months deployed followed by 24 months at home. We must do the
same for the Marine Corps by moving to 14 months at home for each 7
month deployment. Therefore, the most important investment in the
President's fiscal year 2009 budget is the commitment to expand our
Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Forces. This continuation of
the ``Grow the Force'' initiative is a long-term plan to restore the
broad range of capabilities necessary to meet future challenges and
restore a capacity for sustained action. This commitment encompasses
nearly 33 percent of the total real growth of the DOD budget from
fiscal year 2008 to 2009.
Recruiters have a tough job during peacetime and it is made even
more difficult now given the expansion of both the Army and the Marine
Corps and the decrease in the propensity of key influencers to
encourage potential recruits to enlist during this period of war. In
spite of these challenges, our recruiters are doing exceptional work.
The military departments met their recruiting goals for fiscal year
2007 and remain on track for fiscal year 2008. We are also making sure
we retain the people and the skills we need. The Services are using the
full range of authorities given to them by Congress in the form of
retention incentives, and I ask your continued support for these
programs to sustain our combat-experienced force. Last year, the Army
and Navy employed the Critical Skills Retention Bonus to retain mid-
career active duty officers who fill key positions. Likewise, the
Services have offered bonuses to senior enlisted members of our Special
Operations Forces. Investment in our people as our most important
resource is vital. The cost of people continues to grow and we need to
recognize this as we debate the right level of investment in defense.
Retention challenges impact more than just our Active-Duty Forces.
Though they met their recruiting and retention goals this last year,
the Army Reserve and National Guard have experienced some shortages in
company grade officers and mid-grade noncommissioned officers who lead
our troops. We are overcoming these personnel shortfalls through
enhanced incentives for Reserve and National Guard service, flexibility
in terms of service requirements, competitive pay, and enhanced
retirement benefits. These initiatives are important steps towards
transitioning the Reserve components from a ``strategic Reserve'' role
to part of the ``operational Reserve,'' creating the depth and staying
power to respond to multiple global requirements, and maintaining our
professional Guard and Reserve Force.
Maintaining our professional Armed Forces, however, takes more than
talented recruiters, attractive incentives, and competitive pay. We
must understand our next generation of soldiers, sailors, marines, and
airmen. Their affinity for technology and collaboration may
revolutionize the way we fight. The willingness of future generations
of Americans to serve is directly related to how they, and their role
models, perceive the veterans of today are treated and appreciated. The
All-Volunteer Force depends upon the trust and confidence of the
American people in our institution; it depends on trust and confidence
in our leaders; and, it depends upon trust and confidence that
America's sons and daughters will be well-trained, well-equipped, and
well-cared for in peace and in war.
While all our servicemembers and their families have done their
duty with great discipline and honor, one group in particular stands
out: our returning Wounded Warriors and the parents, spouses and family
members who care for them when they come home. As a Nation, we have an
obligation to care for those who have borne the battle and who bear
both the seen and unseen scars of war. Their sacrifices will not end
following completion of their initial treatment. We should strive to
provide only the finest medical and rehabilitative care for them and
their families for the remainder of their lives.
As leaders, we must ensure all our Wounded Warriors and their
families receive the appropriate level of care, training, and financial
support they need to become as self-sufficient and lead as normal a
life as possible. Our support can mean the difference not just between
life and death, but between a life of severe disability and one of
manageable limitations. To the degree that we fail to care for them and
their families, and enable their return to as normal a life as
possible, we undermine the trust and confidence of the American people
and ultimately put at risk the preservation of our professional All-
Volunteer Force.
It is also imperative that we retain the experience of our combat
hardened leaders. We live in a dangerous and unpredictable world and in
a time of incredible change. I believe this change will accelerate, not
slow down. Today's combat veterans are the ones that will take our
military into the future. Their experience in fighting terrorists and
insurgents as well as caring for those wounded on the fields of battle
will enable us to better prepare for the challenges of tomorrow, but we
cannot afford to lose their hard earned experience today.
In addition to taking care of our people, we must repair, rebuild,
and replace the equipment that has been destroyed, damaged, stressed,
and worn out beyond economic repair after years of combat operations.
As you are well aware, Service equipment has been used at higher rates
and in harsher conditions than anticipated. In addition to the wear and
tear experienced by our ground vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan, our
airframes and ships are aging beyond their intended service lives.
Indeed since Operation Desert Storm, 17 years ago, the U.S. Air Force
and U.S. Navy have flown near continuous combat missions over the
Middle East and the Balkans. The impact of this usage is illustrated in
the recent groundings of the oldest F-15 Eagle fighters, our repeated
request to retire some of our C-130 Hercules and KC-135 Stratotankers,
and the strains placed on our 29-year-old P-3 Orion reconnaissance
aircraft.
Despite usage levels sometimes five to six times above peacetime
rates, and in the midst of extremely demanding environments, equipment
readiness in theater remains high, well above the peacetime goals. Your
support has been helpful in accomplishing this mark. However, this high
in-theater equipment readiness comes with a price--namely the impact on
the remainder of the Service equipment. For example, our ground forces
borrow equipment from non-deploying units in order to equip deploying
units. While our deploying units are fully resourced to meet the
challenges of the fight that they are in, we must get ahead of this
challenge.
Our forces are relying upon the balance of funds requested in the
fiscal year 2008 global war on terror request to accomplish equipment
reset and to address readiness shortfalls. I urge Congress to quickly
appropriate the remaining global war on terror request for fiscal year
2008, as it is essential to have continued, predictable, and adequate
funding for the repair and replacement of both operational and training
equipment. I also ask for your continued support for our upcoming
fiscal year 2009 global war on terror funding request.
Revitalization includes force recapitalization, modernization,
transformation, re-stationing, and repositioning, along with personnel
and family support programs. A revitalized force creates a vital
deterrent effect. Preventing future wars is as important as winning
wars. Such prevention requires global presence and persistent
engagement. A revitalized force provides the means to expand
cooperative relationships with other nations and contribute to a global
capacity to promote security and stability for the benefit of all. A
revitalized force will also ensure that we remain prepared to meet our
global responsibilities.
Finally, a revitalized force is central to balancing global
strategic risk. A revitalized force is a balanced total joint force,
capable of operating across the spectrum of conflict. A balanced force
possesses the capability and capacity to successfully conduct multiple
simultaneous missions, in all domains, and at the required levels of
organization, across the full range of military operations. A
modernized, balanced total joint force is necessary if we are to
successfully answer enduring and emerging challenges, and win our
Nation's wars.
properly balanced global strategic risk
Beyond the Middle East, and in addition to revitalizing our forces,
we must take a worldwide and long term view of our posture and its
implications for global strategic risk. We have global security
responsibilities across the range of military operations. The
challenges in Asia to the vital interests of the U.S. and our allies
are an example.
We must be sized, shaped, and postured globally to leverage the
opportunities for international cooperation and build the capacity of
partners for stability, while at the same time, deterring, confronting
and preparing for profound dangers of the future. I am concerned, as
are the combatant commanders, that we do not have sufficient resources
to meet all the needs. By working with other growing powers, and by
helping emerging powers become constructive actors, we can ensure
today's dynamic environment does not devolve into a prolonged state of
conflict and disorder.
The imbalance between our readiness for future global missions and
the wars we are fighting today limits our capacity to respond to future
contingencies, and offers potential adversaries, both state and non-
state, incentives to act. We must not allow the challenges of today to
keep us from being prepared for the realities of tomorrow. There is
risk that we will be unable to rapidly respond to future threats to our
vital national interests.
Funding by Congress is critical to restoring balance in the long
term. But resources alone are not enough. We must think more
creatively, more deeply, and more systematically about how to best use
our resources. We have learned a great deal about how to leverage
modern technology and interagency participation to counter terrorism--
those lessons can be shared with our partner nations, and applied to
other security threats such as our Nation's counter narcotics efforts.
Similarly, our new maritime strategy emphasizes the importance of
leveraging other nation's capabilities. The growing interdependency of
the community of nations will continue to offer similar opportunities.
I support the United States' accession to the United Nations Law of the
Sea Convention, and I believe that joining the Convention will
strengthen our military's ability to conduct operations.
Our enduring alliances and partnerships promote stability and
security. The 27 nation NATO leads the effort to help extend security
and stability inside Afghanistan. Australia and Japan have also made
key contributions to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another key
ally, the Republic of Korea, has supported Operation Iraqi Freedom for
the past 3 years--and continues to maintain a robust national
commitment to security in Northeast Asia. Singapore and the Philippines
work with us to counter international terrorist threats in Southeast
Asia. Colombia's highly successful counterinsurgency struggle promotes
stability in a critical region of South America. Our military to
military relationships with Mexico and Canada are laying the ground
work for greater Homeland Security. Enhancing our teamwork with our
allies and partners is essential if we are to protect our shared
interests.
Persistent engagement and capacity building with allies and
international partners is a key means of properly balancing global
strategic risk. Persistent engagement consists of those cooperative
activities that build partner capacity, provide humanitarian
assistance, counter common threats, and safeguard the global commons.
As I noted earlier, we need to fully fund our FMF and IMET programs and
streamline the process for executing these and similar funds. Fostering
and sustaining cooperative relationships with friends around the world
contributes significantly to our shared security and global prosperity.
Relationships take time to grow--and they require investment to stay
strong.
In many cases, other countries have significant competencies,
relationships, and resources that can promote security and stability.
One way to build relationships with other nations is to help them
accomplish the goals they cannot achieve alone. Helping other nations
overcome security problems within their borders by increasing stability
and eliminating terrorist safe havens bolsters our security as it
boosts theirs. Our Theater Security Cooperation programs also form a
foundation for shared and interoperable response to contingencies.
Regional Combatant Commands--such as U.S. Northern Command, U.S.
Southern Command, and U.S. Africa Command--are being structured with
interagency and international relationships in mind to boost our
security and humanitarian assistance capabilities, and to foster long-
term U.S. military relationships with regional nations and security
institutions.
Legislation that increases the expeditionary capacity of civilian
U.S. Government agencies is critical to rebalancing global strategic
risk. Increasing the ability of the U.S. Government, as a whole, to
deal with crises reduces the strain on our military forces. We need to
empower the State Department to help other countries prevent and
recover from conflict. I also fully endorse increased support for our
intelligence agencies' global activities--upon which our Armed Forces
depend. We additionally need to look at increasing the capacity of
other U.S. Government agencies--such as the Justice and Agriculture
Departments, which are otherwise oriented on domestic missions--to help
contribute civil expertise that the military lacks in stabilization and
capacity building missions overseas.
Rebalancing strategic risk also means addressing capability gaps.
The technology advantage that we have long enjoyed has eroded, with
significant ramifications. Interruption of our access to cyberspace
could substantively damage our national defense and civil society.
Addressing this threat, the President's budget for fiscal year 2009
includes funds to reduce our cyber vulnerabilities. Likewise, freedom
of action in Space is vital to our economic, civil, and military well
being. We need to increase our capacity to defend our access to that
domain. We must also address shortfalls identified by our combatant
commanders in our Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
sensors and processing infrastructure.
Fighting and winning wars is the main mission, but deterring them
is always preferable. This is even more the case in deterring nuclear
threats. We now face the prospect that nuclear weapons will be employed
against us and our allies by non-state actors and rogue states. To
defend our Nation and assure our allies, we must enhance our capability
to rapidly locate and destroy targets globally. We seek to improve
conventional prompt global strike capability, further develop global
missile defense systems, and modernize our strategic weapons systems
and infrastructure, to include developing a Reliable Replacement
Warhead and a conventional ballistic missile. These components of our
``New Triad,'' together with improved intelligence and planning
systems, will help to ensure credible deterrence across a range of
threats in the 21st century strategic environment.
building partnership capacity
Building partnership capacity underpins all three of my strategic
objectives and is an area that requires additional congressional
support. Unfortunately, there are serious shortfalls in the U.S.
Government's ability to build the capacity of foreign partners--both
within and outside DOD. The Departments of State and Defense conducted
a systematic review of gaps in authority and developed an omnibus bill
called the Building Global Partnerships Act which was personally
brokered by the Secretaries of State and Defense. I strongly urge
Congress to enact all of these authorities.
Foremost, DOD requires extension and expansion of its Global Train
and Equip authority. Every single combatant commander cites this as
DOD's most important authority to counter terrorism and to promote
regional stability by building the capacity of partner military forces.
These programs will not get funded or executed properly unless DOD
funds them and collaborates with State on implementation. Over the past
3 years, all combatant commanders, the former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary of State have requested extension,
expansion, and funding for these programs. Now is the time to make
Global Train and Equip authority permanent, to increase the ceiling,
and to provide annual baseline funding.
The Commander's Emergency Response Program has been enormously
successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other combatant commanders have
requested this same authority to enhance prospects for mission success
in other regions of the world. Our commanders in the field view this as
a critical force protection tool that allows them to shape the
operational environment so force is not required.
Building the security capacity of our partners is important, but
partners often need additional assistance to promote stability.
Stabilization and reconstruction assistance authority allows DOD to
transfer funds to the Department of State to provide assistance to aid
foreign police forces, to improve governance, rule of law, economic
development or essential services, and for humanitarian assistance.
Stabilization and reconstruction assistance authority recently allowed
DOD and State to enhance stability in Haiti, Somalia, Nepal, Trans-
Saharan Africa, Yemen, and Southeast Asia.
We are in a new national security era that requires building new
institutional capacity that does not currently exist. Most authorities
to provide other broader forms of assistance reside at the Department
of State, where patriotic foreign service officers and development
professionals are doing everything they can with the force they have.
But that force is woefully small relative to need. I support Secretary
Rice's request for the Civilian Response Corps and ask Congress to
enact quickly legislation authorizing its creation. I also strongly
support the significant plus-up in people that the State Department and
U.S. Agency for International Development are seeking in the
President's 2009 budget as well as its request for increased foreign
assistance funding. The increases that Secretary Rice is seeking in
2009 are crucial to supporting our foreign policy goals; underfunding
these activities undermine our national security. I would also support
the reconstitution of the U.S. Information Agency or an equivalent
functional entity to more effectively counter extremist ideology.
Finally, I appreciate Congress' direction to study the national
security interagency system, and will strongly support that effort.
conclusion
The past year saw America's men and women in uniform continue to
engage in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, while they also provided
humanitarian assistance, worked with partner nations, and stood guard
around the globe. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and our
Nation's coastguardsmen are making a positive difference. They do so
willingly and unflinchingly. Their valor and dedication are inspiring
and they serve this Nation superbly. It is an honor to serve alongside
them and my most solemn responsibility to represent them.
The American Armed Forces have evolved throughout our Nation's
history. During the 19th century, while our country was an emerging
power, the norm for our military included service at either small army
posts on the Nation's western frontier or single ship patrols off
whaling stations in the Pacific. Throughout the twentieth century, our
military fought--and deterred--large scale conflicts against powerful
competitor nation-states, or their proxies, around the world. Today and
for the foreseeable future, we are embarked on something new.
Our military challenge is to protect and preserve the American way
of life by promoting greater global security, stability, and trust--
building up the strength of our friends, defeating violent extremists,
and deterring regional conflicts. Our strategic environment requires
that we have a force that is ready for operations across the range of
military missions.
We have yet to fully institutionalize the lessons learned
particularly as it applies to building the capacity of partners and
reforming the interagency. America has undertaken a staggering array of
tasks in the past 6 years: securing the homeland, fighting global
terrorism, applying a new counterinsurgency doctrine, expanding
governance and rebuilding armed forces in shattered countries, and
increasing our capability and capacity to assist other nations through
a variety of material aid programs and expeditionary teams. All of
these efforts have seen successes and setbacks. They have come at
considerable cost to our Nation's sons and daughters, and to the
treasure of the American people. We must do more than just document our
lessons learned. We must accept that the future will likely require
sustained engagement and continued operations that will focus on
interagency and international participation. We must go beyond
pondering and push to embed these lessons into a truly reformed
interagency. We need continued congressional support to make this
imperative a reality.
As for your Armed Forces, we need a total, joint, expeditionary
force that is suited to irregular warfare against asymmetric threats as
well as supporting civil authorities at home and abroad. We also need a
large-scale total force capable of major combat operations against
traditional nation-state foes. We cannot do it alone; our forces must
be part of a more encompassing team that includes other Federal
departments and partner nations. We must also recognize building
international and interagency capability will take time. In the
interim, our superb military men and women, and their families, will
fill the leadership role demanded of them.
All this takes sustained, robust investment and partnership. With
your continuing help, our military will be ready for the challenges and
opportunities ahead. Thank you for your unwavering support in time of
war.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Admiral.
We're going to do our best to get the Secretary and the
Admiral out as close to noon as we can, so let's try a 7-minute
first round.
Mr. Secretary, you've indicated all the reasons why an
estimate that you give us about war costs for 2009 would not,
necessarily at least, turn out to be a realistic estimate, but
that you are still willing to give us that estimate as the law
requires, if we ask. So I'm asking. What is your estimate?
Secretary Gates. A straight line projection, Mr. Chairman,
of our current expenditures would probably put the full year
cost in a strictly arithmetic approach at about $170 billion.
Chairman Levin. The bridge funding in the budget is $70
billion. That's included in the $170 billion.
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. So that means that the total if that
estimate turned out to be accurate, that the total then would
be the $515 billion base budget plus the $170 billion.
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. That would be a total then of $685 billion,
does that sound right?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. But as I indicated, I have no
confidence in that figure. Part of the reason I've felt able to
comply with the law last year was that I felt the assumptions
that underpinned were fairly reliable and that we could have
confidence in them. I think you saw the analysis that
underpinned it and made it possible for us to do that. We just
don't have that at this point and we will certainly provide it
just as soon as we have it.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
General Petraeus recently said that he thinks ``it would be
prudent to do some period of assessment before deciding on
further troop reductions after we get back to the 130,000 pre-
surge level in July.'' Do you agree with General Petraeus that
we should have a period of waiting before we make any further
decisions after we get back to the 130,000 pre-surge level?
Secretary Gates. I have not discussed this with General
Petraeus. I have made clear to him that I believed his
recommendation should be based on his view of the situation on
the ground in Iraq. I have tried to structure the decision
process this time around as I did last August and September.
General Petraeus will give us, the President and I, his
recommendations based solely on the views he has in the
situation in Iraq.
Chairman Levin. So at this time at least, you can't say
that you agree with what he has said?
Secretary Gates. That's right, I neither agree nor
disagree. I intend to be visiting Iraq again in the near future
and I'm sure we'll have that discussion.
Chairman Levin. Then the President has said, however, to
General Petraeus that if he wants to slow down the reduction
it's up to him. The President has explicitly said that it's up
to General Petraeus as to whether the drawdown will continue.
Is that your understanding?
Secretary Gates. As I started to say, Mr. Chairman, we will
also receive the evaluation and recommendations of Admiral
Fallon at CENTCOM and also of the Joint Chiefs. Frankly, I
expect that I will have my own views, and I would expect that,
as last fall, the President will take into account all of those
points of view before making a decision.
Chairman Levin. You're not telling us, then, what the
President said, that it's up to Petraeus, is what will in fact
occur? Your understanding is that it's not ``up to Petraeus,''
that it's going to be a matter of many recommendations given to
the President and he will then decide; is that correct?
Secretary Gates. The President certainly will decide. I
certainly don't want to put any daylight between myself and his
comments. It's clear that General Petraeus' view will have a
very strong impact on this, but I think that the President will
need to hear other points of view as well.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Secretary, any agreement with another
nation, whether it's called a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
or something else, has always been submitted to the Senate for
advice and consent as a treaty if it contains a commitment to
defend another nation with military force. Now, is it the
intention as far as you know to submit any agreement which is
negotiated with the Government of Iraq to the Senate for its
advice and consent if there is any commitment in such an
agreement to defend Iraq beyond the term of this
administration?
Secretary Gates. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I would say
that any elements in the agreement, in any agreement that's put
together that involves the treaty ratification authorities of
the Senate, would require that it be submitted. At the same
time, I would tell you that we have somewhere at any given time
between 80 and 100 SOFAs with other nations, none of which over
history have been submitted to the Senate. So I think it will
depend very much on the content of the agreement.
Chairman Levin. Do you know of any SOFA agreement which has
committed our forces to the defense of a country?
Secretary Gates. I'm not that well versed. I'd have to
check.
Chairman Levin. Would you let us know, because we don't.
Secretary Gates. Okay.
Chairman Levin. It's a major difference. We have all kinds
of SOFAs with other countries, 80 to 100, whatever the number
is, but those SOFAs, those agreements, do not contain
commitments to defend other countries. Those commitments are
contained in treaties which are submitted to the Senate, and if
you have any evidence or any information to the contrary would
you submit that for the record?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
None of the Status of Forces Agreements in force between the United
States and other countries commits U.S. forces to the defense of the
other country.
Secretary Gates. I will just tell you that the subjects
that I have seen listed that we are interested in in this SOFA
do not include that kind of a commitment.
Chairman Levin. Except that there was a declaration of
principles for a long-term relationship that was signed between
the President and the Prime Minister of Iraq, and it includes
the following language: ``Providing security assurances and
commitments to the Republic of Iraq.'' So those words are in
there, words which I think should raise real concerns on a
bipartisan basis. This is not a partisan issue. This has to do
with the constitution of the United States and the role of the
Senate.
So if there's any information you have about those SOFAs
which make commitments, security commitments to other
countries, please let us know, would you?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. The security adviser of Iraq, Adviser
Rubae, recently said that the Iraqi Government is at a
stalemate. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Gates. No, sir, but it's pretty slow.
Chairman Levin. Now, this is Iraq's own security adviser.
Now, are you concerned by the slowness of the political coming
together in Iraq?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir, although I would say that,
particularly at the national level, and I would say that just
in recent weeks, there has been some evidence that they are
beginning to move on some of these pieces of legislation. The
de-Baathification law, and the accountability and justice law
has passed and they have become law. According to the Iraqi
constitution, if the presidency council does not veto it or act
upon it within 10 days it becomes law, it has to be published
and then it will become law.
They are debating the provincial powers law as we speak.
They are debating a budget. So they are beginning to act on
some of these pieces of legislation, and of course you have
been briefed many times on the activities that are taking place
at the provincial level. So it's clearly important for them to
continue to move and in my view to move faster on some of the
legislation they are finally debating.
Chairman Levin. Just in terms of what the constitution of
Iraq provides, it specifically provides that legislation
requires unanimous approval of the presidency council within 10
days of its delivery in order to become law or it is sent back
to the council of representatives. I know what's been stated
about it, but nonetheless that's what the constitution
provides.
So we'd appreciate it if you'd have your lawyer take a look
at the language of the constitution and then tell us, given
that language, whether or not we have confidence that, despite
the Iraq constitution's own language, that nonetheless that is
the law.
But I think you would agree that, even if it is ``the
law,'' that how it is implemented is critically important.
Would you agree with that?
Secretary Gates. It is critically important the spirit in
which it is implemented. I would say further that I understand
that President Talabani and the presidency council may also
introduce some amendments to the law.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just go back to the chairman's question about the SOFA.
Have your researchers check 1951, the NATO type of structure.
That did come to Congress. It was a very important one. I just
feel that Congress should be made a full partner in the
decisions with respect to both Afghanistan and Iraq as we go
forward into the next administration, and that we need the
support of Congress because therein rests the support of the
American people. So I do hope that you lay that foundation.
Returning to the NATO issue, I want to commend you for the
very strong and pragmatic public statement you've made with
regard to your concern concerning that situation in Iraq and
the participation or lack of participation by certain countries
who've committed forces to that military operation. The problem
of national caveats has been one that's been before this
country and Congress for deliberation many times. But it's just
a question of basic burden-sharing, risk-sharing of the forces
that are committed to that region. I find it difficult that we
can ask the U.S. forces, the British, the Canadians, and
several others who do fully participate in sharing the risks,
to do the whole thing and the others simply do not participate.
So I hope that you continue with your strong statements and
efforts to reconcile that problem. That brings me directly to
the question of the decision by the President, which I support
and I think Congress thus far has supported, of sending two
Marine Corps battalions over there this coming spring.
Was that decision necessitated by the shortfalls in the
commitments made by the NATO partners?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. I would say that, in reference
to my public comments, I have achieved a goal I have been
working for for the last year. I have brought unity to the
alliance, unfortunately not in the right direction.
Yes, sir, this is a concern. I think we have to be
realistic about the political realities that face some of the
governments in Europe. Many of them are coalition governments.
Some of them are minority governments, and they are doing what
they think is at the far end of what is politically acceptable.
But I worry a great deal about, and will say so in a
conference in Munich this weekend, the alliance evolving into a
two-tiered alliance, in which you have some allies willing to
fight and die to protect people's security and others who are
not. I think that it puts a cloud over the future of the
alliance if this is to endure and perhaps even get worse.
I believe that focus on people meeting their commitments in
Afghanistan will be an important element of the Bucharest
summit of NATO in early April. I leave here this afternoon,
after the House hearing, to go to a NATO defense ministers
meeting in Vilnius and once again will become a nag on the
issue, but I think it is important. There are allies that are
doing their part and are doing well. The Canadians, the
British, the Australians, the Dutch, and the Danes are really
out on the line and fighting. But there are a number of others
that are not.
Senator Warner. I would not suggest you use the word
``nag.'' I think you've been very forthright, clear, and I
think convincing of the need to rectify this situation. So
press on, Mr. Secretary, because you owe no less to the men and
women of our country and the other countries who are taking the
full measure of the burdens and the risks in that region.
The most troubling aspect of that region, of course, is
this each year enhanced drug trade, and the revenues from that
drug trade in Afghanistan, the poppy crop, are recycled
directly to the Taliban. The Taliban then invests them in
weapons and use those weapons against our forces and our other
allies in that region.
What should be done in your judgment? We just can't start
another nine-point plan and a six-point plan. Somebody has to
say this has to be addressed head-on.
Secretary Gates. This gets to a larger issue in Afghanistan
and that is in my view the continuing need, as I suggested
almost a year ago, for a strong figure empowered by NATO, the
European Union, and if necessary the United Nations (U.N.), to
coordinate international efforts in the nonmilitary side of the
effort in Afghanistan. I very much regret that the appointment
of Lord Ashdown didn't work, but it goes to the
counternarcotics problem.
First of all, I believe that our allies do not take this
problem as seriously as we do, even though most of that opium
ends up on the streets of Europe. Afghanistan at this point, I
think, produces 93 percent of all of the opium, or heroin
rather, in the world.
Also, I think we've gotten too caught up in debates about
specific means of eradication. The United States favors aerial
spraying because we've seen it work in other places, such as
Colombia and so on. It's clear that the Afghans themselves, the
Afghan Government, and most of our allies are opposed to it. So
my view is let's move on and figure out what kind of a
comprehensive strategy we should have.
My view is that if you're going to eradicate a man's crop
you better be there the day before with money and seeds to let
him know that he's going to have a livelihood for the next
year, and you better have roads so that he can take those crops
to market. So I think we have to do all these things at once.
You can't do it serially, doing one thing and then do another.
It seems to me you have to do eradication, you have to do
interdiction, you have to do alternative development, and so
on.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral Mullen, the tours of our men and women of the Armed
Forces, the current tour of the Army of some 15 months, what
can you share with the committee with regard to the future and
the likelihood that that'll be brought down to a more realistic
level of one for one, in other words at least a month back home
for every month over there, and those months over there not to
exceed 12?
Admiral Mullen. It is the views of the Joint Chiefs and
many in leadership that we need to get to one to one as quickly
as we can, 15-month deployments are too long. General Casey has
spoken to this very consistently. That said, there's a very
delicate balance between what we need to do on the ground to
sustain the gains in Iraq and balance that with the stress on
the force.
In fact, there is a review that's ongoing to look at when
that might occur. We've had discussions about it, and my goal
would be to support that sooner rather than later, but that
decision clearly hasn't been made.
Senator Warner. I conclude with one of your quotes. In
October 2007, you said: ``The ground forces are not broken, but
they are breakable.'' I draw your attention to some statistics
that I reviewed yesterday. Whether it's divorce, absent without
leave, alcohol, suicide, and I could go on, there are some very
serious indicators and they could be directly the result of the
pressures.
Admiral Mullen. I think they in great part are, and it has
built up since October. I'm still in the same position. I don't
think that we are broken, but we clearly can break them. We are
focused on this very heavily in literally every decision we
review.
Chairman Levin. I thank you. I share your view that they're
not broken, but we must be alert. It's an All-Volunteer Force
and it's the most valuable asset we've had as a part of our DOD
for generations.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Following our usual early bird approach, Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. Mr. Secretary, one
item in the defense budget is not often cited, but it's
important. That is the investment in critical basic research
for universities, and I commend you for maintaining that in a
very difficult budget environment.
Secretary Gates. I was heavily lobbied by some of my former
colleagues, but, frankly, I felt it was very important to send
a signal that we were going to again emphasize fundamental
research, peer-reviewed research. So it's about $300 million
for 2009 and about $1 billion over the Future Years Defense
Program.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Admiral Mullen, following on Senator Warner's line of
questioning, if there is a decision to freeze our force levels
at 15 brigades in Iraq this summer, would that almost
automatically require continued use of 15-month deployments for
the Army and an accelerated callup of Reserve and National
Guard forces to maintain that force structure?
Admiral Mullen. In the review of this that I've undertaken
so far, General Casey has indicated that that may not be the
case. He's really working his way through that right now, that
in fact it is possible that we could get to shorter
deployments. But that again is all tied into General Petraeus
and Ambassador Crocker coming back with their assessment and
their recommendation, what the President decides, because
clearly that's the bulk of the deployed force right now and
both sustaining what we're doing as well as creating any relief
is going to be in great part based on that decision.
Senator Reed. But I think one of the obvious consequences
is that the real opportunity to reduce the tours to 12 months
would be seriously compromised if in fact we commit to 15
brigades indefinitely.
Admiral Mullen. With some assumptions, we think it's
actually doable, and in fact then if you end up with a 12-month
out to a 12-month back, and to sustain at a certain level, say
if we sustain it at 15 brigades, you just would end up
deploying sooner.
Senator Reed. Does that put pressure on Reserve and
National Guard units?
Admiral Mullen. It would put pressure on the entire force,
including the Reserve and National Guard.
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary, the Army needs approximately
$260 billion for their grow the force initiative, reset, and
reequip modernization operations through fiscal year 2011. It
looks as if there's about $141 billion roughly committed.
There's a big delta. Are you concerned that we won't be able to
continue this modernization and force increase for the Army?
Secretary Gates. I must say, I think that if you look at
the total cost of the FCS over the entire duration, I think the
total cost of that program is about $120 billion and, frankly,
it is hard for me to see how that program can be completed in
its entirety. One of the things that I think is attractive
about the way the Army has approached this is that as they are
developing new technologies they are putting them into the
field right away, instead of waiting to bring this thing full
up.
But I think that, in light of what inevitably are going to
be pressures on the defense budget in the future, I think that
is one we will have to look at carefully.
Senator Reed. Tomorrow or later this week, Mr. Secretary,
we'll hear from the Commission on the National Guard. One of
their concerns is a shortage of equipment within the National
Guard inventories for response to a civilian incident here in
the United States, and they're estimating that it's about a $47
billion shortfall which is not being covered at the moment.
Do we have such a gap? Does it effectively compromise our
ability to respond to incidents within the United States?
Secretary Gates. There is a gap. We have in fact $46.8
billion in the budget between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
2013 for the National Guard, and we will push $17.5 billion
worth of equipment to the National Guard over the next 24
months--helicopters, 16,000 trucks, communications, and so on.
But the historic fill rate for equipment for the National Guard
has been about 70 percent. That fell to about 40 percent in
2006, was up to 49 percent in 2007. We'll get it to about 65,
66 percent during the course of 2008, and we hope into the low
70s by the end of 2009.
Our goal with what we have budgeted now would put the Army
at a fill rate of 77 percent in 2013 and the Air Force, the Air
Guard, at about 90 percent. If you want to try and get them to
100 percent, which we've never done before, that would require
an additional amount of money. But one important part about
this new equipment going to the National Guard, is that it is
exactly the same equipment that is in the Active Force. That
will be a first. They have always in the past had either
equipment that had been used by the Active Force or equipment
the Active Force was no longer using because it had been
replaced by more technologically sophisticated stuff. What
we're going to be sending out to them is the same stuff, the
same equipment that is provided to the Active Force.
Senator Reed. I appreciate your efforts and your concern
about this issue, but it seems we do have an equipment gap here
with our National Guard Forces, principally attributed to
deploying equipment in Iraq, leaving it there, and then, as you
point out, trying to modernize old equipment that's been in the
inventory too long.
This raises a very general point and that is, do you agree
with Admiral McConnell's assessment that al Qaeda in Pakistan
is growing in its capacity and capability to recruit, train,
and position operatives within the United States, or conduct an
attack against the United States? Doesn't it raise some serious
questions on our overall strategy if we have basically weakened
our position in the United States in civil response? We have
committed hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq. We've put
billions of dollars--we're debating how many billions will go
to Iraq. Yet our enemy, which poses an existential threat to
the United States, according to our intelligence leaders, is
growing in their capacity as we discuss and debate Iraq.
Secretary Gates. I think that Admiral McConnell is correct
in saying that al Qaeda is taking advantage of the safe havens
on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border to expand and train
for attacks. Much of what we hear concerns attacks in Europe,
to be frank about it. But clearly there's no doubt that they
have the intent of attacking the United States and, frankly, I
think that's one of the reasons why you're seeing a major push
for equipment over the next 24 months.
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary, I don't think anyone has done
a more credible job in my short tenure here as you, and
unfortunately your short tenure, too. I want to also commend
Admiral Mullen for his distinguished service. But I think we
will look back and seriously question some of the strategic
decisions that have been made in the last several years,
particularly in reference to our last discussion.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first of all say to both our witnesses, I really
believe your opening statements were about the best I've ever
heard--very direct, and you got into some areas other people
don't want to get into. Secretary Gates, for the first time I
ever heard anyone in the last 7 years talk about where we
should be in our overall defense systems in the future. It's
been 7 years since that's really been discussed with this
panel, and you talked about percentages of GDP, where we've
been in the past, and where we are today.
I believe I'm accurate when I say that if you go back to
the 100 years of the 20th century that it averaged 5.7 percent
of GDP. Then of course, at the end of the drawdowns of the
1990s it went down to under 3 percent, about 2.7 percent.
Unfortunately, a war came right after that, so you don't know
what's going to happen, that's an uncertainty.
Another uncertainty is what our needs are going to be in
the future, because when I was serving in the House just in
1994 we had a witness that said in 10 years we'll no longer
need ground troops. So I think that you'll be surrounded with
very brilliant admirals and generals trying to say what our
needs are going to be in the distant future of say 10 years
from now and they're going to be wrong.
So, having said that, where we are today if we include the
supplemental spending over this last year would be up to 4.7
percent; without that, 3.7 percent. I know you've probably
given some thought in looking into the future about where we
should be. Do you want to share any thoughts with us that
you've had on that subject?
Secretary Gates. I used to say during the Cold War that if
you were to graph the defense budget of the United States over
a 30- or 40-year period it would look like an electrocardiogram
of a fibrillating heart, and there would be deep cuts and then
great increases, and it would go up and down. It is not an
efficient way to do business.
One of the advantages that I believe the Soviets had was
they had fairly steady growth in their military spending over a
protracted period of time. Four times in the 20th century, we
made the same mistake. We fought a war, thought the world had
changed for the better forever, and disarmed ourselves--after
World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Cold War. Every
time it turned out the world hadn't changed and so we had to
rearm.
Now, it seems to me that if we had a steady state and a
bipartisan agreement of the investment of America's wealth that
are required over the long-term to protect the Nation and
everybody agreed and pretty much stuck to that figure, then I
think we would all be advantaged, and I think, frankly, that
when we do have to fight again we will save both lives and
treasure.
I think that number, if you look at it historically,
probably ought to be in the 4 percent of GDP range.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much.
You generally agree with his comments, Admiral?
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. One of the reasons that I bring this up is
because there is an expectation of the American people that our
kids that are over there have the best of everything, and it's
just not true, in terms of equipment. I know that Senator
Warner has left now, but I can recall when he was chairman of
this committee that I said the best non-line of sight canon or
artillery piece that we have for close support is a Paladin,
which is World War II technology, where you actually have to
swab the breech after every shot. That's something people don't
understand. There are five countries, including South Africa,
that make a better one.
I bring it up at this point because we're making some
decisions that I think are very significant. When John Jumper
in 1998 had the courage to stand up and say that now the
Russians--and he was referring to their Su-27s and Su-30s--are
making a better strike vehicle than ours. Of course, he was
referring to the F-15s and F-16s. In many ways they were
better. During that timeframe China made a very large purchase.
That was unclassified.
But I think that's very significant, because until we got
into the F-22 we were in a position where we didn't have the
best. Yes, our pilots are better, but the equipment wasn't in
some ways as good. Some people say we could get by now with
expanding the F-15s, maybe the E models, but they're not
stealthy, that wouldn't work.
Now, we're set up right now, we are flying 112 F-22s, 6 are
being accepted by the Air Force, 50 to be built, and ultimately
183, and it's my understanding that that's when it stops and
that would mean that the line would start deteriorating around
2009 or 2010. This is something that does concern me and I'd
like to get your comments as to what--and then of course it
would be another year before you'd get into the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) and others.
Do you agree with this level of procurement in F-22s?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir, we are, as you say, we are
keeping the line open. There is a buy of 20 F-22s in the base
budget. We will probably ask for several more as part of the
supplemental. But we do intend to keep the line open. I'm
persuaded that the 183 is probably the right number, or
something in that ballpark. I know that the Air Force is up
here and around talking about 350 or something on that order.
My concern is that the F-22 is $140 million a copy and the
JSF will be about half that, about $77 million a copy. My worry
is that if the F-22 production is expanded that it will come at
the expense of the JSF. The reality is we are fighting two
wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a
single mission in either theater. So it is principally for use
against a near-peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who
that is, and looking at what I regard as the level of risk of
conflict with one of those near-peers over the next 4 or 5
years until the JSF comes along, I think that something along
the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy.
Senator Inhofe. I'd like to ask Secretary Gates and all of
your people to keep an open mind on this, because this is
moving. It's not static.
The last question I would ask would be just a real quick
response if I could, Admiral Mullen. I've had occasion to spend
quite a bit of time in both the Middle East and Africa, some 27
trips. The one thing I consistently hear is that we have to
enhance our train and equip, our 1206, 1207, 1208, and the
Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP). Those are the
two most popular programs out there. I would like to know if
you agree with that?
Admiral Mullen. I do, very strongly. General Petraeus and
General McNeil in Afghanistan speak literally about CERP money
as ammo for making good things happen. Clearly the 1206 train
and equip has tremendous leverage, far beyond the value of the
money that we're actually spending.
Senator Inhofe. Making it global?
Admiral Mullen. Making it global.
Senator Inhofe. I agree with that.
I know my time has expired, but just for the record if you
could give us your thoughts about what's happening with AFRICOM
now, and particularly as the five African brigades that we have
been concerned about, but nothing seems to happen there. I
think of Africa as being a real critical area. So maybe for the
record you could--thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
The African Stand-By Force is intended to be an African
multidisciplinary contingent force with military and civilian
components ready for rapid deployment within their respective African
regions. It is planned that the force will be operational by 2010. The
African Stand-by Force may be tasked to conduct peace support missions,
post conflict operations, humanitarian assistance missions and other
task as mandated by the African Union's Peace and Security Council. The
African Stand-By Force five Brigades exist in theory and will be
aligned roughly with Africa's five Regional Economic Communities. U.S.
African Command (USAFRICOM) is engaging with the African Union's
Regional Economic Communities in order to promote the professional
development of the brigades. General Ward, Commander, USAFRICOM, is
adopting a regional approach to the strategic environment. Our African
partners have encouraged this viewpoint as it aligns with their
strategic security concept. USAFRICOM intends to concentrate and
prioritize its activities in the five African Union designated regions
to further security across the continent. To achieve reliable
partnerships while developing security partner capacity at the regional
level, USAFRICOM will help develop capable professional militaries
among our partner nations.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, you know my personal appreciation and affection
for the job that you're both doing. You've brought a candor
that was desperately needed in DOD. This opinion that I express
is shared by many of us on this committee and we appreciate it.
Now, one of the areas with the lack of candor has been
brought out in the questioning by the chairman today. There's a
budget request of $515 billion and over and above that is what
is called a bridge fund of $70 billion for the war, when in
fact the testimony here, asked by the chairman, it's $170
billion. So I realize your hands are tied by the White House
and specifically the budget office of the White House, and I
agonize for you as you go through this. But this is part of the
candor that we need. Again, I just reiterate, thank you for the
candor that you have brought in the relationship between
Congress and DOD.
Let me just ask a series of questions, some of which deal
with the subcommittee that I have the privilege of leading
here, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. First of all, I want
to get for the record, do we have any other difference, Admiral
Mullen, on the question of whether or not we ought to have the
11 aircraft carriers that we have for projection of our
defense, or should it be less?
Admiral Mullen. 11.
Senator Bill Nelson. Okay. Now that that environmental
impact statement (EIS) has been completed on the question of
making Mayport nuclear-capable and therefore spreading the
Atlantic fleet of carriers from just one port to two ports, do
you think that the DOD will budget for the necessary
improvements to Mayport in order to make it capable of
receiving a nuclear carrier?
Admiral Mullen. I remain where I was when I was the Chief
of Naval Operations (CNO) and we discussed this, Senator
Nelson, which is I believe that strategic dispersal is
important, or that capability is important. It was tied to this
process, and obviously I would lean on Admiral Roughead and
Secretary Winter for recommendations to myself and the
Secretary of Defense, but clearly to have that capability you
need to invest in it, and we need to continue to do that.
Senator Bill Nelson. On another subject, you in the
uniformed military are working up a recommendation to the
Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense about
reactivating the Fourth Fleet to give Admiral Stavridis more
power to project in the Western Hemisphere. Have you made that
recommendation yet, and if not----
Admiral Mullen. It has not been made to me. I thought it
was a great idea when I was the CNO.
Secretary Gates. One reason I like to come to these
hearings is I learn so much. [Laughter.]
Senator Bill Nelson. That's exactly why I brought it up,
Mr. Secretary, so you would hear it firsthand.
In the subcommittee that the chairman has given me the
privilege of heading, we're getting back from some of our
combatant commanders that they do not have the near-term
capabilities against the existing short- and medium-range
missiles that would threaten our forward-deployed forces. We
even stated this 2 years ago in our National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, to place a priority on
the near-term effective missile defense capabilities. Yet the
DOD in its budget is not placing more emphasis and resources on
these near-term capabilities.
So I'm wondering, where the disconnect is here?
Admiral Mullen. Senator, I'm a big proponent of missile
defense and in fact we have fielded capability on a number of
our ships which give us some of the capability that you're
talking about, and that capability continues to be fielded.
It's not out there now as we would have it be in the future and
I think we need to continue to emphasize that.
My view is the challenge in the Missile Defense Agency has
been how to best proportion the investments there for the
future. In fact, the overall missile defense budget this year
has been increased. But it's a growing concern, growing threat,
and it's one I think we need to continue to focus on, not just
in the near-term but in the far-term.
Senator Bill Nelson. We're talking about the Aegis, we're
talking about the Standard Missile----
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson.--interceptor, and we're talking about
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). Our concern in our
subcommittee is that the military analysis shows that you're
only planning to buy half as many THAAD interceptors and the
standard missile interceptors as the commanders are asking for.
Admiral Mullen. We deal with the commanders, the combatant
commanders, all the time and we work these requirements. The
combatant commanders are not going to get everything they ask
for. There's an affordability as well as distribution and risk-
taking aspect of this, all of which goes into the equation.
We have, in fact, fielded that capability, as you
indicated, in some parts of our fleet and it's, as is always
the case, a balance between meeting the requirement, the timing
of it, affordability, and where those systems are in
development.
Senator Bill Nelson. A final question. I have the privilege
also of serving on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Yesterday in the open session, General Hayden, the Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), stated his belief that
Pakistan, the government, finally has a new appreciation of the
problem of the uncontrolled tribal areas, and his opinion was
that the Pakistani Government for the first time sees the
situation in this area poses a direct threat to the stability
of the Government of Pakistan.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir, I do. I think it's a fairly
recent development and probably brought home most vividly to
them by the assassination of Mrs. Bhutto, that this is a
serious threat. Al Qaeda has been public about threatening the
leadership of the Pakistani military and the Pakistani civilian
government. They have declared their desire to overthrow the
Pakistani Government, plus the insurrectionist activity that's
going on in the northwestern part of the country has really
gotten the Pakistani Government's attention.
Now, the problem that they face in a way is a little bit of
the problem that the NATO alliance faces. The NATO alliance has
trained and equipped over the past 50 years, almost 60 years,
to meet the Soviets coming through the Fulda Gap. Pakistan has
been focused for all these years on the threat to their east,
to the Indian conventional military threat. So my view is that
the Pakistanis, just as they recognize a new kind of threat to
the stability of the country, are going to have to make some
changes in terms of the training and equipping of their force.
Senator Bill Nelson. Of course, that's the next question
that we have to ask, and part of that has to be off the record.
Thank you all very much for your service to our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service. You have indeed won
a great deal of respect and credibility on both sides of the
aisle here in Congress. Your candor and good judgment, I think,
have been responsible for that and we appreciate it very much.
Secretary Gates, I think your opening remarks, in which you
talk about the new strategic threats we face, failed states,
terrorism, and the like, represent a significant statement. You
have indicated that we need to confront and be prepared to
confront those threats for years and years to come. Are you
confident that what we're doing within DOD now is the right
balance between a potential peer competitor some time in the
future, hopefully some years out, and the immediate threat of
these kind of failed states and terrorist activities?
Secretary Gates. I think we do have a good balance. I think
it would be probably unrealistic for me to say with confidence
that we have it all just right. When you have a budget this big
and so many programs, you hope to get the balance in the right
place. I think that what we have to do is figure out how to
prepare for the diverse kinds of threats we're going to face.
One of the issues, for example, that I've been discussing
with the Army and where General Casey, frankly, has been very
helpful is the fact that the Army is more likely to face
asymmetric kinds of threats in the years to come, than it is a
major conventional war, and how do they prepare and equip for
that over the long term and at the same time be able to retain
the full spectrum capabilities?
So it's a matter not of one foot or the other, but the
amount of weight you put on one or the other foot. So I think
that another example of this is in the kind of ships that the
Navy is buying. We've had these problems with these Littoral
Combat Ships (LCS), but I think that they're exactly the right
kind of ship for the kind of threat we're going to face in
places like the Persian Gulf, where they can take on swarms of
small boats and where they can go in shallower water and so on.
So I think we have it pretty right, but I would never be in
a position with a budget this big to say we have it exactly
right.
Senator Sessions. Admiral Mullen, do you want to comment on
that?
Admiral Mullen. I think, to Senator Inhofe's statement
earlier about projecting, predicting the future, we're in an
incredibly uncertain time. It's a dangerous time, and to best
prepare for that I think we have to have a balance. We have to
have this irregular warfare thing right. We need to continue to
swing in that direction. But I also think we need to invest
well for the future with respect to our conventional forces.
I mentioned space and cyberspace. Those are of great
concern to me as well. Most importantly, we have to get it
right for our people, particularly our young people, so that
they see that we're headed in the right direction, because
they're the ones that always have to fight the fight.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I appreciate the Secretary
mentioning the LCS and I hope, Admiral Mullen, we can break
through some of the delays that are occurring there and not
lose momentum on that critically important ship.
I'm also pleased, Mr. Secretary, in your written remarks
that you noted the need for the Air Force number one priority,
the tanker. We'll soon be having a selection on that and it's
something we're going to need to invest in for a number of
years. Forty-eight-year-old tankers just cannot continue to
meet our Nation's need.
You mentioned cyberspace, Admiral Mullen. I am concerned
about that. Even our new defense structure commits us even more
deeply to high tech, satellite, communications, and computer
systems. Of course the history of warfare has been that enemies
have figured ways to penetrate communications systems and whole
wars have turned on intelligence and spying activities. We of
course have nations like China and others that are highly
sophisticated in these areas.
Are you confident that as we commit more to a high tech
military that we have the defensive capabilities to guarantee
the security of those systems in the event of a conflict?
Admiral Mullen. I'm confident that we recognize the
problem. The threat is exactly as you described it today, as it
has always been; and that we have taken significant steps to
invest to get it right for the future. But I would not sit here
and give you a 100 percent guarantee that we could defend. It's
a very active domain.
Senator Sessions. I just have to tell you, the history of
warfare is that somebody always figures a way to break these
systems, and we're investing in them so heavily that I hope you
will invest a lot in security.
Admiral Mullen. We are.
Secretary Gates. Senator, I might just say that one of my
concerns is not only that they break them, but that somehow
they figure out a way to deny them to us. One of the things
that I've asked for is a study of what kind of, if you will,
old capabilities we could resurrect as a backup in the event we
lost some of the high tech capabilities to communicate and so
on that we have right now.
This world of cyber war is going to be very unpredictable
and very dangerous, and it seems to me we ought to look back at
some old pretty simple technologies so that we're not blind,
deaf, and dumb if we're denied some of these high tech
capabilities.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much for that insight. I
think you need to press that because we absolutely could find
ourselves in a situation where we're not able to utilize some
of the technologies we thought we would be able to utilize.
Missile defense site in Europe. Secretary Gates, you noted
you personally have met with our Polish and Czech friends, that
progress is being made there for a radar site at the Czech
Republic and interceptors in Poland. Could you give us an
update on that and why you think it's important?
Secretary Gates. I think that we're continuing to move
forward. It is my hope that we can reach agreement and break
ground this fiscal year. I think that the Polish Foreign
Minister when he made his public remarks after meeting with
Secretary Rice indicated that the effort would go forward. I
think the Poles clearly are concerned about whether there is an
increased threat to their own security as a result of hosting
these sites. Obviously the Russians are making a lot of
threats. So we will be discussing that with them. But I think
it is continuing to go forward.
Senator Sessions. I would just note, I can't imagine why
the Russians would object to this system. It poses no real
threat to their massive capability in missiles. It's just very
frustrating and another example of bad behavior by the Russians
that's disappointing.
Secretary Gates. We would like for them to be our partners
in this, and we have made a number of forthcoming offers.
Anybody can understand that this is not capable of being used
against Russian missiles. The geometry is all wrong, the number
of interceptors. I told President Putin: If your problem is
breakout, that you think 10 years from now we'll do something
different with this site that would make it a threat, we'll
negotiate that with you so that there are limits. We talked
about reciprocal presence in the sites.
So we've really put a lot on the table in the hope that the
Russians will see we're serious about this partnership. We both
face the same challenge and that is the growing Iranian
ballistic missile threat.
Senator Sessions. You promised when you took this office
that you would personally analyze conditions in Iraq and that
you would give us your best judgment about where we should
deploy, how we should deploy, the number, and so forth. In all
the discussions that we'll be having, we want that opinion.
Secretary Gates. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me add my appreciation to your service and particularly
for the candor that you've been able to express in your
position, Mr. Secretary and Admiral Mullen, as you continue in
your role. I know you're going to give us your best estimate on
what we need to do to keep our country safe in the midst of
growing concerns and different kinds of challenges.
Mr. Secretary, I dropped a letter your way today about the
budget. My concern is the concern that was raised initially and
one that you've responded to. I understand the difference
between precision and accuracy. I don't know why they have to
be at odds as far as they are in terms of the numbers.
My concern is that we continue to bring together our desire
for precision and getting it right accurately as well, so that
the distance between the bid and the ask isn't quite so great,
because it makes it very difficult to have anything back here
called a budget. I don't know if I coined this word, but we
came up with it in the office: It looks like a budget is now a
``fudge-it.'' There's fudging in it, just because you don't
know certain things.
But I think we need to narrow down those differences as
much as we possibly can. I know you told us that you were going
to try to do that. The system here is broken and it's not your
fault, but it is an opportunity for you to try to help us fix
it so that we don't go through the rest of this decade with a
broken system, to be inherited by the next administration. It
just isn't going to enable us to get something that we can deal
with.
On high technology, let me say that I really think that,
whether it's asymmetrical war or whether it's cyber concerns,
that we have to be not only in a defensive posture--clearly we
have to be able to defend what we have. If we lose our high
tech capability, you're right, we better have some low tech
response capability to be able to deal with that. But I also
hope that we're at a position where we're not bragging, but
making the world aware we have the ability to be on the offense
on this as well.
If the rest of the world understands that we can take out
their cyber, assuming we can, we can take out their cyber
capabilities, perhaps we can ultimately agree to certain things
and reduce that risk to both sides, so that we don't continue
to face the uncertainty of what high tech cyber war might look
like.
What I'd like to do is go just for a minute on the Pakistan
military aid funding. I've been watching the media reports, the
coalition support funds (CSF), and the foreign military
financing aid that have been provided to the Government of
Pakistan and it seems, according to the reports, this funding
seems to have been used for means other than to fight al Qaeda
and Taliban forces in Waziristan.
According to a New York Times article on December 24,
``Military officials believed that much of the American money
was not making its way to front-line Pakistani units. Money has
been diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to
counter India, not al Qaeda or the Taliban, the official
said.''
In another article from the L.A. Times on November 1, they
also talk about the billions of dollars that have been made in
U.S. military payments over the last 6 years, but raising the
question as to where those dollars have gone.
So my first question is, are U.S. funds being used
effectively and appropriately as well by the Pakistani
Government in fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban?
Secretary Gates. Based on the information that's available
to me, Senator, I think they are. The funds have been used to
help support I think something like 90 Pakistani army
operations, to help keep about 100,000 troops in the field in
the northwest. We have a process where the Pakistanis come to
the embassy when they have an operation that they're going to
perform. The embassy has to validate that it is in support of
U.S. military and security objectives. It is then reviewed by
CENTCOM, that not only further validates whether it's a
legitimate military operation, but also whether the cost is
reasonable. Then it's finally reviewed and approved by Ms.
Jonas here.
They have made airfields and seaports available to us. Half
the material going into Afghanistan goes on Pakistani roads,
convoys that are protected and so on.
But as to some of the specifics, maybe I could ask Ms.
Jonas to respond.
Ms. Jonas. Senator Nelson, I'd just like you to know that I
often talk to the IG on this, and when the program was
initially set up we set it up in conjunction with them. He's
looking at the program also to see if there are any management
reviews that we can do or additional things that we can tighten
up.
I will tell you that my office in particular spends a lot
of time testing the reasonableness of the costs. So there are
plenty of things that we would turn down as well. But we do
rely on the field to tell us, and to CENTCOM, as to how that is
supporting the objectives.
Senator Ben Nelson. Would that involve trying to decide not
simply whether the use is appropriate, but are we getting
results from it as well? Because I think that's the concern I
have. How much do we need to provide to get the results that we
are hoping for, and that is to avoid having the buildup in
Waziristan and in the border, the non-border area where you
have a reconstituting, reconstitution of the Taliban and the
expansion and redevelopment of al Qaeda?
So even if the money is being spent appropriately under the
way in which it's been designated, are we getting the bang for
the buck that we really ought to be getting? If we're not, is
it because it's not enough or is it because it's not being
used, while appropriately, not in the most effective manner
possible to get the results we're after? Do we ask those kinds
of questions or do we just go through--I don't mean to be
pejorative here, and check the boxes to see that it's done
appropriately, but what about effectively?
Ms. Jonas. Certainly that would be the responsibility of
Admiral Fallon and CENTCOM to judge that, along with the field.
Admiral Mullen. Senator Nelson, if I may.
Senator Ben Nelson. Yes, Admiral.
Admiral Mullen. I know Admiral Fallon and I have
specifically talked about this. I know he has addressed it with
the leadership. To the Secretary's point, there has been a
tremendous investment and we think generally it has flown in
the right direction. Your question about results, output, or
effects, I think, is a very valid question, particularly at a
time, as was pointed out earlier, as this threat seems to be
both expanding as well as turning inward. We know that General
Kianni, who heads their army now, we all think is a great
leader and has the right focus. It's going to take him a while
to get the focus where it needs to go. It's going to take him
years to get at this as well; and that our continued support is
really important.
To the level of detail where these dollars are going, I
think it is a great question to look at from the standpoint of
the effects. What we have seen from here, that's the case.
Admiral Fallon is asking the same questions and I know they are
in the field. I would hope that we would have detailed answers
to that down the road that would answer that, that could put
your concerns at ease.
Secretary Gates. Senator, maybe we could ask Admiral Fallon
to do a report for the committee on his view of the
effectiveness of this investment.
Senator Ben Nelson. Because if it's an investment and let's
say it's effective to a certain level, I would like to ask the
question, if we doubled the money would we get triple the
results? I think there are certain kinds of questions you ask
about a program like that, and when we don't seem to be getting
where we want to be and they're reconstituting themselves and
they're gaining strength in certain areas we have to ask the
question. If we always do what we've always done, we'll always
get what we always got. I think we need to break that and take
a look at how we move forward to get the results we're after.
If it's money, then we need to address that. If it's
commitment, we need to address that. I'm not talking about our
commitment, but I'm talking about the commitment of the other
government.
The other question which I hope to find out is what do our
friends in Delhi think is being done with this money, because
there are also reports that they're concerned that a lot of the
money we're giving that's supposed to be going to Waziristan is
just simply being used to build up the military strength of the
Pakistan military on the border of India.
So there are a lot of issues here and I hope that we could
get from Admiral Fallon a pretty detailed explanation of that.
Also, if he had his druthers and an open checkbook and an open
opportunity, what would he ask for?
Secretary Gates. I think one of the concerns that we're
dealing with right now is there's quite a bit of sensitivity in
Pakistan to the American footprint and presence in Pakistan,
particularly an American military presence. I have said
publicly that we are ready, willing, and able to help the
Pakistani army should they need help in training for the new
kind of mission and so on.
They're very proud. They have a long history of being
representative of the nation. I think, just further to Admiral
Mullen's point, until General Kianni gets on top of the whole
situation and what their needs are, I think we're in a standby
mode at this point, other than this program.
Senator Ben Nelson. With two wars costing us, what, $12
billion to $16 billion at a pretty fast clip, one wonders what
some of that money diverted to a stronger presence to attack
Waziristan might get us and be cost savings in the long term,
plus less threat--now my time's run out--to our troops if we're
able to bring down the pressure there in Afghanistan and in
Iraq.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Why don't we do this, Secretary Gates. If you would alert
Admiral Fallon to the line of questions that Senator Nelson has
raised about the effectiveness of that spending, perhaps by the
time he comes here, which is March 4, I believe, he could be
prepared to give us that report. We would appreciate that very
much.
Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Secretary Gates, I want to talk to you a bit about two
reports that were released last week on Afghanistan which
Chairman Levin has already alluded to. Both of them are pretty
stark in their warnings about what is at stake in Afghanistan.
One begins with ``Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in
Afghanistan. Unless this reality is understood and action taken
promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and
global impact.''
The other says that ``Afghanistan stands today at a
crossroads.'' It talks about how the progress of the last 6
years is threatened by some of the factors that you've already
discussed. It says that the United States and the international
community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with
too few military forces and insufficient economic aid. The
reports recommend that the ``light footprint in Afghanistan''
be replaced by the right footprint of U.S. and allied force
levels.
My first question to you is, what is your reaction to these
two reports and the recommendation? Second, I recognize that
we're sending 3,200 marines this spring to Afghanistan, but is
that going to be sufficient to put Afghanistan back on course
if NATO forces aren't joining in an increased commitment?
Secretary Gates. First, I think that I guess what I would
say is that I think we are--and it sounds a little familiar--
being successful in the security and particularly in the
military arena. General Rodriguez reports that to the eastern
region of Afghanistan, January was the first month in 2 years
where the level of violence was actually less than it was 2
years ago. That's clearly where the United States has the
biggest presence. It's our area of responsibility, and the
counterinsurgency is going very well there.
The Taliban no longer occupy any territory in Afghanistan.
They were thrown out of Mussaqawa a few weeks ago, before
Christmas. Now, I think that the Taliban have had some real
setbacks. Probably 50 of their leaders have been killed or
captured over the past year and we know that that's had an
impact on their capability and also on their morale.
All that said, because they are failing in the conventional
kinds of attacks on us, they are turning more and more to
suicide bombers, to terror, and to IEDs. So I would say that,
while we have been successful militarily, that the other
aspects of development in Afghanistan have not proceeded as
well. Clearly, counternarcotics are a problem. Corruption is a
problem. The ability of the government to get services to the
countryside is a problem. Effectiveness of government
ministries in many cases is a problem.
Then overarching this is a problem that I started trying to
work on a year ago, which was to bring about greater
coordination of the civil effort among the NATO allies. There
are some 40 partner nations active in Afghanistan, not to
mention hundreds of NGOs. There is no overarching strategy.
There is no coordinating body that looks at what's working best
and what's not working and shares those experiences or that
coordinates and says, you need to focus on electricity, and you
need to focus on roads and so on, in terms of your commitment,
rather than everyone doing their own thing all the way around
the country.
So the importance of somebody filling the position that
Lord Ashdown was considered for is critically important, and I
started proposing that a year ago. I also proposed at Nordvik
last fall that what NATO needs is a 3- to 5-year strategy that
looks out beyond the end of 2008, beyond 2009. Where do we want
to have Afghanistan? Where do we see Afghanistan being in 3 to
5 years, and what kind of forces will it take, what kind of
civil commitment will it take, what kind of economic aid and
development?
One of the biggest problems with Afghanistan is that it's
poor. Total government revenues this year will be $675 million.
That compares with nearly $50 billion budgeted in Iraq, and
Iraq has 5 million fewer people. So the contrast and the
importance of the international community helping Afghanistan
in some respects is even more important than in Iraq because of
the poverty in Afghanistan.
But this strategy is necessary, with some milestones on how
we can tell whether we're making progress in these areas. I
think that there will be a strategy like this approved at
Bucharest at the summit, that also will, I hope, serve as an
educational tool for the people of Europe to better understand
the threat to them coming out of Afghanistan, which will then
further empower the political leaders to do more.
Now, to the second part of your question, I've been working
this problem pretty steadfastly for many months at this point
and I would say that I am not particularly optimistic. I think
there are some additional opportunities and I think there are
some straws in the wind that suggest some governments may be
willing to do more and do more in a meaningful way, not just
symbolic.
My hope is that in Vilnius and then in Bucharest we'll get
some better indication of what they're prepared to do. Some
nations are stepping up. The Poles are sending additional
people. So I think that there are some who are stepping up to
do more, after I made the decision on the marines, I sent a
letter to every defense minister in NATO asking them, basically
trying to leverage our dispatch of the marines into getting
them to dig deeper. In several cases I made specific requests
of specific kinds of units and in some cases named units and
where they needed to go.
I haven't gotten any responses yet, but I'm sure I will in
Vilnius. But we'll see. We just have to keep working it.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Warner has just made an excellent suggestion, as
always, that you, if you would, send that letter to us so we
can make it part of the record, if that is a public letter.
Secretary Gates. It was public after it leaked in Germany.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. Why don't you leak it to the record. If you
could leak it for our record. [Laughter.]
[The information referred to follows:]
Senators Warner and Levin requested a copy of a letter Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates sent to every defense minister in NATO on
enhancing their contributions to activities in Afghanistan, dated
January 24, 2008. Enclosed is the letter.
Chairman Levin. Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first would like to observe that I really appreciate the
tone of the relations that we're having out of the DOD now, as
compared to even a year ago when we were having some of these
hearings. I think Admiral Mullen, Admiral Fallon, General
Conway, and others have really demonstrated a willingness to
rethink where we're going on a lot of these issues. It's
vitally important that we do this and do it in a timely way.
I was writing before the invasion of Iraq that my concern
was we were falling into a double strategic mousetrap. I think
if you look at this budget that's before us today, you see the
ramifications of that, a double strategic mousetrap meaning
first of all we were going to be tieing up our military in one
spot, burning it out, burning out our people, burning out our
equipment, at the same time that the enemy that we're facing,
the true enemy that we're facing, which is global terrorism,
international terrorism, would retain its mobility.
I'm looking at the Washington Post this morning, the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) identifying what he
called global hot spots--Iraq obviously, Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China to the extent that it is
providing missile sales and other weaponry to Iran. They're all
focusing in that area in a way that we haven't been able to
control it, in a large sense because of what's happened with
our commitment in Iraq. To me that argues very strongly for
getting our people off the streets of Iraq and out of the role
as occupier.
The second strategic mousetrap is that we were tieing up so
much of our national attention and so much of our budget in one
specific spot, while we were ignoring our strategic interests
around the world, our larger strategic interests. We're seeing
that coming home to roost now with the size of this budget. I
support what we need to be doing, particularly with growing the
Navy back to where it needs to be, but it's pretty unfortunate,
from my own perspective that we're having to face these
problems that were avoidable with a proper strategy.
My question really is on the GI Bill. I've had meetings,
I've had discussions with Admiral Mullen about this and others.
I proposed a GI Bill a year ago that would give the people
who've been serving since September 11 the same range of
benefits as those who served during World War II. We took care
of 8 million people after World War II, paid their tuition,
bought their books, and gave them a monthly stipend.
We keep talking about these young men and women as the new
greatest generation, and yet we're having a very difficult time
with this administration and, from what I'm hearing, inside the
DOD, getting an agreement like this is something that these
people have earned. Senator Clinton is on this bill. Senator
Obama is on it. Governor Romney has indicated he supports
something of this nature. We're still waiting for Senator
McCain, who speaks so strongly about people who serve. We're
still waiting for people on the other side here.
But my question for you is this. What I've been hearing
from the Pentagon is that there are people who believe that
giving these young men and women this kind of a benefit will
affect retention. I'm an old manpower guy. I spent 5 years in
the Pentagon. My view on this is that it will increase the pool
of people to be recruited, that right now we're burning out
this one pool we've been going after time and time again with
all these bonuses, and we've been seeing indicators from the
Army that categories in terms of mental categories being
recruited are going down. This would open up a whole new group
of people potentially.
I'm wondering if it's true that the position of the DOD is
that this is somehow going to affect your ability to manage the
force?
Secretary Gates. I have not heard that, Senator, and I am
certainly willing to take a close look at the bill and see what
the budgetary implications are and so on. Personally, I've been
trying to do what we can in terms of enhancing the benefits and
the flexibility of the benefits. For example, the President's
recommendation in the State of the Union address that a service
person who does not intend to use his or her Montgomery GI Bill
education benefits could transfer those to a spouse or to a
child in their family, I heard that recommendation in one of my
meetings with military spouses at Fort Hood.
So I think we are looking for areas in which we can both
help the families as well as the servicemembers. I'm very happy
to take a look at this bill.
Senator Webb. We've been trying to get people in the DOD to
give us a specific comment on this for more than a year now.
The Montgomery GI Bill averages out, the average payment on it
averages out to $6,000 a year. If you were going to go to the
schools that some of our World War II veterans were able to go
to--Senator Warner, for instance, was able to go to Washington
and Lee University--he and I have discussed this--and
University of Virginia Law School. The Montgomery GI Bill
wouldn't even cover 14 percent of that today.
So whatever the benefit is to be transferred--and there are
questions about transferability. As someone who spent 4 years
as a committee counsel on the Veterans Affairs Committee 30
years ago, the benefit itself is not measured to the value of
the service.
I'd be interested if the Admiral had any thoughts on this.
Admiral Mullen. I'm an old manpower guy myself, Senator.
Listening to you when you talk about this, it's my belief we
need to take care of these people from the moment we recruit
them, for as long as the system can support them, depending on
what they do, whether they stay in and whether they get out.
That doesn't, obviously, mean we take care of them for the rest
of their lives, although I do feel strongly we have to have a
system which supports those who are wounded in that regard.
Specifically on this, I don't think there is any benefit
that when I go out and talk to the troops and we meet with
families--this gets talked about; it's the education benefit
which they both see, you talk to the young enlisted, who so
many came in for the education benefits. We know that it will
lift up the country no matter what they do, whether they stay
or go.
I don't immediately sign up to whether this is affecting
retention at all. I can get a little bit of that. But from the
beginning to the end, from when they come in to when they
leave, whether it's a few years or a career, we need to have a
system which supports that. Education is a ticket to the
future, whether you're in the Service or not.
So we need to, I think, take a very careful look at it.
I've not been made aware of this literally until we've talked
in the last couple days, and I'm happy to certainly lend my ear
as well.
Senator Webb. I would suggest and hope that we can take a
look at it soon, to try to get something through this year.
We've been working on it for a year. We've been trying to get
the other side to understand that this is not a political
issue, it's an issue of rewarding service. All we're saying is
try to give the same thing that we gave these people coming out
of World War II.
For every dollar that was spent on their education, we have
$7 back in tax receipts because we increased the value of their
professional lives. So I would hope we could work in a pretty
rapid manner on this.
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir. I say, I'm not a manpower guy,
but the GI Bill did pay for my Ph.D. at Georgetown University.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. In your case it's probably 14 or 15 times
the investment.
Senator Webb. So far.
Chairman Levin. So far, right.
Senator Warner. Could I just commend my colleague from
Virginia, and I wish to associate myself with your goals. I
think we will be able to in this committee eventually put
forward a bill.
Senator Webb. I thank the senior Senator for saying that.
Chairman Levin. I want to thank Senator Webb also for his
persistence on this.
But could you, Secretary Gates, get to us within the next
month or so the position of the Department on this bill that
Senator Webb and others have introduced?
Secretary Gates. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. We need to know what the Department's view
is on it. We're entitled to know that, and Senator Webb surely
has been, I think, not only very clear and right on this issue,
but he's been patient as well. We're entitled to an answer.
Senator Dole.
Senator Dole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, let me just underscore
again, as each of our members have said, our thanks for your
great service to our country and your candor before this
committee.
Chairman Levin. Senator Dole, if you would allow an
interruption.
Senator Dole. Sure.
Chairman Levin. Forgive me for doing this, but I'm reminded
that the question of this bill--this bill has been referred to
the Veterans Affairs Committee, not to this committee. So that
any report that you give to us should go also to the Veterans
Affairs Committee because it is within the jurisdiction of
Senator Akaka's committee.
Thank you. I apologize, Senator Dole?
Senator Dole. That's just fine.
Admiral Mullen, you've endorsed the proposal to fund the
annual defense budget at no less than 4 percent of the GDP. A
review of this budget certainly makes it clear that we need to
substantially increase the baseline budget. Accordingly, I am
sponsoring with Trent Franks in the House of Representatives a
joint resolution that calls for the United States to fund the
annual defense budget at no less than 4 percent of the GDP.
But rather than discuss percentages and dollars, would you
share your view on the implications for our military in terms
of modernization, the growth of our military, the quality-of-
life, and the research and development, if indeed we continue
to inadequately support our armed services?
Admiral Mullen. Senator, I've been in and out of Washington
and a lot of time in the budget world since the mid-1990s, and
I've recently discussed very publicly the need to have 4
percent as a floor. Not unlike the other discussions, I'm not
sure that's exactly right, but I think it's an important
target. Over the last 10 or 12 years for me, as I've watched us
through budgets which have been lower and budgets which have
gotten larger, the impact of the growing cost to invest
correctly for our people--and it's not just the members, but
their families and the quality-of-life to have them stay in and
to ensure that they see themselves as valued as we all say they
are, and without whom we can't do anything--the growing
challenges that we have across a full spectrum of requirements,
and there are challenges in the acquisition world and we do
need to contain those costs. But modern systems have gotten
more expensive. The growing cost of operations. Those are the
three big accounts.
As I look back at a lot of people trying to get this right,
and there are a lot of really dedicated people, I just worry a
great deal about, in the world that we're living in right now,
with the terrorist threat that we have, the weapons of mass
destruction threat, the uncertainty, the regional instability,
cyberspace, space, the growing challenges that possibly come
from a near-peer competitor in the long run, the technology gap
which is closing and which we're being closed on, that to
underinvest across the board in a balanced way would be very
dangerous.
As I really roll it up and do the math, for me it's about 4
percent. It isn't exactly that, but I think at a minimum we
need to do that.
To Secretary Gates' point earlier, we've made this mistake
before. We can't do this now. It is a dangerous world, and if
we do that I think we draw a great risk to ourselves in the
future.
Senator Dole. Thank you.
Secretary Gates, let me speak to you about the need for a
Goldwater-Nichols II interagency reform initiative. I read with
great interest your speech to Kansas State University recently.
You indicated there that, based on your experience serving
seven presidents, as a former Director of the CIA, and now as
Secretary of Defense, you said: ``I'm here to make the case for
strengthening our capacity to use soft power and for better
integrating it with hard power. One of the most important
lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military
success is not sufficient to win. Economic development,
institution-building, the rule of law, promoting international
reconciliation, good governance, providing basic services to
the people, training and equipping indigenous military and
police forces, strategic communications, and more, along with
security are essential ingredients for long-term success.''
You also mention that ``What we do know is that the threats
and challenges we will face abroad in the first decades of the
21st century will extend well beyond the traditional domain of
any single government agency. These new threats require our
government to operate in a wholly different manner, to act with
unity, agility, and creativity.''
I would like for you to comment on the implications if we
were not to move in the direction that you've suggested in this
very impressive Kansas State speech.
Secretary Gates. In many respects I think some of the
challenges that we've faced in Iraq in terms of getting the
development, reconstruction, the civil side of the equation
right; the deployment, the difficulty that it has posed by
trying to staff the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, as an
example.
In a way, this goes back to the question of resources. The
reality, as I talk about in the speech, is that at the height
of the Cold War, United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) had 15,000 employees. It has 3,000 now and
it's basically a contracting agency. USAID in its heyday was an
expeditionary agency. It had all of the kinds of agricultural,
rule of law, civic institution, all those kinds of people who
knew and wanted to serve overseas and served in many third
world countries, developing countries, and they knew what their
role was and they were very good at it. It was an important
component of America's arsenal in the Cold War, where that was
as much a war of ideas as it was of military power.
So we've really hampered ourselves. The freeze on the
hiring of foreign service officers in the 1990s. One of the
lines that I used in that speech is, you could take the entire
foreign service and it would not be enough people to crew one
single carrier strike group.
So I think the government is out of balance. Now, the fact
that I'm up here for a $515 billion budget suggests that I
don't mean that we correct the balance by lowering the defense
budget. But I think that there needs to be greater attention
both in the executive branch and in the legislative branch in
how do we strengthen some of the civilian side of the
government that deals with international affairs.
The second part of the problem is how do you structure it,
how do you organize it? I would confess to you--and one of the
few negative comments about that speech was that I didn't put
forward any ideas on how to fix the problem. What we have done
in the Pentagon is let a contract to a nonpartisan,
nongovernmental think tank to try and come up with some ideas
that could perhaps serve as a basis for legislation or action
by a new administration in terms of how you structure it.
The problem with the Goldwater-Nichols analogy is the same
problem that I had with that analogy in the creation of the
DNI. It is that the reason Goldwater-Nichols works in the DOD
is that at the end of the day there is one guy at the top that
makes all the decisions, and that's not the case in a 16-member
intelligence community and it's certainly not the case in the
interagency.
But clearly the structure--the theme of that speech this
last year was the 60th anniversary of the National Security
Act. It created the Air Force, it created the DOD, it created
the National Security Council, it created the CIA. It was a
huge piece of legislation, of enormous consequence, and really
provided the framework for decisionmaking for the entire Cold
War. My suggestion was, if you are going to write the National
Security Act of 2007, what would it look like.
I just think that the legislative branch, because you have
a lot of research capabilities up here, a lot of historical
experience, the executive branch, and we're doing our part in
the DOD, needs to begin to focus on this. Frankly, I think it
needs to be as a new president looks out at the world, getting
this right and figuring out how to restructure to use all of
the elements of national power that we have should be a high
priority for the new president.
Senator Dole. Thank you very much.
My time has expired.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Dole.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I want to welcome our witnesses, Secretary Gates and
Admiral Mullen.
To Secretary Gates, as a result of the remediation for the
problems identified at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, DOD
and VA are currently cooperating and collaborating I would say
on an unprecedented level. Secretary Gates, do you believe that
the Department can sustain the current level of cooperation and
collaboration, and how will this be administered?
Secretary Gates. I think that one of the things that has
played a critical role in bringing the Departments together and
making sure that the various levels of the Departments are
doing what they're supposed to be doing in terms of both the
Dole-Shalala recommendations, the legislation that you have
passed and others, is the fact that the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, Gordon England, and the Deputy Secretary of Veterans
Affairs meet every week, and their subordinates are in the room
and they have a checklist of what they're supposed to do, and
they are methodically working through it.
I am confident that this practice will continue certainly
for as long as Gordon England and I are in our positions.
I think that when you are sitting up here a year from now
confirming a new Secretary of Defense, it seems to me that that
provides a useful opportunity to encourage that Secretary to
continue this practice, because that's what it takes, frankly.
It takes top-level attention and it takes short deadlines for
getting things done, and it has worked and it's really worked
remarkably well. But it requires continued top-level attention.
Senator Akaka. I want to thank you for placing that in the
record. I'm so glad to see that continue to happen.
Some have suggested, Mr. Secretary, that a permanent joint
DOD and VA transition office be established. Do you have any
thoughts about that?
Secretary Gates. I'm very open to this because when we
started dealing with this problem I said we need to look at
this from the standpoint of the soldier, sailor, airman, or the
marine. Forget all these bureaucracies. Forget all these
different organizational charts and everything else. I'm a
soldier, I've been wounded, or even if I haven't been wounded;
how do we create a structure that makes--this is perhaps a
contradiction in terms and so idealistic it sounds naive--but
that in effect makes the bureaucracy the ally of the soldier,
not the adversary, and a seamless transition, so that the
bureaucracy smooths the way rather than making it a series of
obstacles to be overcome.
I think you can do that, and as we were doing a lot of the
wounded warrior things, I said, go out and just interview some
wounded soldiers and tell them: If you had a clean sheet of
paper, based on your experience so far, how would you design
this system? What would you make it look like?
So I'm open to anything that's going to make the
bureaucracy more user-friendly to those who have served it.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for those responses, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, given the increased interaction between DOD
and VA, disagreements could occur that can't be resolved over
jurisdiction or responsibility between DOD and VA within either
the DOD-VA joint executive council or the DOD-VA senior
oversight committee. In these cases, who do you think is
responsible for brokering these disagreements between the two
Departments, and how would the process work?
Secretary Gates. Happily we haven't had any of those yet. I
would assume that if there were a really tough problem that
couldn't be solved by the deputies that it would come to
Secretary Peake and myself. I find it difficult to imagine that
we couldn't come to an agreement. But if for some reason we
couldn't then clearly the next step would be to take the issue
to the President.
Senator Akaka. I want to thank you also for mentioning
``seamless transition,'' because we have been working on that
and we have been working here at the Armed Services Committee
and the Veterans Affairs Committee.
Many of the programs currently under development, Mr.
Secretary, at DOD continue to be delayed or are experiencing
cost overruns. The GAO report just released February 1,
identified 11 programs that are the result of poor Department
acquisition practices and reiterates some of the issues brought
out in the testimony at the end of the last congressional
session.
Some failures identified include: overreliance on testing,
immature technologies, and early entry into signed contracts
prior to a thorough engineering analysis, both of which
drastically drive up costs on these programs.
Secretary Gates, what is the status of ongoing efforts
within the DOD to improve the efficiency of the acquisition
process?
Secretary Gates. I think you could probably fill this room
with studies of the DOD acquisition process over the past
number of decades. We have a new Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, John Young. John has
tried to lay out for his entire group a new approach to
acquisition that tries to minimize the kinds of problems that
you've just described. I would invite--and I'm happy to have
Mr. Young come up and talk to you about it or come up and talk
to the committee, because I think--one of my real regrets is
that Mr. Young is only going to have a little over a year in
office, because I think he's on the right track and I think he
has it right.
There's another problem, though, and someone alluded to it
at the very beginning of the hearing. In the 1990s, for two
reasons--one, four successive National Defense Authorization
Acts that required the Department to reduce the number of
acquisition officers by 95,000 people altogether; and the
Department's own actions to reduce personnel because of the
budget--that took the number of acquisition people in the DOD,
people working acquisition issues, from something like 620,000
to fewer than 300,000.
Maybe more importantly, between 1990 and now, the Defense
Contract Management Agency dropped from 24,000 contract experts
to just over 9,000. So one of the things we have to do is
figure out how many is the right number to be involved in
managing these contracts, because it seems to me, given the
problems we've had in Iraq and the problems we've had that you
alluded to, the number where we are now probably isn't right.
One of the things that the Army has done--there's been a
lot of criticism and a lot of justifiable criticism about
contracting problems in Iraq. We had 63 contract managers in
Iraq until December 2007. We now have over 300 that the Army
has sent out, the Army alone has sent out there.
So it's clearly partly a process problem, but it's also a
resource problem, and I think we're trying to address both of
those. But I invite the committee and I invite you to sit down
with Mr. Young, because I think some of the programs he's
putting in place are quite valuable.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Chambliss arrived on the spur of the moment.
Senator Chambliss, you are next.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to
whoever I cut off here.
Chairman Levin. Senator Martinez was looking expectantly,
and properly so. But you aced him out. Senator Chambliss?
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Secretary, Admiral, thank you for
being here this morning. Thanks for your great service to our
country.
Secretary Gates, in addition to requiring a force to defend
the Homeland and to deter in and from four regions, the
National Military Strategy requires our military ``to conduct
two overlapping swift-defeat campaigns. Even when committed to
a limited number of lesser contingencies, the force must be
able to win decisive in one of two campaigns.'' These are
quotes from that document.
According to the strategy, it does not represent a specific
set of scenarios nor reflect temporary conditions. Regarding
tactical aviation, it is well known that there have been
several studies regarding how much and what type of tactical
aviation our National Military Strategy requires. Specifically,
there have been at least three studies on this issue within the
last 5 years: one by DOD, one by the Air Force, and one by an
independent group.
Each of these studies have come to a different conclusion.
Only one of them, the DOD study, has concluded that we only
need 183 F-22s. DOD's joint air dominance study, which was done
in support of the 2005 QDR, assumes that of the two major
regional operations that the force is sized against, only one
of those is a stressing scenario that requires a large number
of F-22s. I'm very concerned about this assumption. As a
previous DCI, you know how hard it is to predict the future and
I think that you would agree that our ability to predict our
next military opponent over the last 10 to 20 years has been
very inconsistent, and we've always been wrong.
The DOD study completely discounts the possibility of a
resurgent Russia over the next 20 years and uses predictions
regarding proliferation of surface-to-air missiles and fifth
generation fighter aircraft that are exceptionally conservative
and that do not match estimates I received from intelligence
personnel in the Pentagon just this morning specifically
related to the double-digit SAM capability that Iran will have
in 2024, the year the DOD study uses for its scenarios.
We can't talk specific numbers because this is an
unclassified hearing, but suffice it to say that the
information that I received, the Pentagon estimates Iran's
double-digit SAM capability at two to five times higher than
the DOD study assumes. This would obviously require a much
larger fifth generation fighter force to counter and would be a
much more stressing scenario.
Second, based on projections that I received from the
Pentagon, there are at least 17 other nations that will have
double-digit SAMs by 2024, including many of the Central Asian
republics, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Belarus,
Vietnam, and Venezuela.
Also, the DOD study makes the assumption, which I frankly
don't agree with, that the F-22 and the JSF are equally capable
against surface-to-air missiles, and also assumes that no F-22s
will be required for homeland defense or to deter the threat
from four regions, as the National Military Strategy requires.
Now, given this threat information, the assumptions in the
DOD study, and the fact that of the three studies only one
recommends procuring only 183 F-22s, how confident are you that
we are procuring the right number at 183?
Secretary Gates. Senator, I know that the Air Force's view
is that they would like to have 350 of these aircraft. I think
at the end of the day, at least for me, it has ended up being a
cost-benefit analysis of the F-22, of the growth of the F-22
program beyond 183 or so aircraft, and the impact on the JSF
program.
My concern is that the F-22 is almost twice as expensive as
the JSF. My worry is that a significant expansion of the
production of the F-22 in the out-years will encroach on the
production and the affordability of how many JSFs can be
purchased.
My view on this was that we have come to this conclusion in
this administration in terms of the F-22, but there are 20 F-
22s in the 2009 budget. As I indicated earlier, we will
probably ask for four or so more as replacement aircraft in the
supplemental for 2009. So my objective was to keep the line
open, quite frankly, so that a new administration as it looks
at the DOD, at the defense budget and priorities, can make the
decision. If they choose to expand the F-22 force, then the
production line will still be open that would enable them to do
that.
Senator Chambliss. If you ask for four additional F-22s in
the supplemental, how long is it your thinking that that will
keep the line open?
Secretary Gates. 2010.
Senator Chambliss. Do you have any concerns about the fact
that if that is not the case and you don't have money for long-
lead procurement in this budget, that in effect you're going to
be shutting down that line because you're not going to have
subcontractors out there that are going to have the assurances
that they need from a long-lead standpoint? Is there a concern
on your part that's real referenced to the shutting down of
that line?
Secretary Gates. I am concerned. My objective is to give
the next administration an option. What I've been told is that
this will keep the line open, that gives them that opportunity.
Senator Chambliss. Has the fact that we now have--I'm not
sure what the exact number is today; I think the last one I saw
was about--160 F-15s, which the F-22 is replacing--we've had a
significant issue with the F-15. We have about 160 of them that
are grounded, I think, as of today. Has that factored into your
decision or is that late issue that came into the picture not a
factor?
Secretary Gates. No, in fact that was an issue that helped
persuade me to keep the line open.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Levin. We are not going to be able to quite meet
our noon promise, but we'll come very, very close. We're not
going to be able to have a second round of questions, however.
There have been some requests for that. We'll have to have
those questions asked for the record, which we will keep open.
But we are not going to be able to have a second round.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Secretary Gates, for your service. Admiral
Mullen, thank you very much for what you do for the country.
I'd like to come back to an item that was talked about in
the early part of the hearing by the chairman and the ranking
member. That is the negotiations to sign a permanent long-term
agreement with the Iraqis on the role of U.S. military in the
future operations in Iraq. The agreement's expected to be
concluded by mid-July.
Obviously, the stakes are extremely high. Congress, I
believe, must have the opportunity to approve or disapprove any
security commitment, agreement, or assurance, pledge or
guarantee, regardless of what it is called, that affects our
troops and our national security. We're mindful that to date
the Iraqi foreign minister is describing the agreement as a
treaty. In a January 15 press conference with Secretary Rice he
said: ``Our leaders have agreed to set a group of principles
for the long-term treaty.'' The Iraq parliament is demanding to
ratify the final agreement and the Iraqi Government has said it
will submit any United States-Iraq pact to the parliament for
ratification.
General Lute, the Assistant to the President for Iraq and
Afghanistan, said in November that congressional input ``is not
foreseen. We don't anticipate now these negotiations will lead
to the status of a formal agreement, which would then bring us
to formal negotiation or formal input from Congress.''
Yet, our troops are involved. Our national security is
involved, and Congress should have the opportunity to approve
or disapprove such an agreement. Congress even approves a
security arrangement with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia.
There's no convincing reason to bypass Congress.
But let me ask you, before getting into comments about this
issue. The existing authority under international law for the
military presence in Iraq was extended in December 2007 through
the end of 2008. Wouldn't it make more sense to seek a short-
term extension to enable the next administration to decide what
form our commitment should take, if any?
Secretary Gates. Senator Kennedy, the SOFA that is being
discussed will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq and
neither will any strategic framework agreement. My
understanding is--and it's, frankly, a clearer point than I
made earlier, and we certainly do not consider the declaration
of principles as a security commitment to the Iraqis.
My view is that there ought to be a great deal of openness
and transparency to Congress as we negotiate this SOFA, so that
you can satisfy yourselves that those kinds of commitments are
not being made and that there are no surprises in this.
Senator Kennedy. I appreciate that and appreciate your
view. We have had other examples of statements that have been
made where the administration's changed its position. In the
last 4 years the administration said there would be no
permanent bases. The President, on April 13, 2004, said: ``As
proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support indefinite
occupation. Neither does America.'' Secretary Rumsfeld said:
``We do not have plans for permanent facilities in Iraq, no.''
Ambassador Khalilzad stated on August 15, 2005: ``We do not
seek permanent military bases.'' Secretary Rice, May 7: ``We do
not in the process these days of doing permanent military
bases.''
Now we have the National Defense Authorization Act this
year and the President included a signing statement on the
provision that prohibits funding for the establishment of any
military installation or base for the purpose of providing for
permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces, saying and
indicating that he would not apply that language if it impedes
his constitutional authorities.
So we've had language from the administration giving the
assurance to Congress one way and then the administration going
the other way.
Why not just simplify it? Why not just get the Iraqis to
extend the U.N. resolution which has been the basis for this?
Why not let them do it and then permit the next administration,
Democrat or Republican, to make that judgment?
If they are not going to do it, why won't they do it? If
they won't do it, why shouldn't we take action that says that
if they're not going to take responsibility in this area why
should we continue to give effectively a blank check of
American troops?
Secretary Gates. We certainly are not going to give anybody
any blank checks. It was very difficult to negotiate the U.N.
extension for 2008 and I think that the general feeling from
the experts, including our ambassador and General Petraeus, is
that it would be extremely difficult to get the Iraqis to agree
to even a short extension of this.
In a way, they have a vote in this, and they don't want
permanent bases either. They are interested in asserting
sovereignty and, my personal view--I haven't talked to the
President about it--but I suspect that that language had more
to do with the constitutional issues than with the substance of
whether or not we want permanent bases in Iraq. The fact is, in
every meeting that I've taken part in, it has been affirmed
from the President on down that we do not want permanent bases
in Iraq.
Senator Kennedy. The language is specific on this
communique under item 3, the security sphere: ``Providing
security assurances and commitments.'' That language is signed
by the President of the United States. That has the President
of the United States' signature on it. That means something.
What we are asking here is that, in terms of binding a new
administration, you've had the authority under the U.N.
resolution in the past. The Iraqis have the opportunity to say
that they can extend it for a year or renegotiate it in 6
months. We're involved in fighting for their country. We don't
get the reconciliation, the political accommodation. Why can't
we expect that they would say, all right, you're going to get 6
months and 12 months and leave the opening to a new
administration, a new President, Republican or Democrat, to
work those items out?
When we have the President of the United States signing
that document that talks about security, it seems to me that
the American people are entitled to that kind of voice in its
decision.
Secretary Gates. Senator, my view is that there is nothing
in the SOFA that we are just beginning to negotiate that would
bind a future administration. It basically, like other SOFAs,
sets forth the rules by which we continue to operate in Iraq in
terms of protecting our soldiers, in terms of the legal
relationship, and so on. I don't think that there's anything
here that in a substantive way binds any future administration.
Senator Kennedy. My time is up. Can you give the assurance
that the Senate will have an opportunity to review it before
it's implemented?
Secretary Gates. As I indicated, I think there should be
full openness as we go through this process.
Senator Kennedy. I'll assume that that's an affirmative
answer.
Secretary Gates. That's a yes.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Martinez.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you both for your patience. I think I may
be it, so soon you get to leave, and thank you for coming and
being with us and for your service.
I wanted to just reiterate, as my colleague from Florida,
Senator Nelson, indicated, my continuing interest on the issues
relating to Mayport and thank the chairman. As the CNO, you
made some great statements on that and I appreciate that, and
we look forward to the continuation of the EIS and the future
of Mayport, which is so important to Jacksonville.
Also, very interested in issues relating to the potential
for a Fourth Fleet. Admiral Stavridis does a terrific job with
the Southern Command and, Mr. Secretary, I think as you look
into these issues that it will be apparent that, given our
responsibilities as well as the threats in the region, that
this may be an idea whose time has come.
I am, too, and I want to just let you know, very concerned
about the issue of rotations and the 15-month deployment. Mr.
Chairman, I'm sure that you are equally concerned about it. I
recently have had occasion to visit with a young man that I've
known since he was a small baby, and he is back for 2 or 3
weeks. It does underscore for me personally the difficulty of
these long deployments. I realize what a difficult circumstance
you find yourself in, but just count me on the side of needing
to look for solutions to that issue in the short term.
My concern--two quick questions. One was on the issue of
intelligence sharing with Turkey. I was recently there and the
Secretary and I discussed, I think, the very positive effect
that our cooperation in terms of the threat presented to Turkey
by the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) has been very well
received and it's a good thing. My question is twofold. Number
one, how is this cooperation going?
Second, I just heard yesterday about a series of aerial
attacks that had taken place in northern Iraq by the Turkish
forces. How are we preserving the integrity of Iraq as well as
maintaining our Iraqi friends in the northern part of Iraq
sufficiently content with what's taking place?
Admiral Mullen. Coincidentally, Senator, I actually met
with General Sigon yesterday. He's been here for about the last
week or so. He has been the point of contact with the Turkish
general staff along with General Cartwright, the vice chairman,
and General Petraeus. We've worked our way over these last few
months to a level of cooperation that had not been seen.
Clearly it's a very delicate balance and I think all the
senior leadership, not just in the military, of both countries
understand that the balance is there, that this needs to stay
both in balance and it is very delicate. We speak frequently
with both General Petraeus and Admiral Fallon about this.
General Petraeus is very aware each time there's any kind of
operation which occurs similar to the one that you just read
about, and it is in that balance that I think the long-term
success of all the interests, the interests of this sovereign
country of Iraq, clearly the internal interests that are there
particularly in the north, as well as the interests of Turkey,
and that this is focused on exclusively the PKK, which is a
known terrorist organization.
So we've made a lot of progress. We also believe that, not
unlike in many areas that we've talked about, that there isn't
just a military solution here, that this will, we would hope,
buy some headroom so that the other aspects of this can be
addressed for a long-term solution to this very difficult and
longstanding problem.
So from my standpoint, the intelligence sharing, the entire
aspect of this has gone exceptionally well. It's just, like
many things, a very delicate balance and we have to keep our
focus on this to make sure that that balance is sustained.
Senator Martinez. I think Prime Minister Erdogan, who I met
with when I was in Ankara, was very appreciative of the
cooperation, but also very cognizant of the fact that it was
more than just a military solution. I think that General Sagin
also echoed those comments when he was here. I saw him last
week as well.
Shipbuilding. I was concerned in looking at the current
proposal that we may be seeing a reduction of seven ships from
the projected schedule that we were on. I know the LCS issue
and I know how passionately you feel about the importance of
this. I concur with you, and I know the path we're on to try to
allow the two current ships to be completed and proceed
forward. But it does concern me that we are falling drastically
off schedule from what was projected in our shipbuilding
program to get us to the 313-ship Navy that I think you and I
both believe is important.
Admiral Mullen. Yes, sir.
Senator Martinez. What can you tell me?
Admiral Mullen. I think the analysis which went into
underpinning that 313 number is still very solid. I think it's
important to remember that was the minimum number of aircraft
carriers, the minimum number of surface combatants, the minimum
number of submarines, all those things. We had built ourselves
down to a certain number that we could produce. Certainly we
hoped the numbers would be up-tied to LCS.
LCS had a very tough year last year. I thought the
Department and Secretary Winter in particular put it under a
microscope to bound the problem both in requirements and costs.
It is a vital part of the Navy as soon as we can get it out
there. The Secretary of Defense talked earlier about designing
the right kind of ships for the kind of swarming tactics which
we recently saw in the Persian Gulf that the Iranians executed,
and that in containing it--and I think we can from a cost
standpoint and we now need to move forward.
Clearly, we weren't able to execute the third and the
fourth in the class. We're now just with the first two. I think
the overall acquisition strategy there is a good one and that
once we get to the type model series that we want, we then need
to generate them as quickly as we can and build up to that 55-
ship requirement.
I think the submarine aspect of the program is solid.
Clearly we're moving forward with the new destroyer, which is
also in this budget. That's a really important transformational
platform for the Navy for the future and I really believe for
the Department in many ways. So the investment--I think it's
somewhere above $14 billion this year, although some of that is
overhaul money--continues to be there.
I know I've spoken with Admiral Roughead, that his
priority--I've heard him say it personally and publicly, that
his number one priority is ships. You can't have much of a Navy
without ships.
Senator Martinez. That makes sense.
Mr. Chairman, may I have one more question or am I out of
time?
Chairman Levin. I don't know if you're out of time or not,
but why don't you quickly ask a question.
Senator Martinez. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, the one issue that does greatly concern me,
as I know it does you, is the NATO cooperation in Afghanistan.
I was chagrined that we had to send 3,500 marines there because
it appears that our allies didn't understand the seriousness of
their commitment, or at least didn't understand their
commitment the same way we did.
I wonder, in addition to what you said earlier, if there's
anything you can tell us in terms of how we can bring about the
kinds of results we need from NATO to undertake their
responsibilities as it relates to Afghanistan?
Secretary Gates. Senator, I leave after the House hearing
this afternoon for Vilnius for a NATO defense ministers
meeting, and clearly our role in Afghanistan is a key element.
I mentioned earlier that I've sent--I'm trying to leverage the
fact that we're sending these marines to get our allies to
backfill behind the marines when they come out in winter. I'm
going to provide a copy of that letter to the committee.
I think we can--the reality is some of them have very
difficult political circumstances at home. They're minority
governments or they're in coalition governments and there's a
difficult problem. One of the things I'm going to do in
Vilnius, or actually in Munich at the Wehrkunde conference, is
there are going to be a number of American legislators there
and a number of European legislators, and I want to try and
bring them together at a reception, because I think, frankly,
one area where Congress can help us is in your interactions
with European parliamentarians to talk about the importance of
Afghanistan and success in Afghanistan, not just for their own
security, but also for the future of the alliance.
I think that the problem is they need to be more courageous
in going out and trying to educate their population about why
Afghanistan matters, and I think you in many respects have more
credibility with them as elected representatives than people
like me. So I think whatever you can do, that's one place where
I think you can be helpful.
Senator Martinez. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much.
Senator Warner just wants to make a statement about our new
Senator.
Senator Warner. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we have a new
member, Senator Wicker, who took Senator Lott's seat from
Mississippi. He has been trapped in this line of tornadoes in
getting here to the Senate today and therefore he's absent. I
ask unanimous consent that his statement and questions be
admitted for the purposes of the record.
Chairman Levin. Any statement will be made part of the
record, and of course his questions will be asked for the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Wicker follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Roger F. Wicker
Chairman Levin and Senator Warner, thank you both for your kind of
words. I am grateful and humbled to be a member of this prestigious
committee. The work of the Senate Armed Services Committee makes our
Nation stronger and the men and women who defend her safer. I look
forward to contributing in some way to this important honorable cause.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Senator Warner. I thank the chair.
Chairman Levin. We found that out and we're glad you made
that part of the record.
We're very grateful to our witnesses, particularly, may I
say, Secretary Gates, for your statement of a few minutes ago
giving us the flat-out assurance that any agreement with Iraq
will not include a security provision. That's what an anonymous
person from the White House apparently said yesterday, as
reported in this morning's paper. You have taken the anonymity
away from that and given us your direct statement, and we now
have it on authority and that's what we welcome so much. It was
important, I think, on a bipartisan, an institutional basis, as
you heard this morning, that any agreement not include security
commitments to a country since that belongs in a treaty.
Secretary Gates. That certainly is what I have been
informed about with the SOFA.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Again, to all of our witnesses, thank you so much for your
service, and we came reasonably close to keeping our
commitment.
Secretary Gates. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Again, our thanks. We will stand adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
de-baathification law
1. Senator Levin. Secretary Gates, the Washington Post reported on
February 4, 2008, that the Iraqi Presidency Council issued a statement
on Sunday that the de-Baathification law was now ``considered as
approved'' even though Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, the only
Sunni Member of the Presidency Council, refused to sign it and despite
the fact that Article 138 of the Iraqi Constitution specifically
provides that legislation requires unanimous approval by the Presidency
Council within 10 days of its delivery to the Council to become law, or
it is sent back to the Council of Representatives. Has the de-
Baathification law actually been approved?
Secretary Gates. On February 3, 2008, the Presidency Council
submitted the Accountability and Justice Law for publication in the
Official Gazette.
[Note: Since the February 6, 2008, Senate Armed Services Committee
hearing, the law was published in the Official Gazette and is now law.]
project on national security reform
2. Senator Levin. Secretary Gates, your speeches at Kansas State
University and the Center for Strategic and International Studies
called for major national security reforms. Section 1049 of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008
authorized $3 million for a comprehensive study of required reforms in
the fiscal year 2008 budget. I understand the Department of Defense
(DOD) has committed to entering into a cooperative agreement with the
Center for the Study of the Presidency and the Project on National
Security Reform for this study. Will DOD provide the full $3 million to
the Project on National Security Reform?
Secretary Gates. The Department has entered into a Cooperative
Agreement with the Center for the Study of the Presidency and the
Project on National Security Reform for this study and will provide the
$2.4 million appropriated by Congress. These funds will be adequate for
fiscal year 2008 efforts.
3. Senator Levin. Secretary Gates, what other support will the DOD
provide to this important effort?
Secretary Gates. It is too early to know what support may be
required, but I expect we will be able to provide whatever support is
requested.
4. Senator Levin. Secretary Gates, I understand that Director of
National Intelligence McConnell and Secretary of Homeland Security
Chertoff have promised funding or support to the Project on National
Security Reform. Have you sought to use the cooperative agreement as
the mechanism for this assistance as well?
Secretary Gates. No. Neither agency has requested to do so.
Additionally, the current cooperative agreement with the Project on
National Security Reform, and its associated funding, was carried out
under section 1049 of the NDAA, which limits the amount that may be
expended to $3.0 million. Using the Cooperative Agreement, which is
directly tied to the funding prescribed by the NDAA, could limit the
amounts that other agencies might provide.
5. Senator Levin. Secretary Gates, what steps have you taken or do
you plan to take to gain assistance from other departments and agencies
for this effort?
Secretary Gates. This effort is being carried out at the direction
of Congress under Section 1049 of the NDAA, with an amount of $2.4
million appropriated for the project ($3.0 million authorized). This is
not a DOD initiative nor should it appear to be one if the
congressional intent of a non-partisan, independent study is to be met.
The Department thinks it inappropriate to seek additional funding or
support from other agencies or departments, none of whom were
authorized nor provided additional funding by Congress to support the
study. The Project on National Security Reform has been highly
encouraged to seek assistance from other potential private donors, any
department or agency of the U.S. Government, as well as from Congress.
6. Senator Levin. Secretary Gates, your policy office has estimated
that to make national security reform a reality will require $12 to $15
million. Have you included funding for this effort in your fiscal year
2009 budget? If not, why not?
Secretary Gates. I am not aware of an official DOD estimate on the
costs of national security reform. Given that such reform possibly
would entail more than just the DOD and likely will extend beyond the
Executive Branch, any inclusion of government-wide reform in the
Defense budget would be inappropriate. Currently, at the direction of
Congress, the Department is funding a study by the Project on National
Security Reform to examine the dimensions of the problem and possible
solutions. However, the study is due in the Fall and any discussion of
its recommendations, and the cost of implementing those
recommendations, would be premature at this time.
strategic arms reduction treaty
7. Senator Levin. Secretary Gates, the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START) will expire in December 2009. If that treaty is allowed
to expire, the DOD will no longer have access to certain Russian data
and vice versa. In addition, the START verification mechanisms on which
the Moscow Treaty relies will be lost. Do you believe that the START
should be extended?
Secretary Gates. Our goal is to maintain a credible deterrent at
the lowest possible level, consistent with our national security needs,
including our obligations to allies. To that end, the Department does
not want to extend START, a complex, Cold-War era agreement with
intrusive verification measures unsuited to our current relationship
with the Russian Federation and the future security environment.
Instead, we prefer to extend the Moscow Treaty limits of 1,700-2,200
operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads, and apply a set of
transparency and confidence-building measures, including data
exchanges, visits, exhibitions, telemetry exchanges, and activity
notifications, as a means to ensure mutual awareness and predictability
regarding Russian and U.S. strategic capabilities.
8. Senator Levin. Secretary Gates, what are the alternatives to
obtain the data and replace the verification mechanisms that would be
lost if it is not extended?
Secretary Gates. DOD supports a set of transparency and confidence-
building measures with Russia including data exchanges, visits,
exhibitions, telemetry exchanges, and activity notifications.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
iraqi refugees
9. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Gates, section 1248(c) of the Refugee
Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 requires the DOD to provide Congress with
information to be used to verify employment of Iraqi citizens and
nationals by the U.S. Government. The law also requires options for the
development of a unified, classified database of relevant employment
information that can be used to adjudicate refugee, asylum, special
immigrant visas, and other immigration claims. A report on employment
information and a report on a unified database, both dating back to
2003, are due to Congress by May 28, 2008.
What procedures have been established to conduct a comprehensive
review of DOD internal records and databases of Iraqi employees from
the past 5 years, and how is this same type of employment information
being gathered from Federal contractors, grantees, and other
organizations employing Iraqis in support of the United States?
Secretary Gates. With regard to the two sections, 1248 (c) and (d),
contained in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008, the Department is working
with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy on an appropriate data
call and an appropriate lead agency due to the broad nature of this
task, which requires the ideas and data from multiple Federal agencies.
10. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Gates, what options are under
consideration for establishing and managing a unified database on
Iraqis employed since 2003? How will consultations with the State
Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, Homeland
Security Department, and the Treasury Department be coordinated?
Secretary Gates. Section 1248(c) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008
requires the DOD, the Secretary of State, the Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development, the Secretary of
the Treasury, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to review internal
records and databases for information that can be used to verify Iraqi
nationals' employment. Part of verifying their employment in Iraq
involves reviewing internal records and databases to obtain information
from prime contractors and grantees who have performed work valued over
$25,000. Likewise, section 1248(d) requires the same Federal agencies
to submit a report to Congress highlighting the options examined to
establish such a database. Due to the broad nature of this task, which
requires data from multiple Federal agencies, the DOD is working with
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy on an appropriate data call
and an appropriate lead agency for this requirement.
The Department considers biometrics as one of many possible venues
to address this area.
Consistent with statute and policy governing the use of
personal identity information for non-U.S. persons, the near
real-time sharing and screening of identity data on foreign
persons of interest, to include data on employment, is a
critical priority for DOD. To that end, DOD has been
participating in interagency committees and working groups
designed to improve the interoperability of U.S. Government
identity data. DOD is evaluating the development of a federated
data architecture, governed by common standards, in which
relevant data can be queried and shared both within DOD and
across the interagency consistent with appropriate privacy and
legal guidelines. The current arrangement between DOD and the
Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Criminal Justice Information Services Division) allows such
seamless sharing of identity data between the DOD Automated
Biometrics Identification System and the FBI Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System.
With regard to how consultations with the Department of State,
USAID, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Treasury
will be coordinated:
DOD has been participating in interagency committees and
working groups designed to improve the interoperability of U.S.
Government biometric data. Notable among these activities is
the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on
Technology, Subcommittee on Identity Management and Biometrics.
Within its working groups, the executive agencies have
collaborated to develop government-wide standards agreements
and interoperability policies. DOD will consult with the other
executive agencies through this body, to determine the correct
structure for collaborating on future initiatives and to
develop options for achieving a unified data architecture that
will enable the seamless sharing of identity data across the
interagency.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
unfunded science and technology opportunities
11. Senator Reed. Secretary Gates, please provide a prioritized
list of science and technology (S&T) areas in which additional funding
beyond that requested in this budget request would be supportive of
defense missions and help address defense technology capability gaps.
Secretary Gates. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget of almost
$11.5 billion represents a robust investment in S&T, despite difficult
budgetary demands from the war on terror and anticipated higher energy
costs. We shifted funding to address capability gaps identified in the
2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and our increase in Basic
Research of $270 million, also focused on addressing those gaps, will
enhance the science and engineering personnel base and develop
innovative solutions.
laboratory personnel demonstration programs
12. Senator Reed. Secretary Gates, how does the DOD plan to utilize
the new authorities relating to the ongoing and highly successful
laboratory personnel demonstration programs included in the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2008?
Secretary Gates. DOD will utilize the new authority provided under
the act to ensure that the maximum benefit of the extant demonstrations
is afforded to each location affected by the legislation. We continue
to work with the Service laboratories to monitor use of new and
existing authorities.
13. Senator Reed. Secretary Gates, what is the process and schedule
planned to establish demonstration programs at the Natick Soldier
Center, Office of Naval Research (ONR), and Edgewood Chemical
Biological Center?
Secretary Gates. (from Army) - The previous DOD policy that allowed
for new laboratory demonstration projects to be approved only if they
provided for new ``interventions'' different from existing initiatives
at laboratories has been impacted by the recently passed legislative
initiatives contained in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008, sections 1106
and 1107. Natick is currently processing all necessary actions to
establish a laboratory personnel demonstration program with the current
fiscal year.
Secretary Gates. (from Navy) - As an alternative to the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rejected 2001 Lab Demo proposal, the ONR
has worked with Navy National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and Navy
Human Resources offices to propose a hybrid NSPS/Lab Demo system.
Based on a comparative analysis of the proposed 2001 Lab Demo and
features available under NSPS and other Lab Demos, ONR has modified the
proposed 2001 Lab Demonstration in the following ways:
(1) To eliminate features that have been overcome by current
Federal regulations or are not critical to recruiting and
retaining employees
(2) Design career tracks and pay bands to allow transition of
personnel between NSPS and the ONR Lab Demo program and to
facilitate an ONR transition to NSPS if that decision is made
later
(3) Retain Senior Scientific Technical Manager and
Contribution-based Compensation Systems
(4) Identify and implement features not previously considered
but are now important.
Examples include:
Revise Certain NSPS Pay Bands to Reflect Logical Career
Progression and Breaks
Change Maximum Pay for Band III to Executive Level IV plus 5
percent
Move from two Career Tracks in ONR Demo to six Career Tracks
Accelerate Developmental Compensation for Developmental
Positions Modified for all Career Tracks
Retain Scientific and Engineering Positions as Shortage
Category for Direct Hire
Retain Conversion-Out Rules
External Developmental Assignments
The Chief of Naval Research is briefing the proposed Lab Demo
personnel system up the Navy chain, and plans to brief OSD (Dr. David
Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness) by the end
of April.
international research and technology programs
14. Senator Reed. Secretary Gates, how does the DOD track the
research and technology capabilities of our global allies and
competitors?
Secretary Gates. There are a number of programs within the
Department that work in concert to track global research and
technology. Following the 2004 report by the National Academy of
Sciences, ``Avoiding Surprise in an Era of Global Technology
Advancement,'' both the Militarily Critical Technologies Program and
the Department Technical Intelligence Program have been focused to
systematically increase awareness on global technology. Several
efforts, including the S&T net assessments and the Military Critical
Technology List review process, assess comparative research and
technology capabilities of emerging S&T, commercial technology, and
military applications between the United States and its allies and
potential competitors.
These programs look at technologies from a threat perspective as
well as assessing the export control perspective. The Department uses a
team approach that relies upon subject matter experts from the
Services, Government, industry, and academia in more than 20 technology
areas. These experts also forecast downstream technologies and capture
them in a related Defense S&T List that we are currently updating and
expanding to address the global scope of S&T.
Additionally, the Services maintain S&T offices abroad in 10
countries that provide unique ``boots on the ground'' insights into
regional activities. This global presence of informed military S&T
experts helps ensure we stay abreast of developments in every corner of
the world to both avoid technological surprises and to seek out
opportunities for collaboration with our allies and coalition partners.
15. Senator Reed. Secretary Gates, how is that information used to
inform DOD investment decisions and the development of cooperative
research opportunities?
Secretary Gates. The Department assesses both the technology threat
and the opportunities from allied technology development for enhancing
existing and establishing new cooperative research programs. The
information gained from offices with international liaisons (e.g., ONR,
Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and Army Research Office) is
an important component of the defense strategic planning, requirements
generation, and acquisition processes of the Department. The Services
maintain technology scouting offices in 10 countries whose job is to
monitor and assess technology maturity and potential for U.S.
collaboration in and around the countries the offices are located
within. Where identified, and advantageous, the Department enters into
collaborative technology development agreements with our close allies.
We must use the best technology available worldwide to provide the best
capability to the Nation and an awareness of international S&T and
cooperation with our allies are vital parts of providing that
capability.
16. Senator Reed. Secretary Gates, are there any research or
technology areas of importance to DOD in which you feel that the United
States will not have a sufficient technical lead within the next 5 to
10 years to preserve future military superiority over any adversary?
Which technical areas? What is being done to address this issue?
Secretary Gates. The recent National Academy of Sciences report,
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America
for a Brighter Economic Future,'' highlighted some strategic national
challenges with respect to the number of scientists and engineers
(S&Es) being produced to meet the needs of the Nation. The growth in
S&Es in other countries compared to the United States results in a
competitive market place for discovery of new scientific phenomenon and
engineering. The production of new S&Es is growing faster in some
nations other than America. This leads to an increased risk of the
United States falling behind in technology areas of importance to DOD,
although we are not prepared to state that there are specific
technology areas that could result in a reduction of our operational
and technological advantage. However, the DOD does need to remain
engaged in understanding the technology developments in other nations
to continue to develop new technologies and capabilities. We also need
to remain engaged to reduce the possibility of technology surprise. To
address this challenge within the DOD, we have increased our overall
budget request in fiscal year 2009 by over 4 percent real growth for
all of S&T and over 16 percent for basic research compared to the
fiscal year 2008 budget request. This increased budget request for S&T,
particularly in early sciences, enhances our insight into emergent
technology areas. To guard against technology surprise in later
programs, we are also developing a tighter integration of technology
intelligence into our S&T planning process. These two actions should
safeguard the DOD from technology surprise.
technology prize authority
17. Senator Reed. Secretary Gates, each of the Services and the
elements of the Office of the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering (ODDRE), including the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), have the authority to award prizes of technological
achievement, as established in past NDAAs. What are the Services',
DARPA's, and ODDRE's plans for utilizing this authority for the
remainder of fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009?
Secretary Gates. The DARPA held the Urban Challenge on November 3,
2007, featuring autonomous ground vehicles conducting simulated
military supply missions in a mock urban area. First, second, and third
place winners were awarded a total of $3.5 million in cash prizes.
DARPA has no plans for prize competitions in fiscal year 2008 or fiscal
year 2009.
The ODDRE is sponsoring the Wearable Power Prize competition at
Twentynine Palms, CA, from September 22 through October 4, 2008. The
Wearable Power Prize competition was announced July 5, 2007, with the
goal of reducing the weight of power systems warfighters carry to
operate military equipment. Beginning September 22, 2008, 169
competitors will gather, test, and demonstrate wearable electric power
system prototypes that provide on average 20 watts of electric power
continuously for 96 hours, with peak operation up to 200 watts for
short periods, attach to a standard vest, and weigh 4 kg or less. First
place winner is awarded $1 million; second place, $500,000; and third
place, $250,000. See: http://www.dod.mil/ddre/prize for more details.
The Services have announced no plans to conduct prize competitions
in fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
iraq
18. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, last February, you testified
before this committee that the DOD was putting together ``a fairly
complete checklist or matrix'' that would give us the ability to rate
the Iraqi military and police forces. Today, with reduced violence
levels across the country, and Iraqi forces actively participating in
operations around Mosul, I expect a growing number of these forces have
met the grade. Yet recently, the decision has been made to put a freeze
on U.S. troop withdrawals beginning this summer.
What are some of the obstacles that remain in the training of these
Iraqi forces that prevents a continual and steady shifting of control
from U.S. forces to the Iraqis?
Secretary Gates. There has been no decision to freeze U.S. troop
withdrawals beginning this summer. After the final surge brigade
departs in July 2008, there will be a period of consolidation and
evaluation for a few weeks. After that period, the commanders will
reconsider the conditions on the ground and make a recommendation on
force levels accordingly.
The Iraqi security forces continue to develop its capabilities.
However, challenges remain. These include the development of logistical
and combat enablers and the lack of experienced leadership. Coalition
trainers are working closely with their Iraqi counterparts to address
these challenges.
19. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, you and others have suggested
that having timelines for troop withdrawals from Iraq is a mistake
because of the signal it sends to the enemy that they only have to hold
out so long in order to achieve victory. Yet, our entrance into the war
was based on the assumption that we would not be there for an
undetermined extended period.
If events on the ground dictate that it is necessary to maintain a
significant military presence in Iraq for the next 10 years, what are
the biggest operational and structural challenges that will need to be
overcome?
Secretary Gates. Our current force projections are based on a
reasonable estimate of the ground situation in the coming months. We
are pleased with the security progress that has been made in Iraq, but
the progress has not attained an irreversible momentum.
Our planning for future force levels is not based on timelines, but
on conditions on the ground. Any presence of U.S. forces in Iraq would
have to be agreed upon by the United States and Iraqi Governments.
joint strike fighter
20. Senator Akaka. Secretary Gates, a lot has been said about
funding today. It seems to me that we are facing a choice between
improving our ability to fight ongoing worldwide counterinsurgency
operations and investing in systems like the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
that improve the long-term ability of the American military to be
competitive in conventional warfare. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown
the limitations of technology. Given the increasing costs of
technology, operations, and personnel, what nature of conflict will the
U.S. military be best postured to handle in 20 years' time?
Secretary Gates. The future strategic environment is difficult to
predict, but will likely tend toward greater disorder and persistent
conflict. This unpredictability requires that the U.S. military be
postured to address a range of operations that includes overlapping
demands in conventional warfare, irregular warfare, disaster
assistance, and nation building.
My intent is to ensure the development of a force capability and
capacity that can deter, and failing that, defeat threats to our
Nation's security and the security of our vital interests. To
accomplish this, the Department will require significant resources to
not only reset and reconstitute our people and platforms due to the
toll of current operations, but also to revitalize the force to address
emerging threats.
I recognize that the resources devoted to the Department represent
a significant portion of Federal discretionary spending and there is a
limit to what our Nation can devote to national security. Nevertheless,
I consider that our future force is affordable and that the Nation
cannot afford the consequences of being unprepared.
joint operations
21. Senator Akaka. Admiral Mullen, the Air Force is standing up its
permanent Cyber Command in Louisiana later this year. Concerning roles
and missions, the Air Force is arguing that operations in cyberspace be
primarily the function of this branch of the military, given its
technology heavy assets. The Navy, however, already has a Network
Warfare Center. As an example of future joint operations, what steps
are being taken by DOD to ensure unity of effort and interoperability
among the Services' efforts?
Admiral Mullen. Every Service brings unique and valuable expertise
to operations in cyberspace that are critical to joint net-centric
operations. The Defense Information Systems Agency and U.S. Strategic
Command (STRATCOM) serve as operational seam managers, interacting with
the Service organizations to ensure our cyberspace activities achieve
interoperability, unity of effort, and economies of scale. The National
Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations Implementation Plan will
help to ensure we foster continued unity of effort and Service
interoperability in the Joint Force. This includes developing a joint
operational concept, exploring appropriate organizational constructs,
and clarifying command relationships to ultimately shape future
requirements leveraged and synchronized across all of the military
Services.
22. Senator Akaka. Admiral Mullen, what is being done to minimize
redundancy at all levels of joint operations?
Admiral Mullen. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) is
responsible for ensuring individual Service program requests support
the Chairman's guidance and contribute in a holistic manner to an
increase in overall capabilities. While some redundancy may be built
into any given capability, the JROC is responsible for ensuring that
future programs develop weapon systems and other capabilities that
combine across the warfare and command and control spectrum to enable
U.S. forces to carry out national tasking across a broad range of
mission sets.
troop readiness
23. Senator Akaka. Admiral Mullen, I am concerned about the
operations tempo facing our current forces in meeting the challenges of
Iraq's reconstruction efforts. It appears that as the situation begins
to improve on the ground in one area of responsibility (AOR), we must
shift forces into the other in a perpetual cycle, as we are now seeing
with the sending of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. I am
further concerned, and agree with your testimony, that this seemingly
endless cycle of operations between the two AORs leaves our military
thinly stretched and ill-prepared to handle another crisis should it
become necessary.
What plan is there to address these resource shortfalls, and how
will maintaining a large military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan
affect our ability to respond to other regions?
Admiral Mullen. The size, scale, and duration of operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly strained the Army and Marine Corps.
In order to ensure the highest level of readiness in our deploying
forces, those recently returned or between deployments have paid a
price. The impact of giving resourcing priority to the deployed force
is reflected in the degraded readiness reports of non-deployed units.
The most significant aspect of this lowered readiness in non-deployed
units is the increased risk we must assume in the event of an
unexpected contingency.
There are sufficient forces and equipment to respond to some
contingencies abroad but the readiness of those forces may result in
longer timelines and increased casualties in achieving strategic goals
and increased risk to mission success. In the case of another major
theater war, the Army would be unable to source sufficient forces to
meet all requirements.
Several initiatives underway help minimize the readiness impact on
non-deployed forces and maximize contingency readiness. Over the past 3
years, we have used the Global Force Management process to ensure the
deployment burden is balanced across the force through global sourcing
of units and in-lieu-of sourcing. However, this can do only so much in
managing our shortfalls. The fiscal year 2009 budget fully resources
our commitment to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps in the
base budget. This effort is essential in providing the strategic depth
necessary to improve our force rotation ratio and readiness of non-
deployed forces.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator E. Benjamin Nelson
defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
24. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary Gates, what is the fiscal year
2009 request and plan for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (DEPSCOR)?
Secretary Gates. The fiscal year 2009 request for the DEPSCOR is
$2.833 million. The Department plans to expend all funds appropriated
for this program in fiscal year 2009.
Section 239 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 granted the Department
more flexibility in the execution of the DEPSCOR program. Section 241
requires an independent evaluation of it by a defense Federally Funded
Research and Development Center. This evaluation is underway.
25. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary Gates, what is the status of
execution of the funds appropriated for the program in fiscal year 2007
and fiscal year 2008?
Secretary Gates. Under the DEPSCOR program in fiscal year 2007, the
DOD awarded $17 million to 13 academic institutions in 9 States to
perform research in science and engineering. Academic researchers in
Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee,
U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming were eligible
to receive awards in this competition.
In the fiscal year 2008 DEPSCOR cycle, proposals were received from
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCOR)
committees in the 23 eligible states by the closing date of October 26,
2007. The Services are making final award decisions now (announcement
expected before March 31, 2008) that will fund these State proposals up
to the fiscal year 2008 appropriated amount, $17.078 million.
26. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary Gates, how will the two
provisions relating to the program in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 be
reflected in the execution of the program's appropriated funds?
Secretary Gates. Section 239 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008
granted the Department more flexibility in the execution of the
DEPSCOR. We have used those authorities to evaluate specific proposals
in the fiscal year 2008 cycle. Section 241 requires an independent
evaluation of DEPSCOR by a defense Federally Funded Research and
Development Center. This evaluation is underway.
27. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary Gates, what is the status and
plan for DOD to comply with the study requirement in the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2008?
Secretary Gates. Section 241 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008
requires an independent evaluation of the program by a defense
Federally Funded Research and Development Center. This evaluation is
underway.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
future threats
28. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates, as the DOD struggles to balance
its spending priorities on future threats and current needs, why has
the DOD not done more to cull less efficient or effective weapons
systems from its own budget?
Secretary Gates. The Department is constantly challenged with
funding weapon system programs to combat conventional and
unconventional threats in a limited resource environment. As an
integral part of this exercise, the Department constantly evaluates the
effectiveness and efficiency of weapon systems currently in
development, production, and operation. The cancellation of the
Crusader and RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter programs, the significant
reduction in funding for Transformational Satellite System (TSAT), and
the recent restructuring of the Littoral Combat Ship and the C-5 RERP
programs provide examples of resource decisions necessary to balance
the Department's investment to meet current and future threats from
land, sea, air, and space.
congressional report
29. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates, in February 2007, you told this
committee about the positive steps that DOD was taking in assuring a
strong printed circuit board technology and industrial base as a result
of the study and issues identified by the National Research Council
(NRC) Committee on Manufacturing Trends in Printed Circuit Board
Technology report. This report identified printed circuit board
technology as critical in nearly every weapons system. You stated that
a report on this topic, which was mandated by the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2007, would go into detail on these positive steps. In October 2007,
your Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics told
the committee that this report would be coming over to Congress by the
end of November. To date, we have not received this report. What is the
status of the report? Why has it been delayed?
Secretary Gates. The report has been signed by the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness and copies
were provided to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. The
report recommends that the Navy be designated the Executive Agent for
Printed Circuit Board Technology. Preparation of this report required
the establishment of a Principal Response Team led by the Defense
Logistics Agency and Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division who
analyzed, evaluated, and commented on the findings and recommendations
contained in the NRC study. This evaluation and subsequent
recommendation took longer than anticipated resulting in the delay of
submission of the report to Congress.
hazardous substances
30. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates, it has come to my attention that
there are potential reliability issues that may result from the
European Unions (EU) Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) on
lead-free solders utilized in electronic assembly. The science seems to
indicate that if lead-free components were to enter the commercial
aircraft industry or U.S. military and our allies' defense systems
(high reliability electronic systems), severe reliability and potential
catastrophic failures might occur. What is the military doing to ensure
that lead-free and/or a mixture of leaded and lead-free components do
not get incorporated into high reliability, mission-critical electronic
systems?
Secretary Gates. The Department has four initiatives to meet these
challenges posed by RoHS to the Department's mission-critical
electronic systems.
1. The Defense Microelectronics Activity Office is participating in
a joint effort with our industrial partners (Electronic Lead-Free
Integrated Process Team) to minimize any disruption of the supply or
reliability of electronics. It focuses on commercial off-the-shelf
components and sub-assemblies.
2. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics,
and Technology has also undertaken a study to identify the occurrences
of lead-free electronics in weapon systems deemed a priority by the
Army. The National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence is
involved with both of these initiatives.
3. DOD's ODDRE and the Aerospace Industries Association of America
participate in meetings to inform stakeholders of upcoming research
needs and recommendations with regard to lead-free issues.
4. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment is conducting an enterprise-wide assessment to evaluate the
risks of changing global lead regulations and their potential impacts
on mission capability.
31. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates, given the unintended
consequences of the EU's RoHS legislation on lead-free solders and the
subsequent impact it had on military electronics, what mechanisms are
in place to deal with another pending EU regulation--Registration,
Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH)--to influence the
legislation, to establish policy and guidelines within DOD, and to
foster implementation should implementation be warranted?
Secretary Gates. REACH went into effect in July 2007 and is unique
in that it covers both chemicals and the products that contain
chemicals. The first date with possible implications for DOD's supply
chain is the registration deadline of December 1, 2008, as failure to
register certain materials by that date may result in the refusal or
the delay of these shipments to the EU.
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is compiling a list of chemicals
with known or potential regulatory consideration within the EU.
Following DLA's compilation of chemicals transported to/through the EU,
DLA will conduct a similar search to identify products of concern under
REACH, also known as `articles.'
REACH does allow for defense exemptions by member states. The
Department will have the burden of demonstrating the mission critical
nature of a material for which no safer alternative is commercially
available, without a reduction in performance and making its case to
the member state(s). The Department will continue to address other
potential effects of this legislation, including costs and potential
solutions.
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
32. Senator Bayh. Admiral Mullen, in your testimony, you noted
there is a significant shortfall in intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) sensors and processing infrastructure as
identified by combatant commanders in the field. Would you please
describe what kind of assets would address that shortfall?
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
33. Senator Bayh. Admiral Mullen, how will the Joint Chiefs of
Staff act to ensure that these shortfalls are properly defined and
described to Congress so that we can work with you in meeting that
need?
Admiral Mullen. The Joint Staff has directed U.S. STRATCOM to
develop a methodology and taxonomy to accurately capture combatant
command (COCOM) ISR requirements and associated ISR shortfalls. We will
use standard operational plans for testing scenarios to validate and
verify U.S. STRATCOM's process. In the meantime, the Joint Staff
has worked with the Air Force to produce and field MQ-9
Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk weapons systems at the maximum possible
rate, and accelerate the wide area airborne surveillance sensor.
Additionally, the Joint Staff is fully engaged and actively
participating in the Secretary of Defense's ISR Task Force.
Expectations for this task force are high and they are examining anew
all potential options to address shortfalls. Upon your request, my
staff stands ready to debrief Congress on results, findings, and
recommendations to solve pressing ISR shortfalls.
unmanned aerial vehicle
34. Senator Bayh. Admiral Mullen, why is it taking the Joint Chiefs
so long to develop a comprehensive unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) combat
air patrol (CAP) requirement?
Admiral Mullen. To answer the question of how many CAPs we need we
must first answer the underlying question of what battlefield effects
we need unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to accomplish and how are we
going leverage these effects as part of the broader ISR architecture.
To answer these questions the JROC has initiated two near-term efforts,
first the development of a comprehensive concept of operations (CONOPs)
for UAS that integrates the wide variety of UAS platform capabilities
in a unified approach, and second the development of an ISR force
sizing construct, based on existing operational plans, to help inform
future force mix analysis. Both of the efforts are scheduled to
complete by June 2008 to inform the Department's future UAS force mix
deliberations in advance of Program Objective Memorandum 2010 and the
QDR.
35. Senator Bayh. Admiral Mullen, are the Joint Chiefs any closer
to establishing intra-service management of medium to high altitude UAV
procurement and battlespace management?
Admiral Mullen. In September 2007, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics to establish a task force to coordinate critical UAS
acquisition issues and to develop a way ahead that will enhance
operations, enable interdependencies, and streamline acquisition of
UAS. This task force is achieving results and expects to combine the
Air Force Predator and Army Sky Warrior programs into a single
acquisition program in order to achieve common development,
procurement, sustainment, and training activities. Additionally, the
JROC will continue to coordinate the development of UAS training
activities and operational employment by the Services.
36. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, I understand
that the current JROC validated requirement for Predator UAVs stands at
21 CAPs. Further, I understand that this addresses only Central Command
and Special Operations Command priorities. I believe this number is not
only dated, but insufficient and lacks the true global requirement for
Predator and other theater-level UAVs to meet the ongoing shortfall in
ISR assets worldwide. When will this requirement for DOD-wide, theater-
level UAVs be finalized, and what measures will you take to ensure
requirements are allocated to make this dire need a reality?
Secretary Gates. The U.S. Army issues Shadow systems to its
individual Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) as organic equipment. BCTs are
in one of three phases (deployed, reset, and training). Deployed BCTs
have their organic Shadows with them, reset BCTs send their Shadows to
depot maintenance at the end of their deployment, and BCTs in training
are receiving their Shadows systems from depot maintenance to prepare
for deployment.
To send additional Shadow units from the training phase into
theater would necessitate shortening dwell for these personnel to less
than 1 year. Reducing dwell below 1 year is an unacceptable option. The
ISR Task Force, however, has identified three initiatives to increase
Shadow capacity in theater that do not impact dwell. The first
initiative sends contractors to theater along with Shadow equipment.
The contractors will man two orbits in support of BCTs, deploying in
early 2009.
The second initiative provides additional contractors in early 2009
to increase capacity at currently deployed Shadow launch sites.
The third initiative that the ISR Task Force is examining would
look to use the remaining Shadow equipment in garrison. The concept,
known as ``Shadow remote split operations,'' would use a satellite
relay to control Shadows remotely, just as Predator and Reaper systems
are controlled. The intent is to conduct an operational demonstration
of Shadow remote split operations in March 2009, with initial
operational deployment in December 2009.
Admiral Mullen. We recognize that a comprehensive review of UAS
requirements is necessary. To address this concern the JROC has
initiated two near-term efforts, first the development of a
comprehensive CONOPs for UAS that integrates the wide variety of UAS
platform capabilities in a unified approach, and second, the
development of an ISR force sizing construct, based on existing
operational plans, to help inform future force mix analysis. Both of
the efforts are scheduled to complete by June 2008 to inform the
Department's future UAS force mix deliberations in advance of Program
Objective Memorandum 2010 and the QDR.
While I recognize these actions are necessary to define future UAS
requirements, it is clear that we must act now to address current
operational deficiencies. As such, I am working to increase production
of MQ-1C Predator/Sky Warrior, MQ-9 Reaper, and RQ-4 Global Hawk to
their maximum production capacity at the earliest opportunity. The
Joint Staff will work closely with the Services to ensure these
critical enabling capabilities are fully resourced.
37. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, based on
ongoing operations, I also understand that the Air Force has committed
a significant portion, if not all, of its Predator combat capability to
the AOR, whereas the Army has chosen to only provide 33-45 percent of
its Shadow UAVs to the AOR. This leads me to believe that the remainder
is back home in garrison. In our current state of a shortage of full-
motion video and ISR assets in Iraq and Afghanistan, can you please
explain the disparity and rationale behind these employment decisions?
If this is indeed the case, what is being done to manage UAVs so they
can be more efficiently assigned to support combat missions?
Secretary Gates. The U.S. Army issues Shadow systems to its
individual BCTs as organic equipment. BCTs are in one of three phases
(deployed, reset, and training). Deployed BCTs have their organic
Shadows with them, reset BCTs send their Shadows to depot maintenance
at the end of their deployment, and BCTs in training are receiving
their Shadows systems from depot maintenance to prepare for deployment.
To send additional Shadow units from the training phase into
theater would necessitate shortening dwell for these personnel to less
than 1 year. Reducing dwell below 1 year is an unacceptable option. The
ISR Task Force, however, has identified three initiatives to increase
Shadow capacity in theater that do not impact dwell. The first
initiative sends contractors to theater along with Shadow equipment.
The contractors will man two orbits in support of BCTs, deploying in
early 2009. The second initiative provides additional contractors in
early 2009 to increase capacity at currently deployed Shadow launch
sites.
The third initiative that the ISR Task Force is examining would
look to use the remaining Shadow equipment in garrison. The concept,
known as ``Shadow remote split operations,'' would use a satellite
relay to control Shadows remotely, just as Predator and Reaper systems
are controlled. The intent is to conduct an operational demonstration
of Shadow remote split operations in March 2009, with initial
operational deployment in December 2009.
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
leadership
38. Senator Bayh. Admiral Mullen, in an impressive move, you have
taken several townhall meetings with mid-level officers and senior
enlisted servicemembers to better understand why the force has such
significant holes in some of its most important field leadership
positions. What are you finding?
Admiral Mullen. The most important thing I am finding is great
Americans that are committed and motivated to doing their part to
preserve the security of our Nation. The mission has been demanding,
but our All-Volunteer Force has completed every task they have been
asked to perform.
I have also heard from them and seen in their faces the wear and
tear of our current operational tempo. They are stretched and stressed.
Fifteen-month tours have been particularly arduous, and the recent
decision to reduce deployment lengths from 15 months to 12 months for
the Active Army is a very positive step. Additionally, I fully support
the goal our Secretary has established to work toward a 2-year dwell
time between deployments, when the mission allows it. This is a theme
that I have heard repeatedly from spouses and family members. Our
families right now are very fragile. The more predictability we can put
into our battle rhythm, the better for our servicemembers and their
families. The force is amazingly resilient but it has its limits.
Lastly, young officers express concern for their career paths. They
want to make sure they hit whatever the important career milestones are
(like the Captain's Career Course) to ensure they have a viable future.
These young men and women represent the ``best of the best'' in America
and in our military. We need to make sure we do all we can to retain
them and permit a little balance in their lives.
39. Senator Bayh. Admiral Mullen, in what ways have you tried to
increase retention for the military's best and brightest?
Admiral Mullen. The Service Secretaries and Chiefs use the full
spectrum of authorities given to them to sustain our All-Volunteer
Force. Whether it is the critical skill retention bonuses the Army used
for its mid-career force, or the late-career retention bonuses used to
keep our experienced Special Operations Forces, each Service
continuously monitors their force and applies these classic retention
tools. I would like to once again thank the Congress for providing
these authorities and making the necessary appropriations to give the
DOD the flexibility to attract and retain our Nation's sons and
daughters.
With over half of our servicemembers married, special attention for
family programs will also have an impact on retention decisions. The
President acknowledged the service and sacrifice of our families by
introducing new programs during his 2008 State-of-the-Union Address.
These initiatives focused on transferring unused education benefits to
family members, increasing accessibility to quality child care, and
providing opportunities for spouses of military members to receive
hiring preference so they can maintain successful careers while
supporting the mobile lifestyle the military entails. Support from
Congress will be needed to advance many aspects of these programs.
Another way we can all help with retention is to keep telling the
American public of the great performance of our servicemembers.
Whenever I hear an account of visits to the field, be it by military
leaders or elected officials, the common thread is they are impressed
with the courageous men and women wearing the uniform. Their selfless
dedication should be held up as a true icon of American ideals; and
along with this recognition will be an even greater boost to morale and
ultimately retention.
Finally, reducing deployment lengths from 15 to 12 months for our
Active-Duty Army, working towards a dwell ratio of 2:1 (2 years at home
for every 1 year deployed), a robust reenlistment bonus program,
ensuring we are ``listening'' to their needs, expanding the size of the
Army and Marine Corps, and success in our missions all contribute to
improved retention. And our current retention numbers are very good and
have been such since 2001.
40. Senator Bayh. Admiral Mullen, how effective are the cash
bonuses you are now offering?
Admiral Mullen. The short answer is very effective and very useful.
The Department's recruiting success and favorable retention rates are a
testament to the Services executing their bonus programs. It is
essential that all recruiting and retention incentives remain in place
and funded. These incentives are vital to attracting and retaining the
right people with the right skills. As an example, Congress increased
the accession bonuses for health care professionals in this year's
authorization so the Department could better compete with attracting
people in this tough niche market. As the Service Personnel Chiefs
recently stated in testimony before your Subcommittee on Personnel,
they are starting to see some positive results from this increased
authority, but the challenge is far from over. We can never relax our
efforts when it comes to recruiting and retention because the situation
continues to change. Thank you for your continued support by giving the
authority and flexibility to the Services to respond to changing
dynamics.
41. Senator Bayh. Admiral Mullen, what, other than money, have you
considered providing these young men and women who are so integral to
the future of our Armed Forces?
Admiral Mullen. Improving the quality of life for all
servicemembers and their families is a top priority of every leader
within the DOD. This manifests itself in many ways other than giving
money directly to our people. Commitments to improving our
installations in the form of housing, child care, family services, and
morale/welfare/recreation programs are just a few examples of how we
want to create a favorable life for military members.
Another major non-monetary area I have been focusing on is to
provide stability and predictability in our deployment tempo. Reducing
the deployment length from 15 months is a very positive change. In
addition to reducing the length, the Secretary of Defense has also
stated goals for the amount of dwell time personnel will have between
deployments. The planned growth of our ground forces will help us
achieve results. I believe any improvements accomplished in these areas
will be very well-received by our servicemembers.
Finally, as the President indicated in his State-of-the-Union
Address, there are some initiatives being developed that will focus on
the unsung heroes of our military force, our families. I have
repeatedly stated our families also serve, and we as a Nation owe them
a great deal of respect and praise. I support the President's
initiatives to enhance the opportunities for spouses to pursue their
own careers by offering them hiring preferences, improving child care
availability, and allowing Montgomery GI Bill education benefits to be
transferred to spouses and children.
deployment
42. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the fiscal
year 2009 budget notes that the DOD has a goal of significantly
increasing dwell time for our ground forces. For example, an Army BCT
can now reasonably assume only a year at their home station for every
15 months deployed. You both mention goals of 24 months at home for
every 12 deployed. However, the Army will not have 48 deployable BCT
until 2012. Given that we only have 42 deployable BCTs today, what
other assumptions is the DOD making when publicly stating these goals?
Secretary Gates. First, I should note that with our ``grow the Army
plan,'' we should achieve 48 deployable Active Army BCTs by fiscal year
2011, not fiscal year 2012. Second, the operational tempo of our forces
is largely determined by the situation on the ground. The Department is
working to increase dwell time. Currently, the United States Central
Command Commander plans to reduce the number of deployed BCTs to 15 by
July of this year. This will allow the Army to limit deployments to 1
year in theater with at least that same amount of time at home. This
and we currently have 28 Army BCTs in the Reserve component. The
Reserve component contributes, too.
Admiral Mullen. I appreciate your question and concern for our
forces and their families. The Army will have 48 deployable BCTs at the
end of fiscal year 2011 and currently has 40 deployable BCTs, including
the brigade forward deployed to the ROK. The Army currently has 43
BCTs, but three are unavailable; two are transforming and one is
organized as a transition training unit.
Secretary Gates and I share your concern and are closely monitoring
deployment-to-dwell ratios for our forces. We want to reiterate that we
have a goal of a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio for our forces--
especially our ground forces, committed around the world. This would be
24 months at home for 12 months deployed for an Army BCT and 14 months
at home for 7 months deployed for a USMC unit.
When defining our goals, we include the following force commitments
which affect our deployment-to-dwell ratio: a forward deployed Army BCT
in the ROK, forces for global and domestic reaction forces, and Marine
Expeditionary Units afloat around the world.
Current demands on ground forces do not allow us to realize our 1:2
deployment-to-dwell goal. We are working toward this goal and are
currently reducing force structure in Iraq from 20 to a planned level
of 15 BCTs. We are currently at 1:1 with the recent decision to reduce
the length of Active-Duty Army deployments from 15 to 12 months
starting in August 2008
1:2 BLUF: Given a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell, we can provide CENTCOM
with 11 U.S. Army Active component BCTs and 6 Marine Corps Active
component Infantry Battalions in June 2009 for combat, SECFOR and MEU
requirements.
The United States will have 42 deployable BCTs available
generating 14 BCTs for worldwide commitments. Given the ROK,
GRF, CCMRF and a RIP/TOA factor, the Army can generate 11 BCTs
for CENTCOM. The Marine Corps will have 27 deployable infantry
battalions generating 9 for worldwide rotational commitments.
Given the two non-CENTCOM MEU requirements and a RIP/TOA
factor, the Marine Corps can generate six infantry battalions
for CENTCOM MEU, SECFOR and combat forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
We can get the force to 1:2 in June 2009 given the following
assumptions:
We continue the drawdown in Iraq to 15 BCT/RCTs as
planned.
We reduce Iraq to 10 Active component BCTs/RCTs by
not replacing 5 BCT/RCTs by June 2009. (4 United States
BCTs and 1 RCT)
Afghanistan maintains two United States BCTs for
combat operations.
Marine Corps maintains a 1.0 CENTCOM MEU presence.
We continue worldwide commitments: USA-ROK, GRF and
CCMRF; Marine Corps - 2 non-CENTCOM MEUs.
Note: This COA is devoid of any tactical
considerations and assumes conditions on the ground in
Iraq would support the COA.
43. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, when will
soldiers and their families be able to expect a more predictable and
tenable operations tempo and what milestones have to be reached in
order to get there?
Secretary Gates. The operational tempo of our forces is largely
determined by the situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. In
Iraq, the force plus-up has been successful in reducing violence and
enabling the conditions for a secure and stable Iraqi Government. If
this situation continues, and we believe it will, the United States
Central Command Commander plans to reduce the number of BCTs to 15 by
July of this year. This force drawdown will allow the Army to limit
deployments to 1 year in theater with at least that same amount of time
at home. Although this does not yet achieve our goal of 2 years at home
for every year deployed, the reduced deployment time does ease the
burden on our servicemembers and their families.
Admiral Mullen. In Spring 2008, the President announced that in
August 2008, we would return to 12-month deployments. That is the first
step to ensuring a more predictable, uniform deployment rotation cycle.
However, that is also dependent on the requirements of the combatant
commanders and the assessment of the theater commanders. Given the
complex variables involved in Iraq, there is simply no way of setting a
series of benchmarks which would dictate a predictable drawdown in
ground forces.
As the situation in Iraq improves, the U.S. military will draw down
Operation Iraqi Forces as conditions warrant. As forces become
available, requirements in Afghanistan will be filled. As forces draw
down even further in Iraq, the U.S. military will reset and
reconstitute forces at every opportunity in order to improve the health
of the force and quality of life.
Services are taking steps to increase the dwell time for our
forces. The Army will increase by five BCTs over the next 3 years. They
are also readjusting deployment timelines and in some cases curtailing
units to more equitably distribute boots-on-the-ground/dwell across the
force. By first quarter fiscal year 2009, the Marine Corps will
complete the fielding of the third of three new infantry battalions
added to the force over the past 18 months. We continue to fund growth
for specific limited supply and high demand capabilities to include
Military Police, Civil Affairs, Engineers, and Electronic Warfare
assets.
It is our intent that as soon as possible, we will transition to a
deployment-to-dwell ratio of greater than 1:1, with the eventual goal
of 1:2 for Active-Duty Forces and mobilization-to-demobilization ratio
of 1:5 for Reserve component personnel.
stability operations
44. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, I understand
that the DOD now has an officer in place for planning for stability
operations. He has publicly stated that for cost reasons alone, the
military cannot design specialized forces to do nothing but stability
operations. What is that cost?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. DODD 3000.05, Military Support
for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR)
Operations defines stability operations as military and civilian
activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to
establish or maintain order in States and regions. NSPD-44 established
the State Department as lead implementation agency for reconstruction
and stabilization operations with DOD military organizations supporting
applicable civilian agencies. As currently configured, our military
forces are fully capable of supporting SSTR operations without
designing specialized stability operation forces whose attributes would
be marginalized across other military activities. There is inherent
flexibility associated with current General Purpose Force constructs
that enable units to task organize to provide a broad spectrum of
support. Because of our force requirements today and what we project
for in the future require full spectrum capability, we are not costing
a specialized stability operations force. Rather, we are working with
the Services and COCOMs, and our State Department counterparts, to
identify the `full range' of capabilities required to conduct and
support stability operations and their implications on doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel,
and facilities (DOTMLPF).
45. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what is the
solution the DOD will instead use?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. DOD's solution combines the
increased end strength of the Army and Marine Corps, greater global
train and equip authorities, and partnerships with other departments
such as the State Department in using security and stabilization
assistance authorities to improve our stability operations effort.
COCOMs are working to identify the `full range' of requirements
required for stability operations. In addition, the military
departments are working to identify capabilities to meet these
requirements and their implications on DOTMLPF.
46. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, how viable is
that solution and what are its risks?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. It is viable so long as we
continue to enhance our interagency and foreign partner capacity and
capability to conduct stability operations. To that end, it is crucial
that DOD authorities to conduct train and equip missions, improve the
commander's access and global utility of critical resources like those
found in Commander's Emergency Response Program. Continued legislative
support of authorities such as NDAA for Fiscal Year 2006, section 1206,
and NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008, section 1210, is critical to DOD's
stability operations solution. The associated risk with this solution
would be realized if the stability operations burden could not be
distributed across the whole of government and foreign partners and
rest solely on the uniformed Services.
47. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what other
solutions were considered but rejected?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The security demands of today
and those predicted for our future missions call for a full spectrum
force, but single force mastery of all global situations comes with too
many risks and costs. We considered this solution but as operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan are making clear, stabilization and reconstruction
operations are a civilian-military effort. Success in stability
operations requires partnerships with both our interagency and foreign
partners to create the enduring conditions that will prevent a country
from sliding back to instability. Therefore we have focused on building
the right force for the full spectrum of missions, while simultaneously
advocating authorities, relationships, and activities that enhance our
partner's capacity and capability.
wounded warrior
48. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, you both note
the importance of caring for America's wounded warriors in your
testimony. I also believe that after lifetimes of service to your
Nation, you fully understand the moral imperative of caring for those
who serve our Nation in uniform. How is DOD proceeding with
implementing the Dole-Shalala Commission recommendations? As I
understand, these remain unfunded in this year's budget.
Secretary Gates. The DOD/Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Wounded, Ill, and Injured (WII) Senior Oversight Committee (SOC) meets
regularly to identify immediate corrective actions, and to review and
implement recommendations of the external reviews, including the Dole-
Shalala Commission. We continue to implement recommended changes
through the use of policy and existing authorities. Specifically, we
have endeavored to improve the Disability Evaluation System,
established a Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), established the Federal Recovery
Coordination Program, improved datasharing between the DOD and VA,
developed medical facility inspection standards, and improved delivery
of pay and benefits. The core recommendation of the Dole-Shalala
Commission centers on the concept of taking DOD out of the disability
rating business so that DOD can focus on the fit or unfit
determination, streamlining the transition from servicemember to
veteran. Thus far, Congress has declined to act on that recommendation.
We believe that the greatest improvement to the long-term care and
support of America's wounded warriors and veterans will come from
enactment of the provisions recommended by Dole-Shalala. We have, thus,
positioned ourselves to implement these provisions and continue our
progress in providing world-class support to our warriors and veterans
while allowing our two Departments to focus on our respective core
missions. Immediate budgetary needs will be met by reprogrammings, or a
budget amendment, if necessary.
Admiral Mullen. Implementation of the Dole-Shalala Commission
recommendations is going well. Thirty-five of the 40 recommendations
are on track for completion with 16 complete.
There are five commission recommendations that require changes in
legislation and advances in medical research to complete. Four require
additional changes in legislation to substantially restructure the
disability and compensation system, expand benefits to families, and
provide lifetime healthcare benefits for combat-injured. Improving
prevention and care for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and TBI
will require more medical research along with additional mental health
professionals, which we are pursuing. The Services and Senior Oversight
Council (SOC) Overarching Integrated Product Teams (OIPT) are working
all of these recommendations.
Most wounded warrior issues are funded between the supplemental and
the NDAA. Improving data collaboration between DOD/VA is currently
funded from their budgets. All future programs for the various lines of
action are not funded except through the supplemental. The DOD and the
Services are determining future needs and will work to add them to the
program.
49. Senator Bayh. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, how is the
DOD working with the individual Services, such as the Army, to ensure
that their own plans are well thought out and coordinated with other
wounded warrior initiatives?
Secretary Gates. The exchange of information on, and the
coordination of, plans and programs--particularly those related to the
care of WII servicemembers and their families, is being conducted
primarily through the DOD/VA joint SOC, which work closely with the
military Services.
For example, the SOC case/care management representatives meet
weekly with subject matter experts and program representatives from the
military Services to identify practices and share ``lessons learned''
in areas such as:
Care management across medical and non-medical facilities and
sites
Preplanning for transitions across medical facilities and
sites
Family support
Joint training and standards for uniform identification,
notification, and tracking of PTSD and mental health issues
Workload modeling
Personnel requirements
In addition, the SOC conducts joint collaborative exercises with
the military Services and VA Health Administration and Benefits
Administration representatives to closely review the process of care,
management, and transition of WII servicemembers and their families.
Admiral Mullen. The Services are working exceptionally hard to
support our wounded, injured, and ill servicemembers. They have made
significant improvements in their disability evaluation processes, case
management practices, care for wounded with TBI and PTSD, facilities,
and benefits. But, there is still more that can be done. The Joint
Staff works with the Services in several ways to monitor and assist
with their wounded warrior initiatives. We look at all Services
activities and try to help identify what works and what needs
improvement.
The Joint Staff participates in the Secretary of Defense SOC for
wounded warriors. The SOC reviews progress reported by the OSD and the
Services in eight lines of action that consolidate the initiatives for
improving care and support for our wounded, injured, and ill
servicemembers.
As I travel, I hold townhall meetings with combat wounded and their
families and collect their issues and concerns. I then provide them to
the Services to address. There are some special concerns that are often
raised in these sessions:
1. The Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board
process is too bureaucratic and too long.
2. We have too few mental health professionals.
3. There are too many seams between the DOD and the VA.
4. There is not enough emphasis on long-term assistance for
injured personnel and their families.
5. There is a perception that too often servicemembers'
injuries are misdiagnosed.
My Special Assistant for Returning Warriors travels around the
world assisting me in accurately assessing ground truth for all
wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers. She marshals Legislative
Affairs, Legal Assistance, VA, and medical subject matter experts along
with Veteran Service Organizations and their respective resources to
enhance my ability to deliver timely and necessary positive solutions
for our Nation's returning warriors and their families. These efforts
ultimately lift the morale of servicemembers and ensure a continuing
legacy of exceptional troop care.
We must help those who have been injured, and their families, be
all they can be in the future. We need to have a continuum of care and
no seams between DOD, the VA, and local communities throughout our
country so that those who have sacrificed so much can achieve the
American Dream.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
congressional oversight of security agreements with iraq
50. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, when the U.S.-Iraq
Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation was made
public in November, Lieutenant General Lute, the President's Deputy
National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, stated that the
administration did not anticipate seeking congressional approval or
even formal congressional input on an agreement that would
institutionalize our long-term security, political, and economic
relationship with Iraq. I was astonished, frankly, that the
administration would complete such a significant agreement, an
agreement of great long-term importance for American foreign and
national security policy that could tie the hands of the next President
with respect to Iraq, without bringing it to Congress for review and
consent. Do you believe that Congress has an important role to play in
overseeing any long-term American military commitment to Iraq?
Secretary Gates. In the Declaration of Principles signed by
President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki in November, the United States
and Iraq agreed to negotiate bilateral arrangements on the security,
political, economic, and cultural components of that relationship. Such
a framework will set the stage for a normalized bilateral relationship
between the United States and Iraq as two fully sovereign states, and
would not make any security commitment to Iraq or commit the incoming
President or any future President to any particular course of action
with respect to troop levels, military mission, or assistance to Iraq.
We intend to keep Congress apprised of the negotiation process as
we proceed. I have instructed my staff to brief Members of Congress and
their respective committees on these negotiations; these efforts have
already begun. We will continue to consult with Congress as we proceed
in these negotiations.
51. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, one objection I have
frequently heard to those of us who believe that Congress must have a
say in this process is that the agreement is likely to be nothing more
than a standard status-of-forces agreement (SOFA), which we have with
many other nations around the world and which permits us to station
American servicemen and women in foreign countries. I believe that any
agreement with Iraq that commits the United States to help defend Iraq
against both internal and external threats goes significantly farther
in terms of our national security than a standard SOFA. Do you agree
that any long-term security, political, and economic agreement between
the United States and Iraq should be approved by Congress?
Secretary Gates. To ensure that U.S. forces in Iraq are provided
the legal protections and authorities they need absent the U.N.
Security Council mandate they are presently operating under, the United
States will seek to negotiate a SOFA with Iraq. The SOFA will be
similar to other SOFAs the United States has negotiated with countries
around the world, taking into account the particular circumstances and
requirements for our forces in Iraq, and will be a part of the overall
framework of the relationship with Iraq.
Neither the SOFA nor any other arrangement contemplated with Iraq
would bind the United States to any security commitments. Such
documents will not bind the United States to take military action or
expend funds in support of Iraq.
Consistent with longstanding U.S. past practice on SOFAs, we expect
that the SOFA with Iraq would be concluded as an executive agreement.
We do not anticipate that the terms of this SOFA will require
congressional assent.
52. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, do we currently have SOFAs
with any country with an ongoing civil war?
Secretary Gates. The DOD does not normally characterize a
particular conflict, unrest, or violence as a ``civil war.'' However,
the Department has enduring SOFAs with countries that are experiencing,
or have experienced, persistent conflict.
long-term security agreement with iraq - permanent bases
53. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, when the U.S.-Iraq
Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation was announced
in November, I was deeply disappointed to learn that it did not
explicitly rule out the possibility that the United States would seek
or maintain permanent bases in Iraq, nor did it make any reference to
the redeployment of American troops out of Iraq.
At the time the Declaration of Principles was announced, I wrote to
the President about the importance of making clear to the Iraqi
political leadership that we will not be there to referee their civil
war forever. In my letter I made clear to the President my view that
the United States should neither seek nor maintain permanent bases in
Iraq. Unfortunately, what I'm hearing now from the administration is
not at all clear. On the one hand, the White House spokeswoman has been
quoted as saying that we won't seek permanent bases in Iraq, and you
have said that ``we have no interest in permanent bases.'' On the other
hand, the President last week attempted to circumvent the will of
Congress by issuing a signing statement to accompany the NDAA,
effectively saying that he didn't agree with the provision in the
legislation that would bar funding for the establishment of permanent
U.S. military bases in Iraq.
Can you clarify for me, which is it?
Secretary Gates. In a SOFA with Iraq, the United States would be
seeking access to facilities in Iraq that support the activities that
promote our mutual goals and interests. This provision would not be
different from similar provisions we have negotiated in SOFAs with
other countries around the world.
Any agreement with Iraq would not obligate the United States to
maintain a presence or set U.S. forces levels in Iraq. Rather, the SOFA
would seek to ensure that the United States has the necessary access to
Iraqi facilities and areas to conduct its mission in the mutual
security interests of both Iraq and the United States. Furthermore,
decisions on U.S. force levels in Iraq are U.S. decisions and are not
affected by a SOFA. No agreement with Iraq would commit the United
States to maintaining any specific number of forces.
54. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, will the administration be
clear with the American people, with the Iraqi people, and with the
Iraqi political leadership that we will neither seek nor maintain
permanent bases in Iraq?
Secretary Gates. The United States is not seeking to establish or
maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
equipping african union/united nations hybrid operation in darfur
mission
55. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, there has been great concern
expressed over the capacity of the African Union/United Nations Hybrid
Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) to protect civilians there. As you know,
the UNAMID mission met its December 31 deadline for assuming command of
peacekeeping operations in Darfur. As you also are no doubt aware, the
UNAMID mission had not met expectations in terms of deployed troop
levels on December 31, and remains understrength at approximately 9,065
troops, police, and personnel, far below the expected December 31 level
of 12,000, and less than a third of its full complement of just over
31,000 troops, police, and personnel. In addition to lacking troops,
UNAMID also lacks the equipment and resources necessary to succeed,
such as 18 transport and at least 6 attack helicopters.
Noting that Congress has provided funding expressly for the purpose
of increasing the level and tempo of U.S. efforts to bilaterally train
and equip some of these additional African battalions, what is the
current status of these U.S. efforts vis-a-vis Africa Contingency
Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA) and other programs?
Secretary Gates. Between June 2005 and March 2008, the ACOTA
program will have provided $17,365,477 worth of training to AMIS and
UNAMID-bound peacekeepers. ACOTA-trained units from Rwanda, Nigeria,
South Africa, and Senegal formed the backbone of the AMIS mission, and
continue to serve in Darfur now that the mission has transitioned to
UNAMID. The ACOTA program has trained all of the infantry battalions
from sub-Saharan Africa that are planning to deploy to UNAMID in 2008,
including units from Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Senegal,
and Tanzania.
Furthermore, the Department of State will provide units deploying
in 2008 with about $100 million worth of heavy equipment using fiscal
year 2007 Sudan supplemental funds. This equipment will enhance the
ACOTA-trained battalions, each consisting of at least 800 peacekeepers,
and include armored personnel carriers, cargo trucks, maintenance and
engineering vehicles, generators, field hospitals, and water
purification systems. The State Department will award a contract in the
next few weeks to provide this equipment, as well as new equipment
training and spare parts, to all of the battalions expecting to deploy
in 2008. The equipment will be shipped directly to each country to be
transported to Darfur along with the battalion as they are deployed by
the U.N. This equipment will enable each battalion to meet the U.N.'s
standards for UNAMID infantry battalions.
56. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, has the DOD made efforts to
elicit similar training and equipping commitments from allies who enjoy
longstanding bilateral military relationships with other committed
African troop contributors?
Secretary Gates. The DOD has been working with the State Department
to elicit training and equipping commitments similar to those the U.S.
government is making to African troop contributing nations.
Furthermore, the Department is working with our allies in other areas,
such as providing pre-deployment planning and strategic transportation
for deploying or rotating troop contingents. We are also encouraging
donor countries to maintain their level of support over a longer period
of time than originally envisioned and reinforcing State Department
efforts to mobilize donors to satisfy emerging support requirements.
Finally, DOD has helped the State Department identify countries that
possess specialized equipment that might meet a critical operational
need, such as transport and attack helicopters required to support the
U.N. mission in Darfur.
57. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, has the DOD made efforts to
secure the contribution of helicopters from allies for the UNAMID
mission?
Secretary Gates. Yes, in concert with the Department of State's
efforts, the DOD has taken a number of steps to secure the contribution
of helicopters for the UNAMID.
For example, the Department has worked closely with the U.N.
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) to solicit helicopter
commitments from the international community. The U.N. rejected offers
from potential contributors based on their pre-established helicopter
specification criteria. In partnership with the State Department, DOD
worked with U.N. DPKO to modify current UNAMID helicopter
specifications to accept helicopters that could fill the transportation
gap that currently exists in UNAMID.
We are now encouraging U.N. DPKO to reconsider previous offers from
Jordan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Egypt. Further, DOD is currently
conducting an assessment of 72 countries possessing helicopters that
meet U.N. specifications to determine which nations might be willing to
contribute. We have recently secured an offer from Ethiopia for four
attack helicopters, which has been accepted by the U.N. DOD has
partnered with the State Department to encourage the Government of
Ukraine to contribute up to nine attack helicopters presently deployed
to the U.N. Mission in Liberia and to consider leasing options
involving private Ukrainian companies.
africa command and sudan
58. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, noting that U.S. Africa
Command (AFRICOM) is scheduled to reach full operational capacity this
year, and that it will take on additional non-combat responsibilities
that until now have fallen outside the realm of the DOD, do you foresee
the U.S. military in general, and AFRICOM in particular, playing a
larger role in Sudan? If so, how?
Secretary Gates. AFRICOM is designed to better enable the DOD to
fulfill its missions in concert with other elements of the U.S.
Government and African partners. The Department is already supporting
U.S. initiatives in Sudan, such as the Darfur Peace Agreement and the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement. As AFRICOM reaches full operational
capacity, it will better situate DOD to support the State Department's
lead in advancing peace and stability in Sudan.
59. Senator Clinton. Secretary Gates, more generally, what positive
and negative reactions has the U.S. military received during
consultations with African leaders on the role AFRICOM will play on the
continent?
Secretary Gates. With very few exceptions, African leaders have
expressed strong support for DOD's engagement with African militaries.
Negative depictions of AFRICOM in the international press have, in some
instances, perpetuated misconceptions about AFRICOM's future presence
on the continent. We believe, however, that as AFRICOM builds a
reputation for adding value through improved security cooperation with
African partners, many of these negative opinions will dissipate. In
fact, we are already seeing some positive signs in this regard as more
African leaders become informed about the true nature of the command.
Many African governments and militaries see AFRICOM as a potential
advocate for African security priorities within the DOD. They have
partnered with us on security assistance programs over the years and
understand the rationale for the command.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
base realignment and closure
60. Senator Pryor. Secretary Gates, I'm sure you are aware that the
DOD has the authority to transfer real property to community
redevelopment organizations at no cost if those communities agree to
reinvest land sales and leasing revenues back into job creation and
infrastructure development. It would be my hope that the DOD's disposal
plans for these closing installations balances both public auctions
with these no cost and other public benefit transfers. We have many
financial challenges in executing Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
projects, but it is important to me that communities are not left
without resources to cope with the economic recovery they face and some
of this property should be considered for open space and other
important public uses. Can you assure me that the DOD will implement a
balanced approach to property disposal and grant broad deference to
community reuse plans the way the law intended?
Secretary Gates. The Department's policy is to work in close
collaboration with affected communities throughout the closure,
disposal, and redevelopment process. The Department takes great care to
ensure Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs) have information on
surplus property for the community's consideration in their formulation
of a redevelopment plan. The Department has an array of legal
authorities by which to transfer property on closed or realigned
installations, ranging from those that may be at no cost or discounted
consideration to those that yield fair market value to the Department,
to be responsive to the Department's BRAC and community redevelopment
needs. The military departments work closely with affected LRAs to
tailor disposal actions that consider local circumstances. In disposing
of surplus property, the Department is careful to not preclude any
disposal method until a redevelopment plan is completed.
61. Senator Pryor. Secretary Gates, regarding BRAC, it is my
understanding that the Army is following the letter of the law and the
recommendations of the BRAC committee. Are you aware if this is
occurring or true?
Secretary Gates. The Army, as well as the other military department
and defense agencies, are following the BRAC law. The Department
reviews each recommendation implementation plan twice annually to
ensure that it is in compliance with the BRAC law. Each of those
reviews provides an opportunity to direct corrective action as needed.
Additionally, the OSD Office of the General Counsel has been a key
player in reviewing these plans to ensure that they are legally
sufficient and to verify that the Department is meeting its legal
obligations.
62. Senator Pryor. Secretary Gates, what would you do if you found
out the BRAC recommendations were not being followed?
Secretary Gates. I would take action to ensure we meet our legal
obligation. The Department reviews each recommendation implementation
plan twice annually to ensure that it is in compliance with the BRAC
law. Each of those reviews provides an opportunity to direct corrective
action. Additionally, the OSD Office of the General Counsel has been a
key player in reviewing these plans to ensure that they are legally
sufficient and to verify that the Department is meeting its legal
obligations.
procurement
63. Senator Pryor. Secretary Gates, the Marine Corps has no
procurement of the M-18 family of smoke grenades and is utilizing the
Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) program to modernize the M-18. In
October 2006 the Marine Corps published a Sources Sought announcement
in Federal Business Opportunities for the procurement of M-18s and
plans to issue a Request for Proposal (RfP) at an undetermined time
this year. The Marine Corps' departure from the procurement of these
grenades, which are manufactured at the Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA) in
Arkansas, is a great concern to me, especially because the PBA has had
a long and distinguished tradition of producing quality M-18 smoke
grenades for the military for the past 65 years.
The fiscal year 2009 defense budget shows a decrease in spending on
grenades (all types). Procurement for the Navy and Marine Corps, for
example, decreased from $59.6 million to $39 million from levels
in fiscal year 2008. Although the M-18 smoke grenade is part of
a family of grenades with the same line number, the decrease in
procurement coupled with that of the Marine Corps will have a
significant impact on the industrial base at PBA (10 percent in lost
revenue). I would consider this a very high risk category when making a
section 806 determination to the risk on the national technology and
industrial base.
Are you aware of the Marine Corps' decision to procure M-18s
outside of the Arsenal Act and why is the military jeopardizing the
industrial base at PBA, ignoring the Arsenal Act, and moving away from
this very important procurement for the warfighter?
Secretary Gates. It is our intent, utilizing the Foreign
Comparative Test (FCT) program, to seek alternatives to the current,
legacy M-18 series smoke grenade. The design of some smoke grenades
pre-dates the Vietnam conflict, and our modernization effort is one
that can be expected in any munitions lifecycle, particularly one of
this age. The smoke grenade modernization effort will: (1) increase
performance; (2) provide equal or greater smoke duration; and (3)
provide a safer flame reduced initiation system that will assist in the
prevention of accidental fires, all at a competitive cost. The intent
of this new program is to achieve a capability that advances the
obscurant capabilities of all Services, across DOD. This effort is
being conducted jointly with the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army.
64. Senator Pryor. Secretary Gates, last year Senator McCaskill and
I introduced legislation to keep the C-27J a joint initiative between
the Army and the Air Force. $156 million was allocated to the Army to
begin the procurement of four aircraft in fiscal year 2008. The fiscal
year 2009 defense budget requests an additional seven aircraft for the
Army at $264.2 million. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 states that no
funds will be appropriated for the procurement of the Joint Cargo
Aircraft (JCA) until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense signs off
on six reports, one of which being the Joint Intra-theatre Airlift
Fleet Mix Analysis. Where is this report, is it complete, and when will
it be signed?
Secretary Gates. I delivered all six reports to Congress on
February 27, 2008. Attached is the certification letter from John Young
validating the requirement for the JCA.
65. Senator Pryor. Secretary Gates, the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008
also requires the Secretary of Defense to certify and validate
requirements for a capability gap or shortfall with respect to intra-
theatre airlift. What are your thoughts on this issue? In your opinion,
does a capability gap or shortfall exist?
Secretary Gates. My Chief of Acquisition, John Young, recently
certified and validated requirements for a capability gap or shortfall
with respect to intra-theatre airlift. The letter stating that is
attached.
unmanned aerial vehicle
66. Senator Pryor. Secretary Gates, the JCA and UAV weapons systems
have created discussions in Congress regarding a roles and missions
debate and the House of Representatives plans to have hearings on the
subject. What are your thoughts on an organic, limited operational
capability within the Services, and what affect will it have on
restructuring or reorganizing current weapons systems?
Secretary Gates. While there are some areas where operational
warfighting concepts and doctrine translate into unique Service level
requirements and programs, there are far more areas where joint
solutions can be achieved. The Department must continue to prioritize
jointness and interoperability imperatives especially in the areas of
materiel acquisitions. This means reviewing and coordinating new
research and development programs to integrate Service and Joint
requirements, development, and testing in order to achieve born joint
investment programs. It also means continuing to consolidate current
requirements and programs of record, where possible.
Only through joint and consolidated acquisition will we realize the
benefits of these efforts, which include: improved component
interoperability and reduced duplication; lower development and
production costs; increased quantities; reduction of logistics
requirements through standardization; and the ability to meet similar
multi-service requirements with a common materiel solution.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
defense science and technology investment
67. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates, last year, you received a
memorandum from the Director of ODDRE which characterized current
investment in defense S&T as ``inadequate'' to keep pace with emerging
threats and concluded that the country has been ``coasting on the basic
science investments of the last century.'' Your testimony acknowledges
a need to increase defense investment in basic research. How are you
focusing the S&T programs of the DOD to address this challenge?
Secretary Gates. I asked Congress to approve a $1.70 billion
investment in Basic Research in the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2009. The request represents a 2 percent real increase
above the $1.63 billion that Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2008
and a 16 percent real growth from the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
This basic research investment increases each year over the Future
Years Defense Program to $1.99 billion in fiscal year 2013.
The additional funds will be applied to peer-reviewed research
conducted in universities, without specific DOD systems or applications
in mind, but in areas of long-term interest to the Department.
Predominantly the funds will support single investigators in the
Services' Defense Research Sciences and Multi-Disciplinary University
Research Initiatives, the mainstays of DOD Basic Research. This
increase will both deepen the DOD investment in traditional Basic
Research and broaden it to include such areas as: Information
Assurance; Network Sciences; Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction;
Science of Autonomy; Information Fusion and Decision Science;
Biosensors and Bio-inspired Systems; Quantum Information Sciences;
Energy and Power Management; Counter Directed Energy Weapons; Immersive
Science for Training and Mission Rehearsal; and Human Sciences.
reliable replacement warhead
68. Senator Warner. Admiral Mullen, in your prepared statement, you
remark upon the need to modernize our strategic weapons systems and
infrastructure, including our efforts to explore the feasibility of
developing a Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). Although this
committee, and the full Senate, had supported funding for such a
feasibility study last year, the omnibus appropriations bill did not
include funding. The Department of Energy has requested modest funding
in fiscal year 2009 to continue a feasibility study of a replacement
warhead. What are your more detailed thoughts and analysis which led
you to support the continued study of a RRW?
Admiral Mullen. To help manage geopolitical, operational, and
technical risks, the United States relies on three inter-related
aspects of its nuclear posture: 1) the composition of the operationally
deployed nuclear delivery systems and their capacity to deliver nuclear
weapons; 2) the size and mix of the nuclear stockpile that supports the
operational force; and 3) the ability of the supporting infrastructure
to maintain, produce, and repair nuclear weapon delivery systems and
warheads.
The stockpile stewardship program, initiated in the mid-1990s, has
largely been successful. At present, we believe that the nuclear
warhead stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable. For the near-
term, we continue to have confidence that warhead life extension
programs for W76 warheads for Trident II missiles and for B61 gravity
bombs are needed and are wise investments to sustain existing nuclear
capabilities. However, the current path for sustaining the warhead
stockpile-successive refurbishments of existing Cold War warheads
designed with small margins of error--may in the future be
unsustainable. Specifically, the directors of the Nation's nuclear
weapons laboratories have expressed concern about the ability to ensure
confidence in the reliability of the legacy stockpile over the long-
term, without nuclear testing.
Successive efforts at extending the service life of the current
inventory of warheads will drive the warhead configurations further
away from the original design baseline that was validated using
underground nuclear test data. Repeated refurbishments could accrue
technical changes that, over time, might inadvertently undermine
reliability and performance. The skills, materials, processes, and
technologies needed to refurbish and maintain these older warhead
designs are also increasingly difficult to sustain or acquire. Some of
the materials employed in these older warheads are extremely hazardous
as well. Moreover, it is difficult to incorporate modern safety and
security features into Cold War-era weapon designs.
In the near-term, we have no choice but to continue to extend the
life of these legacy warheads. However, the Departments of Defense and
Energy are pursuing an alternative to this strategy of indefinite life
extension, namely, the gradual replacement of existing warheads with
warheads of comparable capability that are less sensitive to
manufacturing tolerances or to aging of materials. The generic concept
is referred to as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). The RRW
concept promises other attractive benefits such as improved safety and
security, less complex production processes, elimination of many
hazardous materials in existing warheads, and an overall reduction in
hazardous waste. The directors of the nuclear weapons laboratories
believe that modern scientific tools developed for the stockpile
stewardship program, including advanced computer modeling and
experimental facilities, will enable design and certification of the
RRW without nuclear testing. In addition, the RRW program will be a key
enabler for a smaller and more responsive infrastructure, and will help
grow a new generation of experts capable of sustaining our nuclear
forces.
RRW will be key to sustaining long-term confidence in the U.S.
nuclear stockpile and enable significant reductions in the number of
reserve warheads--further reducing the size of the overall stockpile.
Assuring allies and convincing adversaries of the safety, security, and
reliability of U.S. nuclear forces will in turn contribute to the full
range of political and military benefits of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
Finally, allies with continued confidence in U.S. extended deterrence
will have less motivation to develop nuclear weapons of their own.
support for military families
69. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates, in the President's State-of-
the-Union Address on January 28, 2008, the President said, ``Our
military families also sacrifice for America. They endure sleepless
nights and the daily struggle of providing for children while a loved
one is serving far from home. We have a responsibility to provide for
them. So I ask you to join me in expanding their access to child care,
creating new hiring preferences for military spouses across the Federal
Government, and allowing our troops to transfer their unused education
benefits to their spouses or children.''
I join with the President in recognizing the sacrifices of military
families--and I include parents in that as well. My understanding is
that these initiatives are not included in the budget request that is
before us. Is that correct?
Secretary Gates. Yes, that is correct. These initiatives are not
included in the original budget request, because decisions were made
after the regular budget process had concluded. We plan to use
reprogrammings, or a budget amendment, if necessary, to fund the fiscal
years 2008-2009 costs.
70. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates, what is the magnitude of the
President's family support initiative and when may we expect to see an
amended budget and legislative proposals to support these initiatives?
Secretary Gates. These are the Department's specific proposed
initiatives to support the President's pledge on family assistance:
1. Permit Montgomery GI Bill transferability to immediate
family members, including spouses and children
2. Establish hiring preferences for spouses of Active-Duty
military members, wounded or disabled members, and
servicemembers who died while in Active Service, and a spouse
internship program
3. Expand the existing 18-installation demonstration program
for spousal career advancement accounts to all spouses
4. Accelerate construction of planned military child care
centers and public-private ventures for child care
5. Expand the pilot Yellow Ribbon Joint Family Assistance
Program and the four additional jurisdictions with National
Guard establishments
funding for military health care
71. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates, for the third year in a row,
the President's request decrements funding for military health care in
anticipation of congressional approval of increases in TRICARE fees for
military retirees, which each year Congress has rejected. Should
Congress once again decline to increase TRICARE fees for military
retirees, this budget would then be $1.2 billion short--is that
correct?
Secretary Gates. That is correct. The budget currently assumes
savings of $1.2 billion associated with the adjustments in fees
consistent with those recommended by the Task Force on the Future of
Military Health Care, mandated by Congress.
72. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates, one of the DOD health care
task force's recommendations is to conduct an external audit of DOD's
health care program and to establish a cost accounting system that
provides true and accurate accounting for DOD health care costs. Is it
your intention to follow through on that recommendation as well, so
that Congress can have a true and accurate picture of DOD health care
costs in the future?
Secretary Gates. Yes, we do intend to follow through on the Task
Force's recommendations. The Defense Health Program (DHP) health care
costs are currently executed in four separate accounting and finance
systems, to include Army, Navy, Air Force, and TRlCARE Management
Activity. Since the accounting and finance systems all have different
business rules, it is difficult to perform accurate cost accounting for
health care. Several years ago, the Department developed the Medical
Expense and Performance Reporting System (MEPRS), which allocates costs
within the direct care system. While this is a useful managerial cost
accounting tool, it could be much more accurate if the financial data
feeding it came from systems using the same financial structure and
business rules.
To ensure commonality among DHP related financial systems, the DHP
is actively participating in the DOD wide development of a Standard
Financial Information Structure (SFIS). Each Service and Defense-wide
accounting and finance system (all are currently under development)
will have to comply with the established SFIS business rules. The DHP
is actively engaged with the Business Transformation Agency to ensure
that requirements for medical business processes under SFIS, and thus
the ability to do medical cost accounting, are accurate. If it appears
that the Service accounting and finance systems cannot easily
accommodate the medical business requirements, we may consider adding
the Army, Navy, and Air Force medical activities into the Defense
Agency Initiative adopted by TRlCARE Management Activity, which is a
new accounting and financing system being developed for all Defense
agencies.
Regardless of the solution selected, the DHP is committed to
ensuring that there is accurate accounting of health care costs.
MEPRS receives three primary types of data from multiple feeder
source systems--Financial, Workload, and Personnel data. Army, Navy,
and Air Force all use the same Tri-Service Workload systems, but they
continue to use Service-unique systems for Financial and Personnel
data. Challenges arise in trying to report standardized, uniform data
at the DOD-level, when Financial and Personnel data come in to the
central data repository as Service-unique data. Attempts are made to
map these Service-unique data elements to DOD-common data elements.
SFIS is a comprehensive ``common business language'' that supports
information and data requirements for budgeting, financial accounting,
cost/performance management, and external reporting across the DOD
enterprise. SFIS standardizes financial reporting across DOD, thereby
reducing the cost of audit. It allows revenues and expenses to be
reported by programs that align with major goals versus by
appropriation categories. It enables decisionmakers to efficiently
compare programs and their associated activities and costs across DOD.
In addition, it provides a basis for common valuation of DOD programs,
assets, and liabilities.
The SFIS initiative may provide a bridge to true and accurate
picture of DOD health care costs in the future, however, with multiple
SFIS-compliant financial systems that the Services are migrating toward
(Army--General Fund Enterprise Business System; Navy--Navy ERP; and Air
Force--Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System), it will
still be difficult to report uniform cost accounting information across
three military department nonsynchronous systems--there will still be
three separate military department financial systems to overcome.
Defense Agencies Initiatives (DAI) represents the Department's
effort to extend its solution set for streamlining financial management
capabilities, eliminate material weaknesses, and achieve financial
statement auditability for the agencies and field activities across the
DOD. The DAI implementation approach is to deploy a standardized system
solution that effectively addresses the requirements depicted in the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act and the Business
Enterprise Architecture, while leveraging the out-of-the-box
capabilities of the selected commercial off-the-shelf product.
With the implementation of DAI, the Department will reduce the
number of legacy financial systems supporting these entities from nine
to one, standardize all Enterprise-level integration to a single source
and streamline Defense Finance and Accounting Service support
operations into a single solution set that leverages a common set of
resources across a common set of processes. It is expected that all 25
agencies and Field Activities will be transitioned to DAI by fiscal
year 2011.
Addressing the goal of a true and accurate picture of DOD health
care costs in the future, DAI might be able to provide one accounting
system for the DHP appropriation. DAI would then become the Enterprise
DHP accounting system and allow current legacy systems (i.e., MEPRS) to
be replaced. One accounting system for the DHP would ensure a
synchronous and singular accounting management system and the
opportunity to efficiently integrate cost accounting in routine
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles compliant accounting
functions.
implementation of dole-shalala
73. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates, with all due respect, Congress
enacted, and the President has now signed into law, nearly all of the
recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission on Care for America's
Wounded in the Wounded Warrior Act. These include the items you mention
in your statement--case management and an emphasis on treatment of
TBI--in addition to extended benefits for family members who care for
the wounded and ill under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The work that remains is in reform of the disability retirement
system, which affects the DOD to a lesser degree than the VA. Do you
agree with that?
Secretary Gates. A Dole-Shalala revision of the disability
retirement system codified in chapter 61, title 10, U.S.C., would be
relatively straightforward for the DOD to implement. There are
significant DOD costs associated with the implementation of the TRICARE
health proposal, however, that may require further analysis. The burden
of implementing Dole-Shalala type transition payments--quality of life
compensation and earning loss payments--falls on the VA. It is an
enormous workload and would result in revolutionizing the manner in
which VA does its business. The VA study on these transition payments
is due out later this year, and will inform both Departments of the
magnitude of work and statutory change that will be required.
74. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates, does this committee have your
commitment that each of the improvements to the care and management of
wounded and ill soldiers contained in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008,
Public Law 109-364, will be implemented in a thorough and timely manner
within the budget that is now before us?
Secretary Gates. It is the Department's intention to implement all
the requirements in a thorough and timely manner. The Department's WII
SOC tracks the implementation of all requirements contained in Title
16: Wounded Warrior Matters, and Title 17: Veterans Matters of the
fiscal year 2008 NDAA. The NDAA has 54 sections with 83 mandates that
address wounded warrior matters. Twenty-five of the 54 sections in the
NDAA address concerns previously identified by the various commissions
on wounded warriors and 29 new sections not previously addressed. The
NDAA requires 30 reports, 35 program or policy initiatives, and 9
evaluations or studies.
75. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates, because the needs of men and
women who become disabled cut across so many agencies of our
government--the Departments of Defense, VA, Labor and Education,
Medicare, and the Social Security Administration--has there been
consideration of a cabinet-level position or task force to oversee
implementation of these reforms?
Secretary Gates. As previously stated in testimony, DOD and VA
formed a joint WII SOC, co-chaired by the two cabinet Departments'
Deputy Secretaries, supported by a joint OIPT and a full-time joint
staff office. The purpose of establishing these organizations is to
coordinate the actions of the cabinet agencies, identify immediate
corrective actions, and to review and implement recommendations of the
various commissions and external reviews.
Specifically, we have endeavored to improve the Disability
Evaluation System, established a Center of Excellence for Psychological
Health and TBI, established the Federal Recovery Coordination Program,
improved datasharing between DOD and VA, developed medical facility
inspection standards, and improved delivery of pay and benefits.
climate change
76. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, I have been
profoundly concerned by recent reports that link global climate change
with exacerbated international security and compromised national
security. One of these reports, conducted by distinguished retired
colleagues at the Center for Naval Analyses, concluded that it is
important that the U.S. military begin planning to address the
potentially devastating effects of climate change.
More recently, a study titled ``Uncertain Future'' conducted by the
Oxford Research Group found that, ``the risks of climate change demand
a rethink of current approaches to security and the development of
cooperative and sustainable ways of achieving that security, with an
emphasis on preventative rather than reactive strategies.'' Can you
describe how the DOD is preparing to manage the added threat global
climate change poses on Department activities, facilities, and
capabilities?
Secretary Gates. DOD defers to James Connaughton, Chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality, for responses addressing global
climate change.
Admiral Mullen. The Department is looking ahead to the impact of
climate change on the future strategic environment as well as taking
important steps to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases by our
Armed Forces and improving our energy security posture.
We anticipate that climate change could have far-reaching impact
across the globe regarding resources and the access of nations to
resources. In looking ahead, we are implementing the direction of the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 that requires our military planners to
consider the risks associated with climate change regarding current and
future missions, defense plans, and future required capabilities.
Additionally, we are working to reduce our own contributions to
greenhouse gases by focusing on reductions in energy consumption. The
primary Department-wide organization addressing this concern is the DOD
Energy Security Task Force chartered in May 2006. Task Force membership
includes the Joint Staff, Services, COCOMs, OSD, and various other DOD
agencies. The Task Force has focused on initiatives to reduce energy
consumption and reduce the overall DOD carbon footprint. The Task Force
has taken on the development and deployment of energy technologies and
changes in operational procedures which will decrease DOD-related
carbon footprint without reducing operational effectiveness.
Many of the Task Force recommendations consolidate and/or leverage
existing energy initiatives from the Services for consideration and
implementation DOD-wide. Examples include single engine aircraft taxi
procedures and synthetic/alternative aircraft fuels testing (Air
Force), renewable energy resources and insulation technologies to
reduce the carbon footprint and fuel reliance of Forward Operating
Bases (Army), and geothermal power generation facilities at Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake (Navy).
The Joint Staff has initiated efforts to minimize or eliminate
future climate change risks by reducing the DOD contribution to fuel
consumption and carbon emissions. These include the incorporation of
the Energy Efficiency Key Performance Parameter (KPP) into the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) in May 2007.
This will ensure energy efficiency concerns are considered for future
system acquisitions and associated operational plans. Additionally, we
are leading a study in conjunction with the Services into the
feasibility of increased simulator use to decrease in-vehicle training
(and therefore fuel use and emissions) without sacrificing operational
readiness.
We will continue to shape the future strategic environment with an
eye toward climate change effects and look for opportunities to reduce
our carbon footprint.
77. Senator Warner. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, how can we
ensure that we are taking preventative steps rather than reacting to
situations as they arise?
Secretary Gates. DOD defers to James Connaughton, Chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality for responses addressing global
climate change.
Admiral Mullen. The Department is looking ahead to the impact of
climate change on the future strategic environment as well as taking
important steps to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases by our
Armed Forces and improving our energy security posture.
We anticipate that climate change could have far-reaching impact
across the globe regarding resources and the access of nations to
resources. In looking ahead, we are implementing the direction of the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 that requires our military planners to
consider the risks associated with climate change regarding current and
future missions, defense plans, and future required capabilities.
Additionally, we are working to reduce our own contributions to
greenhouse gases by focusing on reductions in energy consumption. The
primary Department-wide organization addressing this concern is the DOD
Energy Security Task Force chartered in May 2006. Task Force membership
includes the Joint Staff, Services, COCOMs, OSD, and various other DOD
agencies. The Task Force has focused on initiatives to reduce energy
consumption and reduce the overall DOD carbon footprint. The Task Force
has taken on the development and deployment of energy technologies and
changes in operational procedures which will decrease DOD-related
carbon footprint without reducing operational effectiveness.
Many of the Task Force recommendations consolidate and/or leverage
existing energy initiatives from the Services for consideration and
implementation DOD-wide. Examples include single engine aircraft taxi
procedures and synthetic/alternative aircraft fuels testing (Air
Force), renewable energy resources and insulation technologies to
reduce the carbon footprint and fuel reliance of Forward Operating
Bases (Army), and geothermal power generation facilities at Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake (Navy).
The Joint Staff has initiated efforts to minimize or eliminate
future climate change risks by reducing the DOD contribution to fuel
consumption and carbon emissions. These include the incorporation of
the Energy Efficiency KPP into the JCIDS in May 2007. This will ensure
energy efficiency concerns are considered for future system
acquisitions and associated operational plans. Additionally, we are
leading a study in conjunction with the Services into the feasibility
of increased simulator use to decrease in-vehicle training (and
therefore fuel use and emissions) without sacrificing operational
readiness.
We will continue to shape the future strategic environment with an
eye toward climate change effects and look for opportunities to reduce
our carbon footprint.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
troop deployment
78. Senator Collins. Admiral Mullen, I know how concerned you are
that the lengthy and repeated deployments have placed enormous strain
on our troops. As we decrease troop levels in Iraq and also continue to
increase the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps, which the
budget continues to fund, this should help to relieve the pressure.
When do you believe the impact of a larger Army and Marine Corps will
begin to affect the length and frequency of deployments for our troops,
both Active-Duty and National Guard?
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
f-22
79. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates, because Lockheed Martin and
Boeing are building F-22 Raptors at a rate of two per month, the
addition of four F-22s via an emergency supplemental budget will
provide approximately 2 additional months of F-22 production. However,
long lead suppliers who provide much of the parts essential to
producing these aircraft would begin shutting down production as early
as fall 2008. With this in mind, please explain the assertion that
procuring four F-22s through fiscal year 2009 supplemental funds will
keep the F-22 line open until the next administration.
Secretary Gates. The Department is working with the Air Force to
determine the necessary actions required to keep the F-22A production
line viable so that the next administration can review the program
requirements.
80. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates, the administration has
stated that further F-22 purchases will threaten the production numbers
and the affordability of the JSF. The Air Force has consistently
maintained that they would not utilize JSF funds to fund more F-22s
since they desperately need both aircraft. Given a $515 billion defense
budget in fiscal year 2009, $3.4 billion of which is allocated for JSF
production, please describe how an additional Lot of 20-24 F-22s
threatens the production and affordability of the JSF.
Secretary Gates. The size of the annual procurement of any single
program is modest compared to the total budget, but there are always
unmet needs when we complete the budget process every year. DOD must
balance across major procurement accounts. Major items in the Air Force
procurement budget are tactical aircraft, tankers, space systems, and
ISR assets. Any increase in F-22 funding would have to come out of
these high priority accounts.
Some have indicated that F-22 could be funded by finding
``efficiencies'' in Operations and Maintenance (O&M), but given the
pattern of steady growth in the O&M accounts, we don't expect
efficiencies of $3 billion to $4 billion per year.
81. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates, have you determined how
much it will cost to shut down the F-22 line, and if deemed necessary,
re-open the line if a future administration decides to procure
additional F-22s?
Secretary Gates. We don't plan to close the F-22 line in fiscal
year 2009. Prior estimates of shut-down costs were on the order of $500
million. We have not estimated what it would cost to re-open the F-22
line once it is closed.
national guard and reserve forces
82. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, I was pleased to see that
you touched on the important issues of retention and recruiting in your
written statement. You particularly noted that the National Guard and
Reserve have experienced some challenges in retaining the company grade
officers and mid-grade noncommissioned officers who lead our troops,
but that you are overcoming these shortfalls through enhanced
incentives for service, flexibility in terms of requirements, and
enhanced retirement benefits. With the help of many on this committee I
was proud last year to work on modifying the retirement system for
National Guard and Reserve members and I hope that this added benefit
will help retain some of those leaders that we need to retain.
As you think about transitioning the Reserve components from a
Strategic Reserve role to part of the Operational Reserve, and
maintaining our professional National Guard and Reserve Force, what
kinds of policies and changes come to mind and, in your opinion, how
can we best transition and shape the National Guard and Reserve into
being a force that best meets our combatant commanders' and our
Nation's requirements?
Admiral Mullen. The Department is currently reviewing the
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves' 95 recommendations. The
report identified six topic areas. Our first priority will be to
implement topic areas I (Creating a Sustainable Operational Reserve)
and IV (Developing a Ready, Capable, and Available Operational
Reserve). The Joint Staff and COCOMs recognize that we must break the
Cold War mentality with regards to our Reserve Forces. We intend to
vigorously pursue these two topic areas.
We also agree with topic area III (Creating a Continuum of Service:
Personnel Management for an Integrated Total Force). The Staff is
carefully evaluating whether any additional statutory changes are
required and if they will help or hinder our goal to increase the
Reserve components' integration into the ``Total Force.''
Topic area V (Supporting Servicemembers, Families, and Employers)
is one of my main goals as Chairman and Senior Military Leader of the
``Total Force.'' I will work with the Services on their support to all
members of our Armed Forces, their families, and their employers. I
fully support the Employer Support for Guard and Reserve and will
continue to champion the cause of our soldier's health, welfare, and
morale.
In regards to topic area VI (Reforming the Organizations and
Institutions that Support an Operational Reserve), I fully support a
closer alignment of the Services to their support agencies, both
military and civilian. We need to establish a ``Total Force'' policy
that eliminates cultural prejudices and produces a better staff
integration system.
Topic area II (Enhancing the Defense Department's Role in the
Homeland) has resulted in some concern on the Joint Staff and within
the COCOMs. While Reserve component civil support requirements are
important, they should not be of equal importance to the Department's
combat responsibilities. We are currently looking at alternate
approaches to the Homeland recommendations to better support the Nation
and its citizens.
The Joint Staff will continue to work closely with the OSD, COCOMs,
the National Guard and Bureau, and the Services on an implementation
plan for all 95 recommendations.
prompt global strike
83. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, in your
statements you discuss the need to address capability gaps, rebalance
strategic risk, and deter wars. One of the major ways we can do this is
the ability to strike targets all over the globe promptly--prompt
global strike. In relation to this, I'm keenly interested in the
progress of the Air Force's new bomber, as I believe it is critically
important to our future strategic plan. As you may know, the Air Force
recently came out with their roadmap for the 21st century, which lists
several U.S. bases where the next generation bomber may be based. As I
understand it, there will be an interim bomber that is expected to be
operational by 2018, with the next generation bomber becoming
operational in 2035. What progress is DOD is making in developing and
fielding these new bombers?
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. The Air Force has implemented a
three-phased approach to meet the Nation's long-range Global Strike
requirements:
Phase 1 - Continue with the modernization of the legacy
bomber inventory to ensure sustainability and increased combat
effectiveness
Phase 2 - Leverage near-term technologies with the goal of
fielding a next generation bomber (NGB) capability in the 2018
timeframe
Phase 3 - Pursue a system-of-systems technology push for a
producible advanced capability bomber with significant
improvements in speed, range, accuracy, connectivity, and
survivability in 2035+ timeframe
The Air Force is leveraging all available technology development
efforts, including F-35, F-22, B-2, Global Hawk, Reaper, Predator, and
other S&T investments in order to field a new bomber by 2018. The Air
Force envisions that the new bomber will be a land-based, highly
survivable, penetrating, persistent, long-range strike aircraft, likely
started as a manned platform, with an unmanned option in the future.
readiness
84. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, you note high readiness
levels in theater come at the price of declining readiness for
nondeploying units. How would you assess the general state of readiness
of units here in the United States--if they had to deploy tomorrow?
What percentage of units are ready to go?
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted].
wounded warrior
85. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates, I want to thank you for
your handling of the Walter Reed situation last year, and your
subsequent efforts to respond to the situation. In your prepared
statement, you discuss the efforts under way to implement the Dole-
Shalala Commission's recommendations to ensure our wounded warriors are
not neglected or forgotten. Beyond what we have already done to
implement these recommendations in the last NDAA, what help do you
require from us as a committee to carry out these recommendations?
Also, I'm particularly interested in hearing what the response has been
from the veterans community to the proposal to streamline the
disability evaluation system.
Secretary Gates. One of the most significant recommendations from
the task forces and commissions is the shift in the fundamental
responsibilities of the DOD and the VA. The core recommendation of the
Dole-Shalala Commission centers on the concept of taking DOD out of the
disability rating business so that the DOD can focus on the fit or
unfit determination, streamlining the transition from servicemember to
veteran. As the President urged in his State-of-the-Union message, we
seek Congress's action on this recommendation.
As to acceptance of the streamlined DES, the early responses from
the Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) are positive overall. The VSOs
are pleased that DOD has decreased the time it takes to afford
servicemembers and veterans their justly deserved benefits. However,
they are withholding extensive review until the DES pilot program is
fully expanded.
defense spending
86. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the
budget you have sent to us represents about 3.4 percent of our gross
domestic product (GDP). As you know, during other wars, we have spent
much more of our GDP on defense, such as during the Vietnam war, when
we were spending about 9 percent of our GDP, or the Korean War, when we
were spending about 14 percent of our GDP. Admiral Mullen, according to
an article published a few days ago in the New York Times, you're
quoted as advocating for a 4 percent floor in defense spending as it
relates to GDP. In other words, no less than 4 percent of our GDP
should be spent on defense spending. Secretary Gates, I believe you
have also been an advocate for this 4 percent floor. Given your
advocacy for this floor in defense spending, why isn't that reflected
in the budget you have sent to us?
Secretary Gates. Before I would formally recommend to the President
adoption of a defense spending floor of 4 percent of GDP, I would need
to see promising support for that in Congress and from the American
people. I do not perceive sufficient support at this time, but I am
hopeful that my advocacy might advance the idea.
Admiral Mullen. In order to prevail in the current conflict, defend
the Nation, and deter future conflicts, the Department requires a
considerable portion of the Nation's resources. The President's budget
for 2009 strives to balance spending for the DOD with all of the other
challenges that I know we face as a country.
As Chairman, I have focused on advocating for the necessary
resources to reset, reconstitute, and revitalize our people and our
platforms. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the
Department's lack of strategic depth and the Department has worked
effectively to prioritize our resources against our shortfalls. We have
focused on the growth of our ground forces and that must continue on
track or at an accelerated pace if achievable. Additionally, I am
concerned that the growing proportion of our airframes and ships are
aging beyond their intended service lives and I feel the Nation cannot
afford to further defer these recapitalization requirements. The
President and Congress have been tremendously supportive of the needs
of our Nation's warfighters. The Service Chiefs and I will continue to
address areas in which we are taking risk in accomplishing the National
Military Strategy and work with the administration and Congress to
properly resource our requirements.
I support a floor of 4 percent of GDP for the DOD base budget. I
believe that this will generate a thoughtful discussion about what we
as a Nation need to spend on the DOD. Historically, I believe there is
a correlation between our defense spending as a percentage of GDP and
our ability to respond to the Nation's call. I recognize that a
percentage of GDP may not be the only metric, but it is a metric that
at least I hope would bring about a thorough, comprehensive debate
about what we need, particularly as the DOD is one of the very few
agencies with any discretionary spending.
87. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, why have
you presented a budget that represents 3.4 percent of GDP rather than
the 4 percent of GDP that you advocate?
Secretary Gates. Before I would formally recommend to the President
adoption of a defense spending floor of 4 percent of GDP, I would need
to see promising support for that in Congress and from the American
people. I do not perceive sufficient support at this time, but I am
hopeful that my advocacy might advance the idea.
Admiral Mullen. In order to prevail in the current conflict, defend
the Nation, and deter future conflicts the Department requires a
considerable portion of the Nation's resources. The President's budget
for 2009 strives to balance spending for the DOD with all of the other
challenges that I know we face as a country.
As Chairman, I have focused on advocating for the necessary
resources to reset, reconstitute, and revitalize our people and our
platforms. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the
Department's lack of strategic depth and the Department has worked
effectively to prioritize our resources against our shortfalls. We have
focused on the growth of our ground forces and that must continue on
track or at an accelerated pace if achievable. Additionally, I am
concerned that the growing proportion of our airframes and ships are
aging beyond their intended service lives and I feel the Nation cannot
afford to further defer these recapitalization requirements. The
President and Congress have been tremendously supportive of the needs
of our Nation's warfighters. The Service Chiefs and I will continue to
address areas in which we are taking risk in accomplishing the National
Military Strategy and work with the administration and Congress to
properly resource our requirements.
I support a floor of 4 percent of GDP for the DOD base budget. I
believe that this will generate a thoughtful discussion about what we
as a Nation need to spend on the DOD. Historically, I believe there is
a correlation between our defense spending as a percentage of GDP and
our ability to respond to the Nation's call. I recognize that a
percentage of GDP may not be the only metric, but it is a metric that
at least I hope would bring about a thorough, comprehensive debate
about what we need, particularly as the DOD is one of the very few
agencies with any discretionary spending.
north atlantic treaty organization
88. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, I note in your prepared
testimony that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in
Afghanistan ``provide a credible fighting force'' but that ``some
nations' forces in theater must be more operationally flexible.'' I
understand that some NATO troops in Afghanistan operate under
``caveats'', meaning that they will not fight at night or other
seemingly unrealistic operational guidelines, which are what I assume
you're referring to when you say they must be ``more operationally
flexible.'' Has there been any progress toward doing away with these
restrictions?
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
89. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, what other obstacles are you
facing with the operational flexibility of NATO forces?
Admiral Mullen. [Deleted.]
force structure
90. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates, with some of the expansion
of the Army and Marine Corps being paid for this year, when will we
feel the positive effects of these new troops?
Secretary Gates. These strength increases are taking place
gradually, with the positive effects directly proportional to
translating new manpower into deployable units.
91. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Gates, how long do you anticipate
it taking for them to relieve some of the strain on the current sized
force?
Secretary Gates. The benefits already are being realized; by fiscal
year 2011, we anticipate reaching 48 Active Army BCTs.
92. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, in your prepared statement,
you talk about the need to increase interagency involvement. If there
were more personnel from the other departments, would we be able to
decrease the military footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan, or, are these
personnel in addition to all of the military bodies?
Admiral Mullen. In theory, greater interagency involvement would
result in a decreased military footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reality, though, is more complex than that. It is not as simple as a
one-for-one swap.
In both countries, we have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
performing functions that are not their primary function and for which
other agencies have greater expertise. The other agencies, though, are
not absent from the battlefield because of a lack of courage or desire.
They are simply not manned or resourced to deploy for long periods of
time like the DOD.
With proper manning and funding, combined with a fresh
expeditionary ethos, these agencies could have synergistic effects not
currently present. It is not enough to create a secure environment
through military presence and operations, without strong civil support
providing basic services and creating an environment for economic
prosperity to take root. It is equally ineffective to attempt to
provide civil support without proper security. They both support each
other and without one, the population becomes quickly disgruntled,
providing a breeding ground for terrorism and insurgency.
In the long-term, greater interagency involvement will create
environments where citizens have livelihoods worth protecting with
their own blood and national treasure. In the meantime, we must set
those conditions and that can only be done by properly manning and
resourcing the rest of the interagency.
93. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, given the expansion of the
Army and Marine Corps, have we planned and budgeted correctly for all
the corresponding costs associated with this expansion? In other words,
do we have enough ships and aircraft to transport them?
Admiral Mullen. The planned expansion of the Army and Marine Corps
ground forces is fully funded in the base budget. The primary reasons
for the Grow the Force initiative are to increase our strategic depth
and improve force rotation. This is not expected to lead to a larger
deployed footprint or airlift requirements than what exists today.
We are carefully reviewing our airlift requirements through the
conduct of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 (section 1046) directed study
on the size and mix of the airlift force. My assessment so far is that
the existing air and sealift programs of record are sufficient to
execute our campaign plans and to support our global presence
requirements.
94. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, do we have enough tactical
fighters and unmanned systems to support them?
Admiral Mullen. The primary reasons for the Grow the Force
initiative are to increase our strategic depth and improve force
rotation. Our tactical fighter and unmanned system requirements are not
driven by the size of our ground forces, but by our operation and
contingency plans. My assessment so far is that the existing tactical
fighter and unmanned system programs of record are sufficient to
execute our campaign plans and to support our global presence
requirements.
95. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, are you comfortable with the
current division of roles and missions between the Services?
Admiral Mullen. Our enemy and the nature of warfare are always
evolving. The Services are constantly evaluating and evolving their
tactics, techniques, and procedures to adapt to and, where possible, be
in front of, the enemy. I believe the current division of roles and
missions is about right. The roles and missions review as directed in
the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008, will give us a chance to look at this in
a holistic manner. We will focus on improving the Joint Force's
effectiveness and efficiency to ensure the enduring security of the
American people.
96. Senator Chambliss. Admiral Mullen, are there any overlaps that
we may examine and potentially save money?
Admiral Mullen. The roles and missions review will address
traditional core mission areas as well as evolving areas of warfare. It
is too early in the process to identify specific areas of overlap, but
throughout the review we will investigate areas of unnecessary
duplication and capability gaps with the singular goal of optimizing
the development and employment of our Joint Forces. That said, I do not
expect there will be overlaps to the point that a great deal of money
will be available for savings.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roger F. Wicker
seapower
97. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the
industrial base required to build and modernize our Navy is relatively
small compared to our other defense sectors. As the cost of ships has
increased due to changing requirements and rising material costs, the
number of ships we have been able to produce each year has slowed. As a
result of the slow production, labor costs have increased, thus further
impacting our shipbuilding capability. Conversely, the ability of
potential adversaries such as China to produce naval ships is much
greater than ours. How does our current goal of building a 313-ship
Navy, our long-range shipbuilding strategy, and our budget forecasts
overlay against potential naval adversaries' ability to grow a naval
force at a much faster pace?
Secretary Gates. The Navy faces many challenges in procuring a
force that will be effective over the broad spectrum of naval missions
anticipated in the coming decades. At the same time, escalating
shipbuilding costs demand that the Navy procure only those ships that
are necessary to accomplish critical missions, with the minimum
essential capabilities, and in the most efficient and cost effective
manner possible. As the Navy transforms itself into a 21st century
fighting force and looks to recapitalize the retiring ship platforms,
new ship concepts are being introduced. Additionally, as the Navy
translates lead ships into serial production, cost estimates have been
adjusted to reflect updated material costs and increased labor costs.
In the case of fiscal year 2009 President's budget request, many of the
labor and material rates that were impacted by Hurricane Katrina are
now reflected in the end-costs of the ships. In addition, the impact of
the Pension Protection Act has been reflected in higher overhead rates
throughout the shipbuilding industry. The Navy's 313-ship force
structure represents the minimum number of ships the Navy should
maintain in its inventory to provide the global reach; persistent
presence; and strategic, operational, and tactical effects expected of
our Navy forces. Currently there are two countries with the indigenous
shipbuilding capacity and potential budgetary means to grow a modern
naval force on or ahead of the pace of our long-range shipbuilding
strategy. China is the third-largest shipbuilder in the world, after
Japan and South Korea, and is engaged in a naval shipbuilding program
that is supported by an industrial base of about eight major shipyards
involved in naval construction. This compares to the U.S. industrial
base of six major shipyards owned by two corporations and at least two
smaller shipbuilders engaged in naval construction. China's ability to
produce modern and effective major ship sub-systems, particularly in
the propulsion area and in weapon systems for those ships, is just
recently beginning to show signs of improvement. Although Russia also
possesses the indigenous shipbuilding capacity and potential budgetary
means to grow a modern naval force on or ahead of the pace of our long-
range shipbuilding strategy, it is only now beginning to reestablish a
naval shipbuilding program. Our ability to maintain a position of
maritime superiority over the long-term relies on a battle force
structure consistent with the Navy's 313-ship strategy, and investment
in the research and development and increased procurement funding for
ship and weapon systems that will continue to enable the United States
to maintain its lead over our potential adversaries.
Admiral Mullen. The Navy faces many challenges in procuring a force
that will be effective over the broad spectrum of naval missions
anticipated in the coming decades. At the same time, escalating
shipbuilding costs demand that the Navy procure only those ships that
are necessary to accomplish critical missions, with the minimum
essential capabilities, and in the most efficient and cost effective
manner possible. The Navy's 313-ship force structure represents the
minimum number of ships the Navy should maintain in its inventory to
provide the global reach; persistent presence; and strategic,
operational, and tactical effects expected of our Navy forces.
Currently there are two countries with the indigenous shipbuilding
capacity and potential budgetary means to grow a modern naval force on
or ahead of the pace of our long-range shipbuilding strategy. Russia is
only now beginning to reestablish a naval shipbuilding program. China
on the other hand is engaged in a naval shipbuilding program that is
supported by an industrial base of about eight major shipyards involved
in naval construction. This compares to the U.S. industrial base of
five major shipbuilders and at least two smaller shipbuilders engaged
in naval construction. While the capacity of China's shipbuilding
industry is on par with that of the United States, China's ability to
produce modern and effective major ship sub-systems, particularly in
the propulsion area and in weapon systems for those ships, is just
recently beginning to show signs of improvement. Our ability to
maintain a position of maritime superiority over the long-term relies
on a battle force structure consistent with the Navy's 313-ship
strategy, and investment in the research and development of ship and
weapon systems that will continue to lead our potential adversaries.
98. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, in
addition, does our Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower
properly account for our long-term ability to counter these threats?
Secretary Gates. The new maritime strategy, ``A Cooperative
Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,'' does properly account for current
and future threats. I offer that China and other nations throughout the
world are potential opportunities. Our new strategy recognizes that the
security and prosperity of the global system will increasingly rely on
the cooperation and partnership of all maritime powers, including
China. Our Nation's interests are best served by fostering and
sustaining a peaceful global system.
The strategy recognizes that defending our Nation and defeating
adversaries in war remain the indisputable ends of American seapower.
We will continue to focus on maintaining a robust and effective
capability to apply regionally concentrated, credible combat power to
deter potential adversaries, limit regional conflicts, and win our
Nation's wars. Through forward presence, deterrence, sea control, and
power projection, we will maintain our ability to secure our Homeland
and interests around the world.
Effective implementation of the strategy depends upon our ability
to execute a stable, affordable shipbuilding plan that delivers a Navy
of at least 313 ships. A properly balanced Fleet, applied across the
six core capabilities, will ensure our ability to meet future
challenges.
Admiral Mullen. The new maritime strategy, ``A Cooperative Strategy
for 21st Century Seapower,'' does properly account for the ability of
potential adversaries to produce naval ships in relatively significant
numbers. Specifically, with respect to your earlier comments regarding
China, I would like to offer that I believe China--and other growing
nations throughout the world--are also potential opportunities. Our new
strategy recognizes that the security and prosperity of the global
system--the interdependent networks of commerce, finance, people, law,
governance, and information--will increasingly rely on the cooperation
and partnership of all maritime powers, including China. Our Nation's
interests--all nation's interests--are best served by fostering and
sustaining a peaceful global system.
One of the principal tenets of the strategy is that preventing wars
is as important as winning wars. Regional conflicts and major power
wars create shocks in the global system that adversely impact people in
every country around the world, regardless of whether they are involved
directly in the event. Through the employment of globally distributed,
mission tailored maritime forces, we are able to partner with nations
around the world to prevent or contain local disruptions, and
contribute directly to homeland defense-in-depth. Working in
cooperation with partners both here and abroad, we exercise maritime
security, humanitarian assistance, and disaster response in order to
build the capacity to prevent as well as recover from shocks to the
global system.
The strategy also recognizes that defending our Nation and
defeating adversaries in war remain the indisputable ends of seapower.
We will continue to focus on maintaining a robust and effective
capability to apply regionally concentrated, credible combat power to
deter potential adversaries, limit regional conflicts, and win our
Nation's wars. Through forward presence, sea control, and power
projection we will maintain our ability to secure our Homeland and
interests around the world.
Through the selectively balanced application of the core
capabilities of seapower--in cooperation with joint, interagency,
nongovernmental, and coalition partners--we believe seapower is a
unifying force for building a better tomorrow, for our Nation and
nations around the world who seek the same great opportunities we enjoy
as Americans.
base realignment and closure
99. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, the Congressional Budget
Office and the Government Accountability Office estimate that the cost
to implement the current BRAC round has increased from $21 billion to
$31 billion. Is this $10 billion cost growth accounted for in the
President's budget and in the Future Year Defense Program, and what is
the budget plan to meet the statutory deadline for the 2005 BRAC
decisions to be completely implemented by September 15, 2011?
Secretary Gates. As a matter of policy, BRAC requirements which
ensure meeting the September 15, 2011, deadline must be fully funded.
As such, all costs to implement BRAC are included in our fiscal year
2009 budget request (including supplemental requests) and in the Future
Year Defense Program. It is important to note that this assumes the
$939 million reduction to the BRAC appropriations is restored in fiscal
year 2008.
100. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, in addition, what steps are
being taken by the DOD to get the BRAC costs under control?
Secretary Gates. Each implementation plan is reviewed twice
annually to ensure that the proposed costs are valid and necessary to
implement BRAC. As necessary, the Department's budget process allocates
additional resources to ensure the recommendations will be implemented.
This process adds another level of scrutiny to ensure increases in
costs are minimized.
improvised explosive devices
101. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, Congress has made a
tremendous investment in the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO), since its inception as the Joint IED Defeat Task
Force in 2004. Fortunately for our soldiers and marines, they have seen
first-hand some of the success of the JIEDDO efforts, such as the
highly effective Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. Can you
explain, at an unclassified level, what the JIEDDO priorities are for
this 2009 budget request?
Secretary Gates. This budget request provides funding for the
JIEDDO. To that end, JIEDDO operates along four lines of operation to
carry out its mission: Attack the Network, Defeat the Device, Train the
Force, and Staff and Infrastructure.
Specific JIEDDO priorities for this request focus on three areas:
Attack the Network ($306.3 million)--this funding allows JIEDDO to
conduct offensive operations against the complex networks of
financiers, IED makers, trainers, and their supporting infrastructure
and enhances our capability to attack and disrupt the enemy's IED
networks.
Train the Force ($88.3 million)--this funding supports demanding
individual and collective training requirements to prepare units prior
to and during deployment for operations in an intense, fluid IED
environment. The fiscal year 2009 funding expands counter-IED (C-IED)
training, completes the resourcing of critical C-IED equipment, and
exports training capabilities to multiple locations.
Staff and Infrastructure ($101.7 million)--this funding provides
for JIEDDO's headquarters support structure necessary to successfully
coordinate the IED fight. The fiscal year 2009 funding provides for
civilian personnel, facilities, personnel contracts, professional
training, communication equipment, travel, and supplies needed for
minimum day-to-day operations.
102. Senator Wicker. Secretary Gates, part of the success of the
Defeat the Device strategy has been the use of UAVs to provide
persistent overhead surveillance. How does the budget build on the
success of the UAVs as part of a C-IED strategy and is there sufficient
funding to keep the UAV mission at a level that will ensure the
greatest possible protection of our troops?
Secretary Gates. The JIEDDO has provided a total of $198 million
for the delivery and nominal 2-year sustainment of C-IED sensor
surveillance systems initiatives employed from UASs, requirements
defined by the combatant commanders. JIEDDO's budget fully supports
transitioning the C-IED capabilities of sensor systems aboard UASs to
the Service(s). As new C-IED requirements are identified and validated
by the combatant commanders and Joint Staff, JIEDDO will apply funding
to meet the requirement and they are funded to do so during fiscal year
2008.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy,
Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Webb,
McCaskill, Inhofe, Sessions, Collins, Chambliss, Graham, and
Thune.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Michael J. Kuiken,
professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Thomas
K. McConnell, professional staff member; Michael J. McCord,
professional staff member; Michael J. Noblet, professional
staff member; and William K. Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw,
Republican staff director; William M. Caniano, professional
staff member; David G. Collins, research assistant; Gregory T.
Kiley, professional staff member; David M. Morriss, minority
counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Diana
G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh,
minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Fletcher L. Cork, Ali Z. Pasha,
and Brian F. Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: Bethany Bassett and
Jay Maroney, assistants to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M.
Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King,
assistant to Senator Reed; Christopher Caple, assistant to
Senator Bill Nelson; Andrew R. Vanlandingham, assistant to
Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to Senator Bayh; M.
Bradford Foley, assistant to Senator Pryor; Gordon I. Peterson,
assistant to Senator Webb; Stephen C. Hedger, assistant to
Senator McCaskill; Sandra Luff, assistant to Senator Warner;
Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe; Todd
Stiefler, assistant to Senator Sessions; Mark J. Winter,
assistant to Senator Collins; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to
Senator Chambliss; Andrew King, assistant to Senator Graham;
Lindsey Neas, assistant to Senator Dole; Brian Polley,
assistant to Senator Cornyn; Jason Van Beek, assistant to
Senator Thune; and Erskine W. Wells III, assistant to Senator
Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody.
Today, Secretary Geren and General Casey testify before the
Senate Armed Services Committee on plans and programs of the
U.S. Army in review of the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the
war supplemental request, and the Future Years Defense Program.
We last had the Secretary and Chief of Staff update us on
the state of the Army a little over 3 months ago, in November.
We welcome you both back. We thank you for your service. As
always, we ask you to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the men
and women of the Army and their families, who have given so
much of themselves in their service to this Nation in a time of
war.
Over the 3 months since Secretary Geren and General Casey
last testified, the Army has begun redeploying the surged
troops from Iraq, and, according to current plans, will
complete that redeployment this summer. However, we're now
hearing that General Petraeus will recommend a pause in further
redeployments while he assesses the security situation.
President Bush's public comments indicate he will follow
General Petraeus's recommendations.
This also means that we will continue to have an Army which
is way overstretched. The stress on Army forces from operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to build. Our Army troops
continue to face multiple tours of 15-month duration, with only
12 months or less at home between rotations. According to a
recent survey, 9 in 10 officers say that the war has stretched
the military dangerously thin. These levels of deployment
without adequate rest for the troops and repair and replacement
of equipment simply cannot be sustained.
General Casey has said that, ``Today's Army is out of
balance,'' and that ``the current demand for our forces exceeds
the sustainable supply.'' Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, has echoed those concerns, saying that the
ground forces ``remain under tremendous strain.''
According to press reports, Admiral Mullen, meeting with
Army captains at Fort Sill last year, found that the most
prevalent concern was the impact on those soldiers and their
families of the repeated deployments of 15 months, with 12 or
fewer months home between rotations. One captain said, ``We
have soldiers that have spent more time in combat than World
War II. Is there a point where you can say you've served
enough?''
The heaviest burden in this war has fallen on the ground
forces and on their families. General Casey has said, ``We are
consuming readiness as fast as we build it.'' Well, one way or
another, we must find a way to bring the Army back in balance.
Other evidence of strain on the Army can be seen in
recruiting and retention patterns. In fiscal year 2007, only 79
percent of Army recruits were high-school-diploma graduates and
only 61 percent of new recruits scored above average on the
Armed Forces qualification test. Fiscal year 2007 represents
the 4th consecutive year of decline in one or both of those two
indicators.
The Army recruited 3,200 category-4 recruits, the lowest
acceptable measure of aptitude, which is the Department of
Defense (DOD) maximum of 4 percent in this category. There has
been an increase in the number of medical and misconduct
waivers being granted. In fiscal year 2007, nearly one in five
new recruits required a waiver. More than 50 percent of
graduates of the U.S. military academy are separating from the
Army as soon as their obligations expire.
The impact of the wars has affected the Army in many ways.
In order to sustain the necessary readiness level in our
deployed forces, the readiness of our nondeployed forces has
steadily declined. Equipment and people are worn out. Multiple
deployments and extended deployments result in higher rates of
mental health problems for our soldiers, and also takes a toll
on their families. The number of wounded and injured soldiers
in our Warrior Transition Units continues to climb. Most
nondeployed units are not ready to be deployed; consequently,
getting those units reset and fully equipped and trained for
their rotation to Iraq or Afghanistan is that much more
difficult and risky. Getting those units equipped and trained
for all potential conflicts, including high-intensity combat,
is virtually impossible, and is not being done.
This Nation faces substantially increased risks should
those forces be required to respond to other requirements of
the national military strategy. The surge of additional forces
to Iraq last year put even more pressure on an already strained
readiness situation. Subjecting this Nation to that degree of
risk is unacceptable.
As daunting as it is to meet the current readiness
challenge, we must also modernize our Army to meet our
readiness requirements and our national security requirements
into the future, and we must do so intelligently. In so doing,
we must not fail to capture the lessons learned since the end
of the Cold War and apply them to building that force of the
future.
Although it appeared somewhat fashionable to question the
relevance of ground forces prior to September 11, that can
hardly be the case now. The reality of warfare in the 21st
century demands both the high-intensity force-on-force combat,
as characterized in the early weeks of the Iraq war, and the
grinding, all-encompassing stability and support in
counterinsurgency operations of the last few years. The answer
is not one mission or the other; the Army must be prepared to
do both and everything in between.
The reality right now and for the foreseeable future is
that soldiers need to be warriors at sometimes, then, at other
times, need to be acting as builders, city managers,
humanitarian relief workers, and dispute arbitrators. Given the
post-surge level of 15 Army brigade combat teams and supporting
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army officials have been
telling Members and staff that the Army will need $260 to $270
billion a year through fiscal year 2011 in order to meet its
requirements.
The 2009 base budget request provides the Army with $140
billion. DOD requested $70 billion in bridge supplemental
funding. In an answer to a question at the DOD posture hearing,
Secretary Gates said that the best guess, at the moment, is
that the remainder of the 2009 supplemental would be about $100
billion. That means that the Army will have to receive $120 to
$130 billion, out of a $170-billion 2009 supplemental total, to
meet its annual requirement of the $260 to $270 billion. That
would be somewhat doubtful; in which case, we need to
understand, fully, the implications for the Army. We need to
understand what needs to be done to ensure an Army that is
ready for all its potential missions, both today and in the
future. The Army and Congress owe nothing less to the soldiers,
their families, and the American people.
At this time, I now submit the prepared statement of
Senator Warner.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Mr Chairman, thank you. I join you in welcoming Secretary Geren and
General Casey here to the committee once again and thank them for their
long and distinguished service to our Nation.
Our Nation's Army is the best in the world. It is a battle-hardened
force whose volunteer soldiers have performed with courage,
resourcefulness, and resilience in the most arduous conditions.Some
have suggested that our Army is broken. I do not believe that. However,
like Admiral Mullen, I do believe the Army is ``breakable.''
Looking back at the last years of Vietnam and into the 1970s--a
time when America was last engaged in a protracted and controversial
war--many of us remember a military that was under great strain. It was
also a period in our history when popular appreciation for the military
was not very noticeable.
However, it is so gratifying today to see how the United States
civilian population is so united in support of our military.
We should all remember that the last draftee entered the Army in
1973. For nearly 35 years now, we have been fortunate to have a
military composed entirely of volunteers.
When our country's All-Volunteer Force was born on July 1, 1973, no
comparable military in the world operated on a fully volunteer basis.
Since that time, our volunteers have upheld the finest traditions of
our military Services and our country. Our Nation continues to be
grateful for the courageous men and women who have demonstrated
extraordinary patriotism in choosing to defend America.
We owe these men and women and their families a great deal for
their service and the sacrifices of their families. For those who have
made the ultimate sacrifice, the country owes their families every care
and benefit. To the wounded, we have a responsibility to see that the
care they receive at all points in the military health care system will
allow them to transition smoothly to the next phase in their lives. In
these regards, I am proud of the work that this committee has done, but
it is an effort that requires constant vigilance and oversight.
As one who would strongly oppose a return to the draft, I believe
that we should aggressively seek new ways to express our gratitude to
these volunteers.
This morning, the witnesses should be prepared to answer questions
concerning: state of the All-Volunteer Army; the pace of deployments
and the strain placed on soldiers and their families; and plans to end
15-month overseas deployment cycles and attain an interim dwell time
ratio of 1 to 1 and, ultimately, achieve an objective dwell time ratio
of 2 to 1.
In addition the witnesses should expect to be asked to discuss:
progress being made with the multi-billion dollar investment in the
Army's Future Combat System; the readiness of Army units when they are
deployed from home stations to a combat theater, such as Iraq or
Afghanistan; how the Army is using the dollars it receives to ``reset''
the force; how the Army will regain and sustain its advantage at
fighting conventional wars while retaining what it has learned about
asymmetrical threats and counterinsurgency operations; the readiness of
Reserve component forces and the recommendations of the Commission on
the National Guard and Reserves; and the state of outpatient care at
Army medical facilities.
Mr Chairman, thank you and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today.
Chairman Levin. Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with all of the problems that are there, it wasn't
as if we didn't see them coming. We are very proud of the Army.
I remember when Senator Akaka and I were on the House side, we
were active in the Army Caucus, and there wasn't one over here,
so we started one here. I think that people are more aware now
than they ever have been anytime in the history about the
significance of the Army. With all the problems that the
chairman mentioned, I can't think of two people that are in a
better position to handle those problems than General Casey and
Secretary Geren. So, I appreciate your dedication.
I can remember, back in the 1990s, when the drawdown was
taking place, and I was chairman, at that time, of the
Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee. I remember going
to the floor several times and talking about the fact that this
is all fine, assuming that we don't have any real serious
problems coming up, but guess what happened? We have serious
problems. All of that couldn't have happened at a worse time.
We were at our all-time low, after we had drawn down from 18 to
10 divisions. So, we're demanding more and more, and I look at
the big picture and think we just have to rebuild, that's all.
The timing couldn't have been worse. Every time I go over
there, I'm more and more proud of this All-Volunteer Service. I
was a product of the draft, and it took me quite a number of
years to realize that the quality is so good now. These young
people, men and women, are just doing a great job. I'm also
real proud that we have 2,600 of the Oklahoma 45th deployed
over there right now. I recall, on their last deployment, that
they were active in training the Afghan National Army, in
Afghanistan, to train their own military.
So, they're all doing a great job, most of the problems,
frankly, are on this side of the table. I often say that you're
doing a great job with the hand you're dealt, but you need to
be dealt a better hand. Hopefully, we can do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Let me, before you start, alert everybody, I think we know
it up here, but for you folks out there, including our
witnesses, we have five rollcall votes stacked, basically what
we call back-to-back, starting at about 10:20 or 10:15, we
believe. We're going to try to continue to go right through
those votes somehow, but there may be a number of interruptions
and adjournments that we're going to have to call, at the call
of the Chair, during the question period.
Secretary Geren?
STATEMENT OF HON. PRESTON M. ``PETE'' GEREN III, SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY
Secretary Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe,
and members of the committee. It's an honor for General Casey
and me to appear before you today to discuss our Nation's Army,
an Army that's been built by the partnership between our Army,
led by our Commander in Chief, and this Congress. It's a
partnership older than our Constitution, and affirmed by it.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2009 is before
Congress; $141 billion for our Army. As is always the case, the
Army's budget is mostly about people, and operations and
maintenance (O&M) to support people. The personnel and O&M
budget makes up two-thirds of our Army budget.
Creighton Abrams reminded us often, people are not in the
Army, people are the Army. The Army budget reflects that
reality.
Today, we are an Army long at war, in our 7th year in
Afghanistan; next month, March, will be 5 years in Iraq. This
is the third-longest war in American history, behind the
Revolutionary War and the Vietnam War, and it is the longest
war we've ever fought with an All-Volunteer Force.
Our Army is stretched by the demands of this long war, but
it remains an extraordinary Army. It's the best-led, best-
equipped, and best-trained Army we have ever put in the field,
with Army families standing with their soldiers as those
soldiers serve and re-enlist. It's an Army of volunteer
soldiers and volunteer families.
We currently have 250,000 soldiers deployed to 80 countries
around the world, with over 140,000 deployed to Afghanistan and
Iraq. Our 140,000 soldiers in harm's way are our top priority,
and we will never take our eye off of that ball. This budget
and our supplementals ensure that our soldiers have what they
need when they need it.
Today and over the last 6 years, our Reserve component,
Guard and Reserves, have carried a heavy load for our Nation.
Since September 11, we have activated 184,000 reservists and
270,000 guardsmen in support of the global war on terror, and
they've answered the call for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, other
storms, for forest fires, brush fires, other domestic crises,
and they are in support of operations on our Nation's border.
We are one Army. The Active component cannot go to war
without the Reserve component. The challenge before us, and
addressed in this budget, is our continuing effort to transform
the Reserve component into an operational Reserve, match the
organizing, training, and equipping with the reality of the
role of today's Guard and Reserves. This budget continues the
steady investment in new equipment in our Reserve component.
Although we will not complete the recapitalization of the
National Guard until 2015, we are not where we need to be, but
it's important to acknowledge the progress that has been made
in equipping our Guard.
Looking at just a few pacer items:
In 2001, the Guard had 290 Family of Medium Tactical
Vehicles trucks; today, the Guard has over 9,000. In 2001,
41,000 Single-Channel Ground-Air Radio System radios; today,
over 82,000. Night-vision goggles, in 2001, 53,000; today,
nearly 120,000. This budget includes $5.6 billion for Guard
equipment and $1.4 billion for the Reserves. Over the next 24
months, $17 billion worth of equipment will flow to the Guard
and over 400,000 items over the next 2 years.
The strength of our Army--Active, Guard, and Reserve--comes
from the strength of Army families. Our Army families are
standing with their soldier loved ones, but this long war is
taking a toll. We owe our families a quality of life that
equals the quality of their service.
Over half of our soldiers are married, with over 700,000
children in Army families. Today, nearly half, 48 percent, of
all soldiers who go to theater leave behind children aged 2 or
under. When a married soldier deploys, he or she leaves a
single-parent household behind, and all the challenges of that
family dynamic. When a single parent deploys, he or she leaves
behind a child in the care of others.
In our 2009 budget, we are doubling funding for family
programs. We're adding 26 new child development centers to the
35 that Congress funded for last year. Over the past year, with
your strong support, we have expanded the availability of
childcare, and we have reduced the cost. We have asked much of
the volunteer network of spouses that has carried the burden of
family support programs since September 11, a burden that grows
heavier with each successive deployment. But, they need help.
Our 2008 and this 2009 year budget provides much-needed
support. We are hiring over 1,000 family readiness support
assistants and nearly 500 additional Army community service
staff to provide full-time support to our spouse volunteers and
to Army families, and we are fielding 35 new Soldier Family
Assistance Centers at major installations across the country.
The Yellow Ribbon Program you authorized will provide much-
needed support for our guardsmen and reservists upon their
return from deployments.
In the late 1990s, Congress launched the Privatized Housing
Initiative, an initiative that has replaced Army housing with
Army homes, and has built neighborhoods and vibrant communities
on our Army posts. This budget builds on the great success of
your initiative. Our budget for Army homes, new and
refurbished, in this budget is $1.4 billion. For single
soldiers, we're modernizing existing barracks. Over 2009 to
2015, with your support, we'll reach our target of 150,000
soldiers in modernized barracks.
This budget continues the programs at DOD, the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA), Congress, and the Army have made in
meeting the needs of wounded, ill, and injured soldiers. In
your authorization bill, you gave us additional authorities to
hire needed medical personnel, to provide better health care
for our wounded, and provide more help to family members who
are supporting their loved ones. You gave us new authorities,
resources, and the flexibility to allow soldiers and Army
civilians to build and adapt a new outpatient care system to
meet the ever-changing challenges of taking care of those who
have borne the battle.
This budget continues to advance those initiatives,
continues to address personnel shortages, improve facilities,
and work to accomplish the seamless transition from DOD to VA
for our soldiers returning to civilian life, and we will
continue to grow our knowledge and improve the care and
treatment of the invisible wounds of this war--post traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI)--and
better meet the needs of soldiers who suffer these wounds, and
better support their families. The generous support of Congress
last year has provided us resources to make great progress on
this front, and we have much to do.
In 2008 and 2009, we will continue to transform Army
contracting, under the leadership that we've received from the
Gansler Commission. In this budget, we've looked to the future;
we never want to send our soldiers into a fair fight. This
budget continues our investment in the programs of tomorrow,
our highest modernization priority, the Future Combat System
(FCS), which will shape the Army of the future. It's spinning
out technologies into today's fight. The armed reconnaissance
helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the light utility
helicopter, and the joint cargo aircraft are all part of that
future, and we thank you for your support.
This budget takes a major step forward in ensuring the
long-term strength and health of our Army by moving the cost of
43,000 Active Duty soldiers from the supplemental into the base
budget, and we have accelerated the 64,000-man growth in the
Active Duty Army from 2012 to 2010, with a commitment that we
will maintain recruit quality at no lower than the 2006 levels.
We are a Nation long at war, facing an era of persistent
conflict. Our soldiers and families are stretched. We are an
Army out of balance, and we are consuming our readiness as fast
as we build it. But, our Army remains strong. It's stretched,
it's out of balance, but it's resilient. Those who seek
parallels with the hollow Army of the late 1970s will not find
it. There are 170,000 young men and women who proudly join our
Army every year, and 120,000 proudly re-enlist every year.
They're volunteer soldiers, they're volunteer families, they're
proud of who they are, and they're proud of what they do. We
all are inspired by their service and humbled by their
sacrifice.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, thank you for your
ongoing support of our soldiers and their families, for the
resources and authorities that you provide us every year. Thank
all of you for traveling all over this globe to meet with
soldiers, and expressing your appreciation to them for the job
they're doing; that means a great deal to them. Thank you for
your partnership in building this great American Army.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Geren and
General Casey follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Hon. Pete Geren and GEN George W. Casey,
Jr., USA
Our Nation has been at war for over 6 years. Our Army--Active,
Guard and Reserve--has been a leader in this war and has been fully
engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, and defending the homeland. We also have
provided support, most notably by the Army National Guard and Army
Reserve, to civil authorities during domestic emergencies. Today, of
the Nation's nearly 1 million soldiers, almost 600,000 are serving on
active duty and over 250,000 are deployed to nearly 80 countries
worldwide.
We live in a world where global terrorism and extremist ideologies
threaten our safety and our freedom. As we look to the future, we
believe the coming decades are likely to be ones of persistent
conflict--protracted confrontation among state, non-state, and
individual actors who use violence to achieve their political and
ideological ends. In this era of persistent conflict, the Army will
continue to have a central role in implementing our national security
strategy.
While the Army remains the best led, best trained, and best
equipped Army in the world, it is out of balance. The combined effects
of an operational tempo that provides insufficient recovery time for
personnel, families, and equipment, a focus on training for
counterinsurgency operations to the exclusion of other capabilities,
and Reserve components assigned missions for which they were not
originally intended nor adequately resourced, result in our readiness
being consumed as fast as we can build it. Therefore, our top priority
over the next several years is to restore balance through four
imperatives: Sustain, Prepare, Reset, and Transform.
The Army's strength is its soldiers--and the families and Army
civilians who support them. The quality of life we provide our soldiers
and their families must be commensurate with their quality of service.
We will ensure that our injured and wounded warriors, and their
families, receive the care and support they need to reintegrate
effectively into the Army or back into society. We never will forget
our moral obligation to the families who have lost a soldier in service
to our Nation.
We are grateful for the support and resources we have received from
the Secretary of Defense, the President, and Congress. To fight the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, transform to meet the evolving challenges
of the 21st century, and to regain our balance by 2011, the Army will
require the full level of support requested in this year's base budget
and global war on terror request.
``The U.S. Army today is a battle-hardened force whose
volunteer soldiers have performed with courage,
resourcefulness, and resilience in the most grueling
conditions. They've done so under the unforgiving glare of the
24-hour news cycle that leaves little room for error, serving
in an institution largely organized, trained, and equipped in a
different era for a different kind of conflict. They've done
all this with a country, a government--and in some cases a
Defense Department--that has not been placed on a war
footing.'' Secretary of Defense, Honorable Robert M. Gates,
October 10, 2007, AUSA Annual Meeting
The Army--Active, Guard, and Reserve--exists to protect our Nation
from our enemies, defend our vital national interests and provide
support to civil authorities in response to domestic emergencies. Our
mission is to provide ready forces and land force capabilities to the
combatant commanders in support of the National Security Strategy, the
National Defense Strategy, and the National Military Strategy.
While what the Army does for the Nation is enduring, how we do it
must adapt to meet the changing world security environment. We are in
an era of persistent conflict which, when combined with our ongoing
global engagements, requires us to rebalance our capabilities. We do
this remembering that soldiers, and the families who support them, are
the strength and centerpiece of the Army. while our Nation has many
strengths, in time of war, America's Army is the strength of the
Nation.
strategic context: an era of persistent conflict
Persistent conflict and change characterize the strategic
environment. We have looked at the future and expect a future of
protracted confrontation among state, non-state, and individual actors
who will use violence to achieve political, religious, and other
ideological ends. We will confront highly adaptive and intelligent
adversaries who will exploit technology, information, and cultural
differences to threaten U.S. interests. Operations in the future will
be executed in complex environments and will range from peace
engagement, to counterinsurgency, to major combat operations. This era
of persistent conflict will result in high demand for Army forces and
capabilities.
trends creating the conditions for persistent conflict
The potential for cascading effects from combinations of events or
crises arising from the trends described below compounds the risk and
implications for the United States.
globalization and technology
Increased global connectivity and technological advances will
continue to drive global prosperity--yet they also will underscore
disparities, such as in standards of living, and provide the means to
export terror and extremism around the world. Globalization accelerates
the redistribution of wealth, prosperity, and power, expanding the have
and have not conditions that can foster conflict. The scale of this
problem is evident in the projection that 2.8 billion people are
expected to be living below the poverty line by 2025. While advances in
technology are benefiting people all over the world, extremists are
exploiting that same technology to manipulate perceptions, export
terror, and recruit the people who feel disenfranchised or threatened
by its effects.
radicalism
Extremist ideologies and separatist movements will continue to have
an anti-western and anti-U.S. orientation. Radical and religious
extremist groups, separatists, and organizations that support them are
attractive to those who feel victimized or threatened by the cultural
and economic impacts of globalization. The threats posed by Sunni
Salafist extremists, like al Qaeda, as well as Shia extremists with
Iranian backing, represent a major strategic challenge.
population growth
The likelihood of instability will increase as populations of
several less-developed countries will almost double in size by 2020--
most notably in Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia.
The youth bulge created by this growth will be vulnerable to anti-
government and radical ideologies and will threaten government
stability. This situation will be especially true in urban areas in
which populations have more than doubled over the last 50 years.
By 2025, urban areas with concentrations of poverty will contain
almost 60 percent of the world's population.
resource competition
Competition for water, energy, goods, services, and food to meet
the needs of growing populations will increase the potential for
conflict. Demand for water is projected to double every 20 years. By
2015, 40 percent of the world's population will live in water-stressed
countries. By 2025, global energy demands are expected to increase by
40 percent, threatening supplies to poor and developing nations.
climate change and natural disasters
Climate change and other projected trends will compound already
difficult conditions in many developing countries. These trends will
increase the likelihood of humanitarian crises, the potential for
epidemic diseases, and regionally destabilizing population migrations.
Desertification is occurring at nearly 50,000-70,000 square miles per
year. Today more than 15 million people are dying annually from
communicable diseases. The number of people dying each year could grow
exponentially with increases in population density and natural
disasters.
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
The diffusion and increasing availability of technology increases
the potential of catastrophic nuclear, biological, and chemical
attacks. Many of the more than 1,100 terrorist groups and organizations
are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction.
safe havens
States that are unable or unwilling to exercise control within
their borders create the potential for global and regional groups to
organize and export terror. Territories under the control of renegade
elements or separatist factions will challenge central government
authority, potentially creating a base from which to launch broader
security threats. The trends that fuel persistent conflict characterize
the strategic environment now and into the future and will require
integration of all elements of our national power (diplomatic,
informational, economic, and military) to achieve our national
objectives. The implication for the Army is the need to be modernized,
expeditionary and campaign capable, and prepared to operate across the
full spectrum of conflict.
challenges of providing forces with the right capabilities
The Army recruits, organizes, trains, and equips soldiers who
operate as members of joint, interagency, and multinational teams. The
Army also provides logistics and other support to enable our joint and
interagency partners to accomplish their missions, as well as support
civil authorities in times of national emergencies. Responding to the
strategic environment and the national security strategy that flows
from it, we are building an expeditionary and campaign quality Army.
Our expeditionary Army is capable of deploying rapidly into any
operational environment, conducting operations with modular forces
anywhere in the world, and sustaining operations as long as necessary
to accomplish the mission. To fulfill the requirements of today's
missions, including the defense of the homeland and support to civil
authorities, approximately 591,000 soldiers are on active duty
(currently 518,000 Active component, 52,000 Army National Guard, and
21,000 Army Reserve). Forty-two percent (251,000) of our soldiers are
deployed or forward-stationed in 80 countries around the world.
Additionally, more than 237,000 Army civilians are performing a variety
of missions vital to America's national defense. Of these, more than
4,500 are forward deployed in support of our soldiers.
Our current focus is on preparing forces and building readiness for
counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this
current and critical mission, the Army also must be ready to provide
the combatant commanders with the forces and capabilities they need for
operations anywhere around the world, ranging from peace-time military
engagement to major combat operations. Examples of Army capabilities
and recent or ongoing operations other than combat include the
following:
Supporting the defense of South Korea, Japan, and many
other friends, allies, and partners
Conducting peacekeeping operations in the Sinai
Peninsula and the Balkans
Conducting multi-national exercises that reflect our
longstanding commitments to alliances
Continuing engagements with foreign militaries to
build partnerships and preserve coalitions by training and
advising their military forces
Participating, most notably by the Army National
Guard, in securing our borders and conducting operations to
counter the flow of illegal drugs
Supporting civil authorities in responding to domestic
emergencies, including natural disasters and threats at home
and abroad
Supporting interagency and multi-national partnerships
with technical expertise, providing critical support after
natural disasters, and promoting regional stability
Supporting operations to protect against weapons of
mass destruction and block their proliferation
It is vital that our Army ensures that units and soldiers have the
right capabilities to accomplish the wide variety of operations that we
will conduct in the 21st century. Continuous modernization is the key
to enhancing our capabilities and maintaining a technological advantage
over any enemy we face. We never want to send our soldiers into a fair
fight.
Future Combat Systems (FCS) are the core of our modernization
effort and will provide our soldiers an unparalleled understanding of
their operational environment, increased precision and lethality, and
enhanced survivability. These improved capabilities cannot be achieved
by upgrading current vehicles and systems. FCS will use a combination
of new manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles, connected by robust
networks, to allow soldiers to operate more effectively in the complex
threat environments of the 21st century. Maintaining our technological
edge over potential adversaries, providing better protection, and
giving our soldiers significantly improved capabilities to accomplish
their mission are the reasons for FCS. FCS capabilities currently are
being tested at Fort Bliss, TX. They are proving themselves valuable in
the current fight and are being fielded to our soldiers in Iraq. FCS
and their capabilities will continue to be integrated into the force
over the next 20 years.
two critical challenges: restoring balance and funding an army out of
balance
Today's Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces
in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our
ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies. While our
Reserve components are performing magnificently, many Reserve component
units have found themselves assigned missions for which they were not
originally intended nor adequately resourced. Current operational
requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments
require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the
detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions.
We are unable to provide a sustainable tempo of deployments for our
soldiers and families. Soldiers, families, support systems, and
equipment are stretched and stressed by the demands of lengthy and
repeated deployments, with insufficient recovery time. Equipment used
repeatedly in harsh environments is wearing out more rapidly than
programmed. Army support systems, designed for the pre-September 11
peacetime Army, are straining under the accumulation of stress from 6
years at war. Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we
build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk
to the All-Volunteer Force and degrades the Army's ability to make a
timely response to other contingencies.
restoring balance
We are committed to restoring balance to preserve our All-Volunteer
Force, restore necessary depth and breadth to Army capabilities, and
build essential capacity for the future. Our plan will mitigate near-
term risk and restore balance by 2011 through four imperatives:
Sustain, Prepare, Reset and Transform.
sustain
To sustain our soldiers, families, and Army civilians in an era of
persistent conflict we must maintain the quality and viability of the
All-Volunteer Force and the many capabilities it provides to the
Nation. Sustain ensures our soldiers and their families have the
quality of life they deserve and that we recruit and sustain a high
quality force.
Goals for Sustain:
Offer dynamic incentives that attract quality recruits
to meet our recruiting objectives for 2008 and beyond
Provide improved quality of life and enhanced
incentives to meet our retention objectives for 2008 and beyond
Continue to improve the quality of life for Army
families by implementing the Army Family Covenant and other
programs that: standardize services, increase the accessibility
and quality of health care, improve housing and installation
facilities, provide excellence in schools and youth services,
and expand spousal education and employment opportunities
Continue to improve care for wounded warriors and
warriors in transition through a patient-centered health care
system, Soldier and Family Assistance Centers, and improved
Warrior Transition Unit facilities
Continue to support families of our fallen with
sustained assistance that honors the service of their soldiers
prepare
To prepare our solders, units, and equipment we must maintain a
high level of readiness for the current operational environments,
especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Goals for Prepare:
Continue to adapt and enhance the rigor of
institutional, individual, and operational training to enable
soldiers to succeed in complex 21st century security
environments
Train soldiers and units to conduct full spectrum
operations with improved training ranges to operate as part of
a joint, interagency, or multi-national force
Provide soldiers the best equipment through the Rapid
Fielding Initiative, the Rapid Equipping Force, and
modernization efforts
Partner with private industry to rapidly develop and
field equipment needed on today's battlefield
Continue to improve the Army Force Generation process
which increases the readiness of the operating force over time
by generating recurring periods of availability of trained,
ready, and cohesive units
reset
To reset our force we must prepare our soldiers, units, and
equipment for future deployments and other contingencies.
Goals for Reset:
Develop an Army-wide reset program that repairs,
replaces, and recapitalizes equipment that our soldiers need
Retrain our soldiers to accomplish the full spectrum
of missions they will be expected to accomplish
Revitalize our soldiers and families through
implementation and full resourcing of the Soldier Family Action
Plan (SFAP) and our warrior care and transition programs
transform
To transform our force, we must continuously improve our ability to
meet the needs of the combatant commanders in a changing security
environment.
Goals for Transform:
Help balance our force and increase capacity to
provide sufficient forces for the full range and duration of
current operations and future contingencies by growing as
quickly as possible
Upgrade and modernize to remain an agile and globally
responsive force with FCS as the core of our modernization
effort
Continue organizational change through modularity and
rebalancing to become more deployable, tailorable, and
versatile
Improve expeditionary contracting and financial and
management controls
Continue to adapt institutions and the processes,
policies, and procedures, including business practices, to more
effectively and efficiently support an expeditionary Army at
war
Complete the transition of the Reserve component to an
operational Reserve and change the way we train, equip,
resource, and mobilize Reserve component units
Integrate Grow the Army initiative, Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC), Global Defense Posture Realignment, and the
operation of installations and facilities to increase
readiness, improve efficiency, and improve the quality of life
for our soldiers, families, and Army civilians
Develop agile and adaptive leaders who can operate
effectively in joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and
multi-national environments
compelling needs for sustain, prepare, reset, and transform
To achieve balance through the four imperatives, the Army will
require sustained, timely, and predictable base budget and global war
on terror funding. The Army's compelling needs for fiscal year 2009
are:
support and fund
Recruiting and retention incentives and benefits to
enable Active and Reserve components to meet end strength
objectives and achieve Army standards for recruit quality
Quality of life programs to sustain our soldiers' and
Army civilians' commitment to serve and the continued support
of our Army families
Programs to help our wounded, ill, and injured
Warriors in Transition to return to duty or to civilian life
BRAC and military construction to execute the Army's
global repositioning plan
Operations and maintenance for air and ground
operations, depot maintenance, base operations, and space and
missile defense capabilities
Leader training and development to make soldiers
culturally astute and better able to integrate and complement
the other elements of national power (diplomatic,
informational, and economic)
Efforts to develop technical and procedural solutions
to defeat the threat of improvised explosive devices
The Rapid Equipping Force
Equipment repair, replacement, and recapitalization
programs
Retraining soldiers to execute their new and future
missions
Programs to revitalize our soldiers and families as
they reintegrate after deployments
End-strength growth of approximately 74,000 by 2010.
Army modernization programs including FCS, aviation,
Patriot PAC-3, LandWarNet, intelligence, logistics automation,
and other advanced technologies
Planned modular transformations in 2009--two Brigade
Combat Teams and 13 support brigades
Transformation of the Reserve components to an
operational Reserve
``America's ground forces have borne the brunt of
underfunding in the past and the bulk of the costs--both human
and material--of the wars of the present. By one count,
investment in Army equipment and other essentials was
underfunded by more than $50 billion before we invaded Iraq. By
another estimate, the Army's share of total defense investments
between 1990 and 2005 was about 15 percent. So resources are
needed not only to recoup from the losses of war, but to make
up for the shortfalls of the past and to invest in the
capabilities of the future.''--Secretary of the Defense,
Honorable Robert M. Gates, October 10, 2007, AUSA Annual
Meeting
funding challenges
Recruiting and retaining the most combat-experienced Army in our
Nation's history require predictable and sustained funding. Sustaining
this high-quality and professional All-Volunteer Force will not be
possible without investing in and supporting our quality of life
efforts and providing competitive pay and benefits. As a manpower-
intensive organization, we will continue to spend the bulk of our funds
to sustain people and maintain vital infrastructure, but we also must
maintain investment in equipment and technology required for future
readiness.
To support our soldiers, the centerpiece of the Army, we must
rebuild and recapitalize our equipment including vehicles and weapons
systems, maintain readiness for current operational demands, and build
readiness for future challenges. It takes years beyond the end of
hostilities to complete rebuilding and recapitalizing equipment. The
fact that the number of vehicles and weapon systems currently in Army
depots are sufficient to equip five Brigade Combat Teams and one Combat
Aviation Brigade demonstrates the importance of timely recapitalization
and reconditioning.
the fiscal year 2009 president's budget
The fiscal year 2009 President's budget requests $140.7 billion for
the Army. This request and the amounts in the global war on terror
request are necessary to support current operations, fight the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, sustain the All-Volunteer Force, and prepare for
future threats to the Nation. This year the President approved
accelerating the end strength of the Army's Active component to 547,000
and the Army National Guard to 358,200 by 2010.
The Army Reserve will increase in size to 206,000 by 2013. This
most significant increase in the fiscal year 2009 budget is the result
of permanent end strength increases of 44,300 soldiers in two
components: 43,000 in the Active component and over 1,300 in the Army
National Guard. The Army's fiscal year 2009 budget includes $15.1
billion for all the costs associated with Grow the Army, which is an
increase of $7.4 billion over the costs of this initiative in fiscal
year 2008. This growth will enhance combat capabilities, help meet
global force demand, and reduce stress on deployable personnel. Amounts
requested by major appropriation category in the fiscal year 2009
President's budget as well as the change from the amounts enacted in
fiscal year 2008 are:
military personnel
The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $51.8 billion, a $5.5 billion
increase from fiscal year 2008. This includes $4 billion for Grow the
Army, an increase of $3.4 billion over fiscal year 2008. This amount
also funds pay, benefits, and associated personnel costs for 1,090,000
soldiers: 532,400 Active, 352,600 Army National Guard, and 205,000 Army
Reserve. The global war on terror request will fund special pays and
incentives and the mobilization of Reserve component soldiers.
operation and maintenance
The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $40.2 billion, a $3.6 billion
increase from fiscal year 2008. This includes $2.6 billion for Grow the
Army, an increase of $1.9 billion from fiscal year 2008. The increase
funds training and sustainment of Army forces and includes the
maintenance of equipment and facilities. The global war on terror
request will fund the day-to-day cost of the war, training to prepare
units for deployment, and the reset of forces returning from
deployment.
procurement
The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $24.6 billion, a $2 billion
increase from fiscal year 2008. This includes $4.2 billion for Grow the
Army, an increase of $100 Million from fiscal year 2008. This increase
continues procurement of weapons systems for the Army to include the
Non-Line of Sight Cannon, an FCS-designed system. The global war on
terror Request will fund procurement of weapon systems to improve force
readiness and replace battle losses and the reset of forces returning
from deployment.
research, development, test, and evaluation
The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $10.5 billion, approximately
the same amount requested last year, but a $1.5 billion decrease in the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2008. The fiscal year 2009 request
reflects a $100 million decrease to the FCS research, development,
test, and evaluation as the programs transition to procurement.
construction, base realignment and closure, and army family housing
The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $11.4 billion, a $1.8 billion
increase from fiscal year 2008. This includes $4.3 billion for Grow the
Army, an increase of $1.9 billion from fiscal year 2008. The increase
funds the construction of facilities to support the growth and
restationing of Army Forces. The global war on terror request will fund
construction in and around the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of
operation.
other accounts
The Army executes the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction
Program. Funding for this account is stable at $1.6 billion in fiscal
year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. The Army also has fiscal responsibility
for the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF), Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund (ASFF), and Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO) appropriations. The Army budgets for recurring sustainment
costs of JIEDDO with fiscal year 2009 at $500 million, an increase of
$400 million from fiscal year 2008. The global war on terror request
will fund JIEDDO initiatives. The ISFF and ASFF are funded entirely
through the global war on terror request.
restoring fiscal balance
Timely and full funding of the Army's fiscal year 2009 request of
$140.7 billion will ensure the Army is ready to meet the needs of the
Nation and continue the process of putting us back in balance. However,
it is important to note that over the last 6 years, the Army has
received increasing proportions of its funding through supplemental and
global war on terror appropriations. This recurring reliance on global
war on terror funds and a natural overlap between base and global war
on terror programs means that the Army's base budget does not fully
cover the cost of both current and future readiness requirements.
Because the global war on terror planning horizon is compressed and the
timing and amount of funding is unpredictable, some base programs would
be at risk if supplemental funding is precipitously reduced or delayed.
An orderly restoration of the balance between base and global war on
terror requirements is essential to maintain Army capabilities for
future contingencies.
Our goals are to be good stewards of the resources we are provided
by Congress and to free human and financial resources for higher
priority operational needs. Through the use of innovations such as Lean
Six Sigma we are improving support to our people while reducing waste
and inefficiencies. Integral to achieving our goals is the development
of an Army-wide cost-management culture in which leaders better
understand the full cost of the capabilities they use and provide and
incorporate cost considerations into their planning and decisionmaking.
This approach will enable us to achieve readiness and performance
objectives more efficiently. Concurrently, we are strengthening our
financial and management controls to improve contracting in
expeditionary operations and ensure full compliance with the law and
regulations.
Our goal to improve long-term sustainability will be achieved
through effective stewardship of human, financial, and natural
resources. Some examples of our ongoing initiatives include:
Adjusting our national and global footprint to improve
efficiency and sustainability
Transforming installations, depots, arsenals, and the
information network that connects them to become more
effective, energy efficient, and environmentally conscious
Transforming the Army's training, structure, systems,
and processes to better sustain and prepare the force
Adapting our activities to protect the environment
Our accomplishments over the past year further
illustrate our commitment to improving efficiency and
effectiveness throughout the Army.
army accomplishments
Initiated the Army Medical Action Plan to improve
medical care for our wounded warriors
Initiated the SFAP bringing to life the Army Family
Covenant
Initiated Soldier Family Assistance Centers throughout
the Army to provide a single point of entry for families and
wounded warriors for health care and related issues
Recognized with the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige
Award; the Army Armament, Research and Development Engineering
Center is the only organization in the Federal Government to
have received this honor
Recognized for world-class excellence in
manufacturing, the Army Materiel Command's depots and arsenals
earned 12 Shingo public sector awards
Formed the Army Contracting Task Force to review
current contracting operations and then immediately began
implementing improvements
Converted approximately 10,000 military positions to
civilian positions through the end of fiscal year 2007
Privatized more than 4,000 homes, bringing the total
to over 75,000 homes that are privately managed
Reduced energy consumption on our installations
through fiscal year 2007, achieving levels down 8.4 percent
since 2003 and 28.9 percent since 1985
Reset 123,000 pieces of equipment, including 1,700
tracked vehicles, 15,000 wheeled vehicles, 550 aircraft, and
7,400 generators
Improved property accountability by providing Army
wide visibility of 3.4 billion items valued in excess of $230
billion
Destroyed over 15,000 tons of chemical agent contained
in 1.8 million chemical munitions and containers
Moved 10 million square feet of unit cargo in support
of the global war on terror and humanitarian aid missions
Merged the Joint Network Node program into the
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, resulting in better
integration and cost savings
Began fielding Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
vehicles to units in Iraq
Established the Army Evaluation Task Force and fielded
first `spin-outs' from FCS
Developed the Automated Reset Management Tool to
provide a collaborative integrated tool for equipment reset
planning and execution of the Army Force Generation process
Increased the rigor in training new soldiers by
requiring graduates of basic training to be Combat Lifesaver
certified
Fielded Human Terrain Teams to assist commanders in
gaining objective knowledge of a population's social groups,
interests, and beliefs
Employed National Guard soldiers worldwide who aided
in seizing nearly 4,000 vehicles, approximately a million
pounds of marijuana, and roughly 600,000 pounds of cocaine
While we are proud of these accomplishments, we continue to
identify and pursue additional ways to improve our stewardship,
efficiency, and effectiveness throughout the Army.
preserving the strength of the nation
The Army has been at war for over 6 years. Our soldiers have
demonstrated valor, endured countless hardships, and made great
sacrifices. Over 3,000 soldiers have died and many more have been
wounded. The awards our soldiers have earned reflect their
accomplishments and bravery on the battlefield. Our Army families have
stood shoulder-to-shoulder with their soldiers throughout these
challenging times.
Our examination of the current and future security environments
confirms the need to restore balance and build readiness across all
components of the Army as quickly as possible. Four imperatives--
Sustain, Prepare, Reset, and Transform--frame how the Army will restore
balance by 2011 and begin to build readiness for the future. To
accomplish our plan, we will continue to require timely and predictable
resources and support.
The Army will remain central to successfully achieving U.S.
national security objectives, particularly in an era in which
operations will be waged increasingly among people in urban
environments. As the decisive ground component of the joint and
interagency teams, the Army operates across the full spectrum of
conflict to protect our national interests and affirm our Nation's
commitment to friends, allies, and partners worldwide. Our goal is a
more agile, responsive, campaign-quality and expeditionary Army with
modern networks, surveillance sensors, precision weapons, and platforms
that are lighter, less logistics dependent, and less manpower
intensive.
As we restore balance and build readiness for the future, we
continue to invest in our centerpiece--soldiers--and the families that
support them. Of the million soldiers in uniform, over half of them are
married, with more than 700,000 children. The Army Family Covenant, the
SFAP, and the Army Medical Action Plan are examples of our commitment
to caring for our soldiers, families, and Army civilians in these
challenging times. With the continued support from the Secretary of
Defense, the President, and Congress for our legislative and financial
needs, the Army will restore balance, build the readiness necessary in
an era of persistent conflict, and remain the strength of the Nation.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Secretary Geren.
General Casey?
STATEMENT OF GEN GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA, CHIEF OF STAFF,
ARMY
General Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe,
members of the committee.
The chairman mentioned the fact that the Secretary and I
were here in November, and, really, with the exception of some
of the returning surge forces, not much has changed in the last
90 days. That said, I'd like to re-emphasize some of the themes
that the Secretary and I highlighted, but do it in the context
of the fiscal year 2009 budget that we're presenting today.
As has been said, our country is in our 7th year of war,
and our Army remains fully engaged on all fronts, both abroad
and at home. I testified, in November, that I believed the next
decade would be one of persistent conflict, a period that I
described as a period of protracted confrontation among state,
nonstate, and individual actors who are increasingly willing to
use violence to achieve their political and ideological
objectives.
I also described to you some of the global trends that I
think will exacerbate and prolong this period: the double-edged
swords of globalization and technology, doubling populations in
developing countries, competition for resources, proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and safe havens in ungoverned
spaces. I said that our Army must be versatile enough to adapt
rapidly to the unexpected circumstances that will result, and
that we are building an agile, campaign-capable, expeditionary
force that we need for this uncertain future.
I also said that the cumulative effects of the last 6-plus
years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the
current fight, and unable to do the things we know we need to
do to properly sustain our All-Volunteer Force and restore our
flexibility for an uncertain future.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wrestled hard to find the right words
to describe the state of the Army, because, as the Secretary
said, it remains a hugely resilient, professional, and combat-
seasoned force, but I think we all acknowledge that we are not
where we need to be.
I said that we have a plan that will, with your help,
restore balance to our force, and that we've identified four
imperatives that we must accomplish to put ourselves back in
balance: sustain, prepare, reset, and transform. Let me just
say a few words about each.
First and foremost, we must sustain our soldiers, families,
and Army civilians. They are the heart and soul of this Army,
and they must be sustained in a way that recognizes their
quality of service. The Secretary mentioned some of the
initiatives we've taken. They will continue with your support.
Second, prepare. We need to continue to prepare our forces
for success in the current conflicts. We cannot flinch from our
commitment to provide them the training, the equipment, and the
resources to give them a decisive advantage over any enemy that
they face.
Third, reset. The harsh environments that we're operating
in, and the frequent deployments, are taking their toll on our
soldiers and their equipment. Reset is about returning our
soldiers and our equipment to appropriate levels of readiness
for future deployments and contingencies. In fiscal year 2007,
you provided us the resources to begin properly resetting the
force, and, as a result, we've made significant strides in
restoring systems and capabilities to the force. In my mind,
resources for reset are the difference between a hollow force
and a versatile force for the future.
Lastly, transform. Even as we work to put ourselves back in
balance, we must continue to transform our Army into the agile
campaign-capable expeditionary force that can meet the security
needs of the Nation in the 21st century. For us, transformation
is a holistic effort to adapt how we train, modernize, develop
leaders, station forces, and support our soldiers, families,
and civilians.
To guide our transformation, we are releasing, this week, a
new version of our capstone doctrine, field manual 3.0. This is
the first revision of our capstone doctrine since 2001. It
describes how we see the future security environment and
provides a framework for Army forces to operate and succeed in
that environment. It has five significant elements.
First, it describes the complex and multidimensional
operational environment of the 21st century, where we believe
we will increasingly operate and fight among the people.
Second, the manual elevates stability operations to the
level of offense and defense, and describes an operational
concept for full-spectrum operations, where Army forces
simultaneously apply offense, defense, and stability operations
to seize the initiative and to achieve decisive results.
Third, it emphasizes the commander's role in battle command
and describes an intellectual process of developing solutions
to complex challenges our forces will face.
Fourth, it emphasizes the importance of information
superiority in achieving success in modern conflict.
Fifth, it recognizes that our soldiers remain the
centerpiece of our formations and our ultimate asymmetric
advantage.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that this doctrine will provide us
a great start point from which to build on the experience of
the past 7 years and to shape our Army for the future.
So, that's our plan: sustain, prepare, reset, and
transform. The last 2 years, you've given us the funding to
begin the process of putting the Army back in balance. This
budget before you, the war on terror supplemental that will
accompany it, and the balance of the fiscal year 2008 war on
terror supplemental, will allow this process to continue. We
appreciate your support, and I'd like to give you a few
examples about how we've worked hard to put the resources
you've given us to good use.
First, we've made great strides in the Army Medical Action
Plan to provide better care for our wounded soldiers.
Second, we've initiated an Army Soldier Family Action Plan
to bring life to our Army Family Covenant to improve the
quality of life for soldiers and families.
Next, we are over 60 percent complete with the modular
conversion of our units. This is the largest organizational
transformation of the Army since World War II. We're also over
60 percent complete with our conversion of our 120,000 soldiers
from skills that were needed in the Cold War to ones we need
for the 21st century. We've reset over 120,000 pieces of
equipment. We've privatized more than 4,000 homes, bringing the
total of privately managed homes to over 80,000. The depots in
our Army Materiel Command had been recognized by commercial
industry for efficiency 12 times. There's a Shingo Award that
industry gives for efficiency, and our depots have won 12 of
those in the last year. So, as you can see, with your help
we're not sitting still, and we're moving out to give the
Nation the Army it needs for the 21st century.
Now, let me just close with some thoughts on quality.
I was in Alaska right before Christmas, and I was asked to
present a Distinguished Service Cross to Sergeant Greg
Williams. Sergeant Williams was on a Stryker patrol in Baghdad
in October 2006. His patrol came under attack from three
directions and with an explosively formed penetrator array.
Those are those very lethal armor-penetrating improvised
explosive devices. He was knocked out. He awoke to find his
Stryker on fire, to find his legs on fire, and his eardrum
burst. He put out his flames, and his first reaction was to
grab the aid bag and start treating his fellow soldiers, under
fire. He realized that the lieutenant was still in the burning
vehicle. He went back in the burning vehicle and dragged the
lieutenant to safety. Continuing to fire at the enemy, he
realized that no one was manning the .50 caliber machine gun on
top of the Stryker. He returned to the burning vehicle a second
time, a vehicle that still contained over 30 pounds of
explosives and detonating cord. He got on the .50 caliber,
brought the weapon to bear on the enemy, broke the ambush, and
the squad was extracted.
That's the kind of men and women that we have in your Armed
Forces today, and you can be extremely proud of the job that
they're doing all around the world.
That said, it will require more than the courage and valor
of our soldiers to ensure that our Army can continue to protect
this country in an era of persistent conflict. It will require
recognition by national leaders, like yourselves, of the
threats and challenges that America faces in the years ahead.
It will also require full, timely, and predictable funding to
ensure that our Armed Forces are prepared to defeat those
threats and to preserve our way of life.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, General.
Let's try a 5-minute round of questions. It's very short,
but we have five votes coming up, and I'm afraid it's necessary
to hop, skip, and jump a bit. So, let's have a first round of 5
minutes.
According to the current model for planning the rotations
of units into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's
assertion is that it can reduce the time deployed, from the
current 15 months, as was necessary to support the surge at the
beginning of last year, back to the pre-surge 12 months per
rotation. Let me ask you, Secretary or General, either one,
when are you going to return to the 12-months deployment? What
assumptions, relative to drawdown, do you make in the answer
which you give to that question?
Secretary Geren. Let me begin, but then I'd like to ask
General Casey. We've been working on this together, and I think
that he could provide more details on the analysis.
We can't say, with certainty. It is a top priority for our
Army. We know 15-month deployments are too long, and we know
that we cannot continue to sustain the readiness that we need
to build in this Army if we aren't able to extend the dwell
time. Everyone in the Army understands this challenge, the
importance of it, and we're working to shorten the deployment
times and lengthen the dwell times.
Chairman Levin. What is your goal? Do you have a goal for
when you're going to reach 12 months, in terms of deployment,
and what you need to do, in terms of drawdown of deployments,
in order to achieve that goal? You must have a goal.
Secretary Geren. We have a goal, but so much depends upon
the demand from theater, and we don't control that, obviously.
Chairman Levin. Is there a timetable for it?
Secretary Geren. This summer, we'd like to see us be able
to put ourselves on track to get our deployments and our dwell
time in a one-to-one ratio.
Chairman Levin. Okay, now what would have to come from the
theater, in terms of drawdown, in order for you to reach 12
months; by when? Put it in shorthand for us. You have to draw
down to what level in order to get to 12-month deployment.
General Casey. In shorthand, Senator, if General Petraeus
is able to execute the announced plan of getting to 15 brigades
by July, it would be our goal, at that point, to return to 12-
month versus 15-month deployments.
Chairman Levin. All right. If that pause that he says he
favors continues, say, for 6 months, would you be able to
continue that 12-month deployment?
General Casey. You asked what assumptions we make.
Chairman Levin. Yes.
General Casey. If the brigade levels stay at 15 brigade
combat teams, we believe it will still be possible, even with a
pause, to go from 15 brigades to 12 brigades. That's our goal.
Chairman Levin. Fifteen months.
General Casey. I'm sorry, yes.
Chairman Levin. Yes, 15 months.
General Casey. Fifteen months to 12 months. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. That's regardless of the length of the
pause.
General Casey. Yes. As long as we get to 15 brigades.
Chairman Levin. Even if we stay at 15 brigades.
General Casey. Even if we stay.
Chairman Levin. All right.
I want to talk about stop loss. How many soldiers do you
expect that the Army's going to retain under stop-loss
authority at the end of fiscal year 2008?
Secretary Geren. We currently have a little less than 8,000
on stop loss today. Our goal is to get rid of stop loss as a
force management tool. That also will depend upon what happens
in theater. If we get down to 15 brigades, for every brigade
that is reduced, we're able to reduce stop loss further. DOD,
the Department of State, and the leadership of the Army all
committed to utilizing stop loss as seldom as possible. Right
now, it's less than 8,000. Without some remarkable change,
it'll probably be around that at the end of the fiscal year.
Chairman Levin. If we stay at 15 brigades?
Secretary Geren. It might get as low as 7,000, but we don't
expect it to go much lower than that over the course of this
fiscal year.
Chairman Levin. All right. Last October, General, the Army
requested $123 million to build Warrior Transition Unit and
Soldier Family Assistance Center facilities. Our authorization
conference fully funded that request. Now, the Army has
identified requirements for a substantial increase in the
number of, and the funding required for such facilities for
fiscal year 2009, but there's no funding in the budget request
for those facilities, and there's no request for assistance for
wounded warriors or families on the unfunded requirements
letter that you've provided to us. I'm wondering why that is
true. General?
General Casey. We have made great use of the funds that
you've provided there, in building 35 Warrior Transition Units
around the country. I visited one in Alaska last week, and am
very impressed with the quality of what we're doing.
As for the additional funding in the 2009 base program, I
was under the impression that we did have money in there for
Warrior Transition Units. The exact number escapes me right
now.
Chairman Levin. My understanding is, there isn't. If there
isn't, should there be?
Secretary Geren. We have used the supplementals to respond
to many of the wounded warrior needs, Senator, and that is
among the areas that we're looking to move into the base
budget, ultimately; but, right now, since they are wounds of
war and they are a response to the casualties of war, we are
funding much of that in the supplementals. When we look at
programs that we're going to need to move from the supplemental
to the base, that is one of them.
Chairman Levin. So, we can expect that's going to be part
of the supplemental request if it's not in the budget?
Secretary Geren. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
Over the last year and with Congress' support, we have rapidly
improved care for our wounded warriors. We requested much of this
funding in global war on terror supplemental because of our need to
respond immediately. With Congress' assistance, we are operating and
building facilities to support 35 Warrior Transition Units. Our fiscal
year 2008 global war on terror supplemental request includes $300
million for this purpose. Once Congress completes its budget
deliberations, we will be able to proceed with the construction portion
($138 million) of these important projects and finalize our remaining
requirements for the fiscal year 2009 global war on terror
supplemental. In the long-term, timely and predictable funding is
critical to ensure quality care for our wounded warriors. Starting with
fiscal year 2010, we plan to include Army Medical Action Plan
requirements in our budget request.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Geren, you and I were both serving together in
the House in 1994, and you've heard me make this statement
before about the witness that appeared before the House Armed
Services Committee and projected that, in 10 years, we'd no
longer need ground troops. That was 1994; I think what that
does is emphasize that, no matter how smart we are and how many
smart generals we have around us, if you try to project out 10
years, you're going to be wrong. Right now, we're negotiating a
war and you're fighting it, having started after we reduced the
number of divisions and resources that we had. It looks like
what you're saying in your testimony this morning is that this
budget is going to allow us to do that. Is that your feeling
now, that you can hold on with this budget and also address the
four things that you mentioned, General Casey, the sustain,
prepare, reset, and transform?
Secretary Geren. I think we would agree, today, that we cut
the Army way too much. This Army is about 40 percent the size
that it was 35 years ago. In this budget and over the program
objective memorandum, we're not only growing the Army, we're
growing the Army faster than we planned. Our plan is to add
74,000 soldiers to the Active Army and 65,000 to the Guard and
Reserve. With this budget, we're moving the growth of the
Active component up from 2012 to 2010, so we'll have completed
that growth by then. So, we're going to have more soldiers. As
the chief mentioned, it's not just a question of more soldiers,
it's moving soldiers from low-demand, high-density military
occupational specialties (MOSs) to high-demand, low-density. We
are in the process of moving 120 soldiers out of their old MOSs
into new MOSs. For example, the Reserves are getting 1,000 new
soldiers under this Grow-the-Reserves plan, but they're going
to, at the end of their transformation, have 17,000 more
soldiers that are going to be available to the operational
Army. So, it's growing the Army, but it's also transforming the
Army, making sure that we have soldiers that can do what the
demands of the future require.
Senator Inhofe. General Casey, when you used your, for
example, sustain, repair, reset, and transform, you weigh them
all about the same, don't you? Equal emphasis?
General Casey. Senator, I would weight ``sustain,'' taking
of and retaining our soldiers, as a little heavier than I would
the others but the others are equally important.
Senator Inhofe. I guess what I'm getting at is, the problem
normally is whatever is bleeding the most is going to get the
most attention. That usually leaves transformation out, or
moves it back. I'm very proud that you've been able to keep
that where it is. I'd like to have you both comment on the
current status of the FCS and how optimistic you are that
you're going to be able to stay on schedule with that system.
Secretary Geren. The cuts that we have taken in the program
over the last 3 years will result in a delay. We're estimating
now that it'll delay the program 7 months. We had expected to
build eight of the non-line-of-sight (NLOS) cannons this year,
we're going to build five this year, three the next. So, the
changes in the FCS budget have affected the calendar, but we do
believe that we're going to be able to stay on track and bring
this program into the service of our soldiers.
There's been a lot of questions about its affordability,
but if you look at the $160 billion over the life of the FCS
program, at no point does it get to be more than a third of
research and development (R&D) and acquisition budget. So, our
R&D budget is a fourth of our Army budget. At no point does it
get more than a 12th of our Army budget. We believe it's
affordable, and we believe it's an investment that we have to
make.
Senator Inhofe. General Casey?
General Casey. If I could, thank you.
You mentioned in your opening comments about some decisions
that were made in the 1990s that resulted in the force that we
had on September 11. If we think back to the 1990s, we were
looking at what we thought was going to be a very peaceful
future.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I remember the peace dividend, yes.
General Casey. The lesson that I take from that is, you
have to continue to look for the future. We believe that the
FCS is exactly the full-spectrum system that we need for our
future. In fact, when you look at this manual, you'll see that
the things, like precision intelligence-collection abilities
and precision effects that are required in full-spectrum
operations in the 21st century, are exactly the kind of systems
that the FCS will bring to us.
This year is the year that you will be able to see some of
the things that, up to now, you've only seen on slides. Last
week, I visited Fort Bliss, TX, where we have an Army brigade
that is actually testing some of the initial components of the
FCS. There will be a limited user test this summer. You will
also see the first prototype of the man-ground vehicle in June.
So, this is going to go from the slides to reality, here, and I
think you will be able to see them, and see the power of what
we're trying to create.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that. My time has expired, but
I have this very strong feeling, as I talk to people around the
country, that there are expectations that if our kids are going
to go to war, they ought to have the best there is out there,
and currently, they don't. We are deficient in some areas. You
mentioned the NLOS cannon. That's one area where, it's my
understanding, there are actually five countries, including
South Africa, that make a better NLOS cannon than we have.
That's something we want to correct, as difficult as it is
while we're negotiating war, and I applaud you for your being
steadfast in that area.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
The votes have begun. Senator Reed is next, and then I
would ask Senator Reed, when he's done, whoever's here, to
identify them, if you would. Senator Lieberman, if you'll take
this overall charge.
Senator Reed [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your service.
Last Sunday, I think many people woke up and read a very
intriguing article in the New York Times magazine about a
battle that a company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade had in
Afghanistan. One of the things that struck me is a passage
which I'll read, ``One full-moon night, I was sitting outside a
sandbag-reinforced hut with Kearney,'' Captain Dan Kearney, a
great young company commander, airborne, ``when a young
sergeant stepped out, hauling the garbage. He looked around in
the illuminated mountains and dust and rocks, the garbage bins.
The monkeys were screaming. `I hate this country,' he shouted,
then he smiled and walked back into the hut. `He's on
medication,' Kearney said quietly to me. Then another soldier
walked by and shouted, `Hey, I'm with you, sir.' Kearney said
to me, `Prozac, serious PTSD from the last tour.' Another one
popped out of the headquarters, cursing and muttering.
`Medicated,' Kearney said. `Last tour, if you didn't give
information, he'd burn down your house. He killed so many
people, he's checked out.' ''
I find it disturbing that we have soldiers that are
suffering, and again, this is a snapshot of one unit in one
very difficult situation, but soldiers appear to have serious
psychological problems, that are taking antidepressants and are
in combat operations on a daily basis. Does that undercut a lot
of this rhetoric about how we're doing great, the Army's fine,
we just need a little more resources?
General Casey. Senator, I don't think either the Secretary
or I said that everything's great and the Army's fine. I think,
just to the contrary, we said that we are stretched. I think
what you're seeing is the impact of repeated tours in a brutal
combat environment. We all understand the impact and the toll
that takes on our soldiers and on our leaders.
Now, I trust our junior leaders, supported by their medical
health professionals, to make individual judgments about the
soldiers in their units. Clearly what you read there is
troubling.
Senator Reed. I can recall, we were both in command of
companies, and I, in a benign environment, was not faced with
those types of leadership challenges, as portrayed here, of
significant and multiple situations of young soldiers who have
serious mental health problems. It seems to be that this is not
a reaction to their first exposure to combat. As you point out,
General, this is because they're being repeatedly cycled
through combat. I think, in other circumstances, these young
men would have been evacuated, or certainly not sent back into
the zone. That, I think, underscores what you've said is not
only overstretched, but, in fact, stretched, in some cases,
beyond the capacity of individual soldiers.
General Casey. Yes, Senator, I don't know the specifics of
this particular unit, but I think you know that we have
started, last summer, a very concerted effort to reduce the
stigma that people attach to seeking assistance for PTSD and
other mental health problems, and to inform our subordinate
leaders so that they can help in diagnosis. We have trained
over 800,000 of our soldiers in that, and we're starting to see
a reduction in the stigma and people willing to come forward
and get treatment, because, as our research has shown us, the
sooner we get soldiers into the system, the more likely they
are to make a full recovery.
Senator Reed. There's another quote I think is important in
this article by Sergeant Erick Gallardo of the unit, ``we don't
get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot
more rugged, but we know the war is here, we have unfinished
business,'' which I think speaks to the ethic of these young
soldiers to carry on, but also raises a question of, do they
have everything they need? We're not just talking about the
new, fancy FCS, we're talking about the basic equipment to
carry out the job they're doing now. I think I would be
disturbed; are you disturbed? When young soldiers and
noncommissioned officers (NCOs) are talking about, ``we don't
have everything we need.''
General Casey. Senator, I go out to the theater, just like
you do, and I ask everybody I talk to, ``Do you have what you
need?'' I called both General Rodriguez, who's the commander in
Afghanistan, and General Austin, who's the commander in Iraq,
yesterday, and I asked them, ``Do you have supply problems? Do
you have shortages?'' Their answer was, ``There's no systemic
shortages, and they're at their stockage levels.'' Now, at the
platoon level, can there be spare-part shortages? Sure. But I
know that the logistical systems between Afghanistan and Iraq
are well-established, and we can usually take care of shortages
in a relatively short period of time.
Senator Reed. My time is expired. I want to recognize
Senator Chambliss. But, just a question for the record or for
contemplation. When Secretary Gates was here just a few weeks
ago, and I asked him about the status of FCS, he said, rather
candidly, ``I don't see how the Army could ever fund this
system going forward.'' He's someone that I think we all
respect, and he happens to be your boss. So, I think you have a
problem, if the Secretary candidly and honestly feels that he
can't fund FCS, and you're talking about this all coming to
balance in 2011. I'll try to come back for a response, but I
want that on the record, at least.
General Casey. I can give you a short one here, that I've
talked to Secretary Gates after he made that statement, and he
indicated he has no basic problems with the program. As he
said, he supports the spinout part of the program. But, as with
anyone faced with, as the case you posed, the inevitability of
reductions in resources, you have to look at a $162 billion
program.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Gentlemen, first of all, as always, thanks for your great
service to our country. We appreciate both of you.
I was pleased to see both of you focus on the issue of
wounded warriors in your opening statement, and also pleased to
see the accomplishments and progress the Army has made in
treating wounded warriors, caring for the families, and
ensuring that the deployment reintegration process is as
seamless as possible.
Secretary Geren, you were here a couple of weeks ago, when
we had the hearing on wounded warriors, and I asked about the
ongoing cooperation between Fort Gordon, the Augusta VA, and
the Medical College of Georgia in relation to caring for
wounded warriors, and I appreciate Lieutenant General
Schoomaker's comments about the success of that collaboration.
He deserves an awful lot of credit, and I probably didn't say
enough about him that day, but he really did a great job when
he was at Eisenhower relative to this issue, and he, frankly,
gave a lot of credit to the farsighted vision of the people of
the Augusta community for seeing a need for that partnership
and making it work.
Now, as we go forward regarding how the Army treats its
wounded warriors and works to rehabilitate them either back
into the Army or successfully into civilian life, how can the
private sector participate with you in this regard? How can we
help you? What kind of expertise, training, or resources might
you be able to use from the private sector that would assist
you in ensuring your wounded warriors receive the best
treatment possible?
Secretary Geren. Thank you and I'll pass along your kind
words about General Schoomaker. He certainly did an outstanding
job there, and he's doing an outstanding job as the Surgeon
General for the Army today in a very challenging time. That
collaboration between VA and the DOD at Fort Gordon and
Eisenhower is outstanding, and it's one of the models that we
look to, to emulate around the force. The community down there
does an outstanding job supporting the military and VA, and we
appreciate, very much, all they do.
There are many areas that we have to look to the private
sector to address challenges that come with meeting the needs
of wounded, ill, and injured warriors. Last year, Congress gave
us $900 million in the area of TBI and PTSD work. Much of those
funds will be invested with outside research efforts in order
to increase our knowledge in those areas, so we will look to
the outside community for research. Our health care system
today depends on TRICARE, and TRICARE depends on the private
sector, and that is one of the great challenges we have across
the system. Many of our Army installations are in rural areas,
they have certain medical specialties that are underserved in
those areas, and we have a challenge in many of these rural
communities, particularly in the area of mental health care,
and we need to look long and hard at the TRICARE system and our
system of supporting mental health needs within the Army to
figure out a good way ahead that meets this need of our
soldiers and their families.
Certainly, research is an area that the private sector will
be a full partner. We have shortages throughout our system in
the areas of mental health; we have shortages in nursing; we
have shortages in dental care, and dental professionals as
well. So, with the authorities you have given us, we are
working with the private sector to try to meet these shortages.
But, for us to be successful in meeting the healthcare needs of
our soldiers, it will require a full partnership with the
private sector.
Senator Chambliss. I applaud you for taking giant steps and
trying to make sure that these brave young men and women are
getting the treatment they need when they come back, and we
look forward to continuing to work with you in that respect.
I think I'm going to have to go vote. I guess we'll be in
recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
Secretary Geren. All right. Thank you. [Recess.]
Senator Collins [presiding]. The committee will be in
order.
At the suggestion of the chairman, we're rotating back and
forth between the votes, and so, I'm going to proceed quickly
with my question at this time. If someone else comes back, I'll
turn over the gavel. It's nice to temporarily have the gavel.
General Casey, the inadequate size of our Army has caused
repeated and extended deployments for our troops, and this is a
matter of great concern to all of us. You've talked this
morning about the tremendous strain on our troops and their
families. Another consequence of the inadequate size of our
Army has been an unprecedented reliance on private security
contractors in a war zone. Do you think that we have become
over-reliant on private security contractors to perform tasks,
in a hostile environment, that traditionally have been
performed by our troops?
General Casey. I would not say, Senator, that we are overly
reliant, as you suggest. In the 1990s, as we discussed earlier,
some decisions were made to reduce the size of the Army from
780,000 down to around 482,000. As a result of that, we
recognized that we would have to rely on contractors, primarily
for logistics, but also for security.
My recollection is that DOD is relying on about 7,000
security contractors in theater right now. To me, that does not
seem to be an inappropriate number, and the tasks they are
performing, usually of providing individual or close-in
security, are something that probably they could do better than
our soldiers, and our soldiers can best be put to
counterinsurgency-type operations.
Senator Collins. Secretary Geren, the same question for
you. Are you satisfied with the balance between having military
personnel, versus private security contractors, in Iraq and
Afghanistan, or do you believe that we've become too dependent
on private security contractors, who are, for the first time,
performing tasks that traditionally have been performed by our
men and women in uniform?
Secretary Geren. We have to allocate our soldiers and our
contract resources according to the priorities of where each
could serve best. It's not just private security contractors,
but we've seen a tremendous growth in the number of private
contractors that support a deployed Army. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, we have close to 200,000 contractors. I think
that's just a reality of the kind of Army we are today. When we
deploy today, we will be roughly half in uniform and half out.
As we've shrunk the size of the Army, we've had to look to
contractors to provide many of the support functions that have
traditionally been handled by soldiers. But, if the choice is
between putting a soldier in one of those contract functions or
putting a soldier out, fighting the counterinsurgency war, I
think we're making the better choice.
Senator Collins. The reason that I'm focusing particularly
on the private security contractors is, unlike contract
employees who are engaged in logistics, they are far more
likely to be involved in a hostile incident; and, indeed, there
have been several controversial cases in Iraq where private
security contractors have been involved in firefights, and in
some cases, have killed Iraqi civilians. Whether unprovoked or
not is being investigated, even as we speak.
Let me ask you a different question, then, General Casey.
Are you confident that we have a clear legal authority to deal
with private security contractors who may have killed Iraqi
civilians without justification?
General Casey. Senator, I cannot say that I am confident. I
don't know the specifics of the agreement that was worked out
between General Petraeus and the Ambassador. I know that they
were working very hard to ensure that we could exercise
appropriate jurisdiction over any contractor that committed,
really, any offense that was punishable under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Senator Collins. Doesn't the fact that that agreement did
not previously exist suggest that the framework for dealing
with such cases was legally tenuous or ambiguous?
General Casey. Again, I can't speak to that. I think, as
you suggest, the increasing reliance on contractors has caused
us to expand what we needed to do to deal with them, and it was
a learning experience, and I think we have continued to grow in
our knowledge of what it takes to effectively exercise control
over contractors.
Senator Collins. General Casey, I am going to have to go
return to the floor, but, in fact, there was not such a
framework worked out while you were the commanding officer in
Iraq, was there?
General Casey. That's true. That's true. I had jurisdiction
over the DOD contractors; the State Department had jurisdiction
over theirs.
Senator Collins. According to an investigation that the
Homeland Security Committee has done, in some cases the only
penalty for a contract employee was to be just given an airline
ticket home. Does that trouble you?
General Casey. I don't know that that is the case in every
situation. I know that there were some contractors under our
authority who were, in fact, punished. I certainly cannot say
whether that was the case for all contractors operating in
Iraq.
Senator Collins. My time has expired, but I would just
suggest that another consequence of having too small a military
force, in addition to the one that concerns us most, which is
the tremendous strain that repeated deployments and extended
deployments imposes on our troops, our families, and in the
case of the National Guard, the employers, as well. Another
consequence has been a need to rely on private security
contractors who are not under the UCMJ, necessarily, or who are
not subject to the kinds of legal constraints and chain of
command that military personnel are under. I think that's been
a real issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
Collins.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, Secretary Geren, thanks for being here.
Thanks for the extraordinary service you and over a million
Americans who serve under you give our country. We're placing
enormous demands on you, and, in my experience and review, the
Army is meeting those demands with excellence, with honor, and
with a lot of bravery, and, as a result, we're succeeding in
places where it's not easy to succeed. So, I thank you for
that.
As you well know, in the nature of the process we go
through on the budget, the administration presents the budget,
and then we have a responsibility to independently evaluate,
consider the threats and demands that we face, and then
authorize to a level that we think meets those threats and
demands. I want to focus on Army personnel, because, obviously,
all the concern you've heard expressed here and elsewhere,
about the 15-month tours of duty, is a result of the fact that
we have fewer people in the Army than we should have, in my
opinion. This fiscal year 2009 budget funds positions up to
what number, Mr. Secretary? In the Active Army, that's what I
want to focus on.
Secretary Geren. In this budget, we add 43,000 soldiers,
which had been in the supplemental, into the base budget.
Today, we have 523,000 soldiers on Active Duty. At the end of
the fiscal year, we'll have 534,000 on Active Duty.
Senator Lieberman. Okay. So, let me ask you this question,
just to enable us to go through the process that we have a
responsibility to go through. I want to ask both of you to
answer this. Knowing what you know about the demands we face
today, what your ideals would be, and what other demands and
threats we may face around the world, leaving aside the very
relevant, but I want to ask you to leave it aside, question of
resources and budgeting, how large do you think the Army should
be?
General?
General Casey. That's hard to leave the budget out of that
discussion.
Senator Lieberman. I know, but I want to give both the
committee and, frankly, the American people, some sense, though
the budget is high, that----
General Casey. What I have said in the past, Senator, is,
we have a plan to increase the size of the Active Force by
65,000.
Senator Lieberman. So, that would bring us to 547,000.
General Casey. That's the 547,000 that we're building to
now.
Senator Lieberman. You've accelerated, and I appreciate it,
the pace at which we're going to do that, and we're doing it.
General Casey. That's correct.
Senator Lieberman. In other words, the original was over 5
years.
General Casey. It was going to go out through 2012 and, as
the Secretary said, we accelerated the growth until 2010.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Casey. The purpose of that was to, again, take and
reduce some of the stress on the force.
Senator Lieberman. Sure. So, that's 547,000 by 2010.
General Casey. That's correct.
Senator Lieberman. Okay.
General Casey. Now, the question really then goes to: for
what? What size Army do you need for what? The next question, I
think, for the Active Army, particularly is: what is the access
to the Guard and to the Reserve?
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Casey. We feel that to sustain the Guard and
Reserve, a deployment ratio of about 1 to 5, 1 year out, 5
years back, is sustainable. They're operating at about 1 to
3\1/2\ right now.
Senator Lieberman. One to 3\1/2\. Right.
General Casey. So, my strategy has been, let's get to
547,000.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Casey. Let's build that quality force, and let's
continue what we're doing to increase the size of the Guard and
Reserve, and then let's reassess, and let's have a discussion
and a debate about how big the Army should, in fact, be.
Senator Lieberman. So, you're not prepared to give a number
about what your goal would be now.
General Casey. No, I don't think so, Senator. If you're
looking for broad parameters with the folks that are mobilized,
there's around 600,000 people on Active Duty today.
Senator Lieberman. So perhaps the goal there would be to
have 600,000 on Active Duty.
General Casey. I don't necessarily think so, because you go
back to the question you don't want to discuss. The worst thing
I believe we could do, Senator, is to build a force that
wouldn't be the quality of this force. I came into a hollow
Army, and I really don't want to go out of a hollow Army.
Senator Lieberman. No, absolutely. That's exactly the
point. I've been reading the things that others have said,
including your predecessor, General Gordon Sullivan, he did a
slightly larger universe, but he said the Army and Marines and
Special Operations Forces ought to hit a total of 750,000. Let
me put it a different way. The 750,000 is the current goal.
General Sullivan talked about possibly hitting a million. I
take your answers, and I'm not going to push you any further to
say to me, and I'll say what I believe, myself, that the
current goal of 547,000 is not enough, and we're going to have
to come back, as we go on to meet the threats that we need to
meet, and to do it with people who are capable to defend our
security.
Secretary Geren, my time is up, but I don't know if you
want to add anything to what General Casey has said on this
subject.
Secretary Geren. When we consider the size of the Army, a
big part of our effectiveness in the future is going to depend
upon how good a job we do in operationalizing the Guard and
Reserve. Our Army Active Duty is only about half of the total
end strength of our military today.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Secretary Geren. You have the same number of people in the
Guard and Reserve as you do in the Active Duty. Our Reserves,
over the course of this growth, are going to add 1,000
soldiers, but through transformation, they're going to be able
to move 17,000 more soldiers into their operating force. So,
there are a lot of variables as we look to what the right mix
should be and what the right size should be. I think our most
prudent course of action is to achieve the growth that we have
on the books now, continue to work the transformation, move
folks into MOSs that are in high demand, look at how
effectively we can operationalize the Guard and Reserve, and
then assess where we are, and then make a decision on whether
or not it's an Army that meets the needs of the future.
Senator Lieberman. The dialogue will continue. Thanks very
much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
I want to pick up, first, on a question that Senator
Collins asked about under what law State Department contractors
in Iraq are operating. I think it's important that we have a
clear answer for the record. I understand that there's an
effort now to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi Government.
That's not what I'm referring to. I don't think that's what
Senator Collins was referring to either because she was talking
about until now, what is the law that governs contractors hired
by the State Department who allegedly have committed crimes? We
need to know that for the record.
Secretary Geren. Let us get back to you for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Secretary Geren. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Act (MEJA) law gives our Justice Department the authority to
criminally prosecute Americans who commit crimes in foreign
countries, so that is a backstop, but, as you well know, it's
not used very often; it's been used very few times.
Chairman Levin. Do you know why it's not used?
Secretary Geren. I do not.
Chairman Levin. Okay. Can you give us, for the record, a
clear answer to what law applies? If Iraqi law doesn't, because
of some agreement reached with the Iraqis, what American law
applies? If it's a law that's not used frequently, why is it
not used frequently? We need to know that, clearly, for the
record.
Secretary Geren. I'll get back to you for the record.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. If you could do that promptly,
because this issue is coming up in other committees, and there
should be an answer from the DOD on this.
On the deployment issues that I went over with you before,
assume for the moment that there are two additional brigade
combat teams that are needed in Afghanistan, and the other
countries that are involved don't provide them, and the
decision is made by our commander there that they are needed.
Could those two U.S. combat teams be provided under your
scenario, General? In other words, could you continue your 12-
month deployment? Would that answer still be effective after
July, if we get down to 15 combat teams in Iraq, and stay
there, if two additional brigade combat teams of the United
States are required in Afghanistan, or would that change your
answer?
General Casey. Senator, when you asked that question
earlier, about what the assumption is, my assumption is 15
deployed Active component brigades, which, for the Army, is 13
in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan.
So at 15 brigades, either in Iraq and/or Afghanistan,
that's where we can stay at 12 months.
Chairman Levin. Okay. So, the 15 includes 2 in Afghanistan.
General Casey. There are two Marine regiments in there in
Iraq.
Chairman Levin. Okay. I just want a real clear answer. Now,
there's 3,200 marines that are being sent, or have been sent,
additionally, to Afghanistan. That's separate, correct?
General Casey. Correct.
Chairman Levin. The 15 brigades that you referred to, in
Iraq in July, are the 15 that General Petraeus has talked
about.
General Casey. That's correct. That would be 13 Army and 2
Marine.
Chairman Levin. Two Marine. My question is: if two
additional brigades are needed in Afghanistan, to the number of
troops we already have there, would that change your answer?
General Casey. As I said, my assumption on getting to 15
months is that we will stay at 15 Army Active component
brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Chairman Levin. What is General Petraeus's statement about
getting to 15 brigades in July and then pausing? Are those the
same 15 you've just described?
General Casey. He is describing the 15 brigades in Iraq
only. Those 15 brigades consist of 13 Army and 2 Marine.
Chairman Levin. The 15 he's talking about are 13 Army, 2
Marine.
General Casey. Right.
Chairman Levin. Now, if, in addition to what he's talking
about is needed in Iraq, two additional brigades are needed in
Afghanistan, on top of the troops we have there now, then, I
take it, your answer is, we could not get to 12-months
deployed. Is that correct?
General Casey. Then I would have to go back and relook at
that impact. I have not looked at supporting 17 brigades.
Chairman Levin. I thought you did look. You said that the
maximum in both Iraq and Afghanistan was 15. Now you're saying
you need to relook it?
General Casey. You asked me what my assumption was to get
from 15 months to 12 months. I said it was 15 deployed Active
component brigades between Iraq and Afghanistan. Army brigades.
Chairman Levin. So, you're saying it's possible that you
could add two additional brigades to Afghanistan and still have
the same answer of 12-months deployment?
General Casey. I have not looked at that specific case,
Senator, and as I said, I'm very comfortable with the 15
number. I have not looked specifically at 17.
Chairman Levin. All right. My time's up. Would you get that
back, then, for the record, to us?
[The information referred to follows:]
Deployment lengths and dwell times are a function of available
supply and global combatant commander demands. Currently, U.S. Central
Command demands over half of the available Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs)
in the Army inventory. As demand for Army BCTs decreases, deployment
lengths decrease.
The Army is planning to reduce deployment lengths for soldiers from
15 to 12 months later this year as the number of BCTs in Iraq is
reduced. Twelve-month deployments are sustainable only if the global
demand for BCTs remains at or below pre-surge levels. In other words,
the number of available BCTs is fixed. If the two BCTs were provided to
Afghanistan without a similar reduction elsewhere, the Army could not
achieve 12-month deployment lengths.
Chairman Levin. We have 3 minutes left, plus the 5 minutes
add-on. So, Senator Lieberman, we'll turn it to you. If no one
is here when you are done, would you recess us for 15 minutes?
I'm going to come back and make sure there's no other Senators.
Thank you.
Senator Lieberman [presiding]. Honored to do that. Thank
you.
I just have a few questions, then I'm going to go over and
vote.
I wanted to focus in on another element of Army personnel.
In my opinion, and, I presume, yours, the All-Volunteer Army
has been a great success. I'm often asked when I'm out in
Connecticut or elsewhere, ``Is there a need to go back to the
draft?'' I said, ``No. The military, particularly, doesn't want
to do that, because we have a good All-Volunteer Force.''
Studies that I've looked at say that the quality of that
All-Volunteer Force is dependent very much on two primary
determinants, and that is the scores of the recruits on the
Services Aptitude Test, and if the recruit had received a high
school diploma. Obviously, there are individuals who may not
score the highest on the aptitude test or may not have a high
school diploma who turn out to be extraordinary soldiers. But
my reading of these studies says that, on the average, we do
better if we have people who score better on the test and have
a high school diploma. Reports now indicate that we're falling
down from the previous high levels in recruitment, that is, the
test scores and the presence of a high school diploma, among
people coming into the Army now. I want to ask you to comment
on that, but also I want to ask this question in an affirmative
spirit, which is: what can we do to help the Army, if this is a
problem, recruit to a level that assures that this All-
Volunteer Force of ours will continue to maintain the standards
of excellence and success that it has achieved thus far?
Secretary Geren. Many issues bear on that question. Let me,
first, say that many intangibles go into deciding whether or
not somebody makes a good soldier or not.
Senator Lieberman. Sure.
Secretary Geren. One of the most important intangibles in
assessing our recruiting classes these days is their
willingness to stand up and raise their right hand and join the
Army in the middle of a war.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Secretary Geren. That tells you a lot about that young man
or that young woman.
Senator Lieberman. Motivation.
Secretary Geren. They join the Army knowing they likely
will be going into combat. So, I think, as a threshold
question, that helps sort out folks. It brings the type of
people into the Army that we want, the people that are willing
to make selfless sacrifices.
But you're right, when you look at our quality indicators
over the last 3 years, they have gone down. Our high school
diploma grads were at 79 percent last year. Our goal was to
keep that above 80 percent. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense goals are 90 percent, and we strive for that, and we
are working to get to those levels.
We have a challenge with our recruiting population. Only
about 3 out of 10 young men in the 17- to 24-age range have the
physical, moral, mental, and educational qualifications to join
the Army. So we're aiming at the same people that the job
market is aiming at. We want people that are dependable,
healthy, moral, and have demonstrated a commitment to finish
what they started, finish high school. As a country, we need to
expand that pool, we need to get more young people to finish
high school.
A looming issue on the horizon is obesity. We're seeing
that, as we look 10 years down the road we're going to see more
and more young people disqualified for joining the Army because
of obesity. We have to do a better job, as a country, producing
17- to 24-year-olds that have the standards that qualify them
to join our Army. So, I think that's a national effort.
Senator Lieberman. So, short answer, and I apologize,
because I have to go over and vote, can you think of anything
specific that we can do for you, by way of funding or programs,
that will enable you to get back to those higher percentages on
the high school diploma, for instance?
Secretary Geren. In this budget, we do have a couple of new
programs that we started last year continuing this year. One is
our Army Advantage Fund, which is offering opportunities for
homeownership and also the opportunity to start a small
business as an incentive. I think one of our most promising
initiatives is a partnership between the Active component and
the Guard to recruit together and have a young man or woman
join the Active component and then transition to the Guard for
the rest of their obligated service. So we are funding those
initiatives and we continue to work to figure out ways to do
what we do, and do it better, just recruit better. But, long-
term, we need, as a country, to do a better job of producing
young people that are educated and meet the requirements of the
Army. Support from leaders such as yourself, at the national
level and the State level, and encouraging young people to join
the Army, is a very valuable part of our effort.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Secretary.
General, I apologize for not having the time here, but this
obviously is a long-range problem, and you and I will have many
opportunities to discuss it.
Thank you.
General Casey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much.
General Casey. Thank you for your interest.
Senator Lieberman. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Let me mention something. Senator Akaka, have you gone,
have you had a series of questions yet?
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Inhofe. Oh. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Secretary, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and
Management Support, I am especially concerned about the amount
of time our soldiers are getting at home in between
deployments, both to take care of themselves and their
families, but also to receive the necessary training. This
really is about resetting, as is being mentioned. Even with the
increase in Army end strength, I'm concerned that operations
tempo facing our soldiers will impact their ability to be
trained and prepared for missions across the spectrum of
conflict.
My question to you, Secretary: what are the biggest
obstacles for the Army to overcome if another crisis erupts
that demands U.S. military intervention on the ground?
Secretary Geren. Our goal is full-spectrum readiness, have
our soldiers ready for the full range of threats that are out
there. As you note in your question, with the length of time
that we have at home today, 12 months between deployments, we
do not have time to train for full-spectrum readiness in that
period of time. We have funding that is allowing us to reset
the equipment, so that equipment is ready for when soldiers
redeploy, but, until we get to a deployment-to-dwell ratio that
gives us adequate time at home, we are going to fall short of
our goal of full-spectrum readiness.
Senator Akaka. General Casey?
General Casey. There's a perception that conventional
training is not happening in the Army, and it's not happening
much. But, I recently visited both Japan and Korea, and in
Japan I witnessed an Army corps participating in a conventional
scenario partnered with a Japanese corps. Then, in Korea, the
U.S. forces under General Bell are also doing conventional
training. So, not much, but it's not nonexistent.
Senator Akaka. If current operations, Mr. Secretary, in
Iraq and Afghanistan continue to require the same approximate
number of forces for the next 2 or 3 years, what impact will
this have on readiness, do you think?
Secretary Geren. We are consuming readiness now as quickly
as we build it, and if we are unable to extend the dwell time,
if the number of brigades doesn't get down to a demand of 15
brigades for our Army, we are going to have a difficult time
having sufficient dwell time to accomplish all the missions
that we hope to accomplish when a soldier is home. Our soldiers
are training for the mission which they are asked to do today,
counterinsurgency mission, and the soldiers that we send into
combat are well-prepared for what we're asking them to do, but
the demand to get them prepared for what we are asking them to
do now understandably limits their ability to prepare for other
missions.
General Casey. Senator, if I could.
Senator Akaka. General Casey?
General Casey. Based on your question about what will
happen the next few years, and if you hold the demand steady at
those 15 Active component brigades, what you see is, with our
growth, that the amount of dwell time at home gradually
increases to the point where every year, starting in 2009, we
get a progressively larger number of forces trained for the
full spectrum of operations, in addition to the forces that
we're deploying. So, the growth helps.
Secretary Geren. When we reach our goal of 76 brigade
combat teams across all three components, we'll be able to
sustain up to 19 brigades deployed, at that point. So as we
grow and reorganize towards that, we will be able to sustain a
higher level of overseas deployments.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
General Casey, much has been said of the limited value of
mechanized warfare and the impact technology can have in
conducting counterinsurgency and stability operations, which
tend to rely much more on cultural awareness and interpersonal
relationships to be effective. In essence, the enemy is not a
willing participant in the information network, and detection
in urban environments may be beyond the capabilities of any
known technology. My question is: what are the specific
advantages that a FCS VCT could bring to the counterinsurgency
fight that justify its cost in the near term?
General Casey. Thank you, Senator. A couple of points here.
First of all, the FCS is an effective system across the
spectrum of conflict, and I see it as very good at conventional
war in the 21st century, which is going to be different than
the wars we plan to fight on the plains of Europe. But, I see
it as very helpful in terms of irregular warfare. As I
mentioned in my opening remarks, in irregular warfare, your
intelligence requirements require much more precision than they
do in conventional warfare. It's a heck of a lot easier to find
the second echelon of the 8th Guard's Tank Army than it is to
find, as you suggested, an individual on the sixth floor of a
high-rise apartment building in a sprawling city. What we're
working on with the FCS, and what is being tested and evaluated
today out at Fort Bliss, are unmanned and unattended ground
sensors, UAVs, all linked by the network, that will allow us to
locate, precisely, the targets of our military operations, and
then to apply precision effects. There's a NLOS weapon system,
that is part of this first test that you'll see, that can put a
missile on a target from 40 kilometers away. So its precision
intelligence-collections ability and its precision attack
capabilities will make it, in my view, just as useful in
irregular warfare as it is in conventional warfare.
Lastly, the network will enable our soldiers to have a much
better situational understanding of what will inherently be a
very, very complex environment, and they will be augmented in
that, in their cultural understanding and their cultural
training, which would still be part of it. But, as I said, I am
quite comfortable with the FCS capabilities in both an
irregular and in a conventional environment.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your responses.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Geren and General Casey, thank you for your
service and your outstanding leadership to our country. Welcome
to the committee.
I have to say that the last 6 years have made me extremely
proud of the work that our Army does. These amazing men and
women have performed incredible feats in the toughest of
environments without complaint, and their families, of course,
have shouldered an incredible burden, as well, with many of the
soldiers serving multiple tours in harsh environments overseas.
What I'd like to do is pick up on some of the questioning.
I serve as the ranking Republican on the Readiness
Subcommittee, with Senator Akaka. Last November, when you both
appeared before the committee, I asked about the unwillingness
of Congress to deliver adequate and predictable funding to you,
and what kind of effect this was having. General Casey, you
answered, ``We will beggar the home front to make sure that our
soldiers that are in the theater have everything that they
need, and it will put a terrible burden on soldiers, on
families, on the institutional Army, our ability to train.''
Despite that testimony, Congress decided to provide only a
portion of the emergency supplemental funds required by the
President last year, and, in your prepared statement today, you
emphasized that today's Army is out of balance, that, overall,
our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. These
statements are obviously cause for deep concern, and I guess my
question is: is the problem of our readiness being consumed as
fast as it is built related to the problems that you face in
receiving timely and complete funding from Congress? Is the
lack of full funding inhibiting our ability to grow the force
with the capabilities that we need for future operations?
Either one of you, if you want to react to that, or answer.
Secretary Geren. You have to look at the funding in all the
many categories that we rely on it. We use the term in the
trade, the color of money, but there's money that can be used
for certain purposes and can't be used for other purposes.
Predictable and timely funding is key for us to be able to
operate an organization that is the size of the United States
Army. A million men and women in uniform, and over 200,000
civilians, and over 200,000 contractors. When funding is
unpredictable, it makes it very hard to plan, long-term.
One area of great concern for us right now is Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) funding. Last year, you all did
not fund the entire BRAC bill, and, for the Army, we're $560
million short, going into this year, in BRAC funding. It's
going to make it very difficult for us to meet what the law
requires, finishing BRAC by September 2011. We need that
funding. We need it sooner, rather than later.
The military construction funding also is very critical to
maintaining support for our families. We're moving tens of
thousands of soldiers around, we're building housing and other
support structures across the country and around the world, and
the delays that we've experienced in receiving the military
construction funding also complicated our ability to being able
to build what we need, when we need it, and maintain the type
of synchronization that's necessary in order to manage the
personnel of a huge organization such as the Army's.
We are going to run out of the money in personnel in June
in the supplemental funding, and we will run out of our O&M
funds in July. As we anticipate that, we'll have to start
making adjustments in order to accommodate for the ripple
effect of that situation. So, it makes it very difficult, it
makes things cost more, and it makes things take longer. Last
December, we got awfully close to a point where we were going
to have to start laying off people, or at least giving them
notice of layoffs, and I'm hopeful that we don't find ourselves
in that situation this spring. We really need the supplemental
funding by Memorial Day.
General Casey. The only thing I'd add to that, Senator, is
that what you don't necessarily see are the second- and third-
order effects of the delays. For example, I mentioned in my
opening statement that in fiscal year 2007 we got the money for
the reset, right up front, and we were able to not only commit
all of that, but also to buy the spares in advance that we
needed, the long-lead items. Every time you delay long-lead
items, you delay the completion of the reset and the vehicle.
So, there are always second- and third-order effects that
aren't visible that impact us over the long haul.
Secretary Geren. Let me mention one other thing, if I
could, on military construction. When we're operating under a
continuing resolution, we don't have the authorities for new
starts, either. That greatly complicates our ability to build
the infrastructure to meet the needs of our soldiers and their
families. Over the last several years, we have found ourselves
having to operate without the new-start authority, or at least
not having it in a timely manner. That complicates it as well.
So, it's not just a question of the money, it's also a question
of the authority which comes from authorizers. That makes it
challenging to be able to build our infrastructure on the
timeline that we need in order to meet the needs of our
soldiers and families.
Senator Thune. I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman,
but I see my time is expired. That was the main issue I wanted
to get out, so perhaps I'll submit some of those for the
record.
Thank you.
Senator Reed [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. I know our men and
women in Army green are indebted to you for your commitment,
and we appreciate your giving us your candid appraisal of where
we are, at the moment, with readiness and a number of other
extremely important issues.
One of them has come to my attention; last week, the
Washington Post published an article outlining the Army's
policy on maternity leave and deferments from war-zone areas
for new mothers that are serving in the military. According to
the story, new mothers are facing a continuing difficult
decision between motherhood and their service for their
country. New mothers who have the critical skills to support
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have to seek a deferment
which would allow them to spend more time with their newborn
before having to return to their job within the military.
In 2007, the Navy extended their deferment time for new
mothers to 12 months. But the Army's policy only allows, at the
present time, for 4 months before facing deployment. Some of my
colleagues and I have written a letter to Secretary Gates to
review the current policies that are in place, but I wonder,
Secretary Geren, in light of our need to keep skilled
personnel, many of whom are women, maybe as much as 15 percent
of our force, what are your thoughts about the Army's policy
versus the Navy policy, or at least in looking at the policy to
see if this is a reasonable period of time or whether it should
be extended?
Secretary Geren. The chief and I have had numerous
discussions about that, and we have tasked the Army staff to
examine that policy and examine the impact of a change in that
policy. I don't want to prejudge the outcome at this point, but
we have asked them to explain to us why we should not be able
to increase the maternity leave at least up to the level where
the marines have been, which is 6 months.
Senator Ben Nelson. With the force strength that we have,
and the number of deployments and extended deployments, and
trying to cut all that down, it only adds another variable to
your already difficult task. But, if we're going to think about
both recruitment and retention, I think clearly that has to be
reviewed because it has to have some impact on people deciding
whether to get in or stay in, if they have to get an extended
deferment in order to have a family.
Secretary Geren. I understand and share your concerns, and
we should be able to get back with you pretty soon with an
answer.
[The information referred to follows:]
Current Army policy requires a 4-month Postpartum Operational
Deferment period for a female soldier after the birth of a child. The
Army Postpartum Operational Deferment policy matches designated
guidelines established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The Army recognizes the merit in lengthening the Postpartum
Operational Deferment period, and intends to lengthen that period to 6
months once Active Army units return to a 12-month deployment rotation
policy from the 15-month deployment rotation policy that is currently
in place.
Senator Ben Nelson. Okay.
I think it was June 2007 that the Center for New American
Security Publication titled ``Institutionalizing Adaptation
Report'' stated, ``The most important military component of the
long war will not be the fighting we do ourselves, but how well
we enable and empower our allies to fight with us.'' We're
faced with requiring heavy numbers with a very well-armed and
well-staffed Army to do what we would call, I guess, the
essential combat of the past that an Army does. But, we're now
faced with new requirements around the world. I guess we're no
longer talking about nation-building, that's passe. At least in
trying to help other countries develop their own military, are
we at a point where we need to have a standing Army Advisory
Corps, General Casey, as well as the typical operating mix of
conventional forces and Special Operations Forces?
General Casey. That's something that we are looking at very
closely, and not only internally, but also with the Commander
of Special Operations Command, Admiral Olson, and with the
Commandant of the Marine Corps. In fact, we're getting
together, here, in the next couple of weeks to discuss that.
Clearly, one of the elements of any former battlefield, we
believe, will be our ability to interact and work with
indigenous forces.
Senator Ben Nelson. Without knowing the answer to this,
it's impossible to even give much of a guess, but on a 50-50
basis, do you think that 50 percent of the future will require
conventional forces, or will it be 60 percent or 40 percent?
What mix do you envision between an asymmetrical combat force
capability and conventional force capability?
General Casey. Senator, as we look to the future, we
believe that we will be best served by multipurpose forces that
can operate across the full spectrum of conflict, from
conventional war to peacetime engagement. That's the doctrine
that I spoke about here. Those are the forces that we are
trying to build. I would also tell you a bit more about your
initial question. Cleary, there's an increasing role for
special forces in training other armies, and we are increasing
the number of special forces battalions by five, and that will
give us great capability. We are, as you suggest, examining
whether we should put an assistance group in each of the
regional combatant commanders. We're working with them to see
if that would be useful to them.
But, working with indigenous forces is clearly an element
of any future battlefield.
Senator Ben Nelson. My time's up, but I'm going to follow
up with a letter to the Secretary of Defense, in light of the
concern that we have about the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's (NATO) capabilities of providing military
support, where necessary, at the required levels of support
necessary. Should we be looking, perhaps, for a two-tiered
approach by NATO to not only have the capabilities of combat
forces, as in the case of Afghanistan, but for more assistance
in this area of an advisory role for part of their commitment?
It seems to me that it's one thing for us to hit them over the
head because they don't send enough troops, they don't have
enough troops, they don't keep enough troops, and I'm not
talking about all those that are already doing it, but those
who can't. There may be another role that they could play.
Rather than have us hit them over the head for what they're not
doing, maybe we ought to start thinking about what they could
do, and how they could support that kind of a growth in the
Army.
General Casey. The NATO allies, especially Italy, did a
great job in Iraq training police. The Carbinieri were very
effective in the south.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen.
Senator Reed. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Senator.
I missed the discussion between Senators Levin, Collins,
and, I think, yourselves, about what law governs contractor
behavior. The sooner we could get an answer to that situation,
I think, the better the country would be.
I've just gotten back from a fairly extended visit to Iraq,
and one of the big issues facing our country is that we're
going to war now with, I think, over 100,000 contractors.
They're patriotic Americans who are doing a great job,
generally speaking, for our country, but we've never had a war
quite like this. The idea of that many people being in Iraq,
some of them with guns, requires us to address this problem and
find out what law does regulate their behavior; because, Mr.
Secretary, General Casey, I think it's a very demoralizing
event for an E-4 or E-5 to be sitting across the table from a
civilian contractor who makes four times what they make, and
the contractor breaks the rules in an obvious way, and nothing
happens, other than maybe getting fired. So, I would just add
my voice to the idea that we need, as a country, to come up
with a solution to this problem.
General Casey, when it comes to force reductions in Iraq,
the goal is to try to get to 15 brigades, I think, by July. Is
that correct?
General Casey. Correct, sir.
Senator Graham. Could you explain to me, very briefly, the
collaborative process that's going on, in determining when the
troops come home, between you, General Petraeus, and others?
General Casey. General Petraeus will come back in April and
give his assessment of what needs to happen after July. He will
interact with the Joint Chiefs in the process of forming his
recommendations. But, there will also be independent action by
the Joint Chiefs, so that we can present the President with our
independent views on what the situation requires.
Senator Graham. I understand that, and my two cents worth
here is that it's been a very hard fight to turn things around
in Iraq. I think we are turning things around politically,
economically, and militarily. Every one wants the troops back
home, and you can add me to that list. But, more than anything
else, I want to make sure we don't lose the gains we've
achieved by going down too fast. I'm sure you're sensitive to
that. Is that correct, General Casey?
General Casey. I am sensitive to that, sir.
Senator Graham. I know the troops want to come home, but
they're very proud of what they've achieved, and I want to make
sure that we don't bring people home for anything other than
success. I think they're going to come home with success.
General Casey. Senator, if I could add to what you say.
Senator Graham. Please. Yes, sir.
General Casey. As I talk to the soldiers, it's exactly what
you suggest. The most important thing to them is winning, not
necessarily coming home.
Senator Graham. Generally speaking, General Casey, how is
morale for folks in the Army, particularly in Iraq and
Afghanistan?
General Casey. Senator, everything I have personally
observed during my visits in December, and that I continue to
hear, is that morale, both in Iraq, Afghanistan, and among the
returning forces, is very positive. They believe in what
they're doing. They see themselves making a difference in a
very difficult environment. So I believe morale is very good.
Now, as we said before you arrived, the force is stretched
and there is no question about that. I just visited a brigade
in Alaska that had been back about 90 days. My assessment is,
they felt pretty good about what they did, but they were tired.
Senator Graham. Sure, and that's why we're trying to build
up the Army, right?
General Casey. Right.
Senator Graham. Is that correct? Okay.
There was a comment made at, I think, the last Democratic
debate by Senator Obama. Mr. Secretary, I don't know if you are
familiar with what he said, but basically, during the debate,
he indicated that a captain who was in charge of a rifle
platoon in Afghanistan had come up to him and said that the
amount of troops in that platoon were basically reduced in
half, and the other half went to Iraq, and that the people left
over went to Afghanistan, and they didn't have bullets, and
they had to use Taliban weapons. It was easier to use Taliban
weapons than it was to get the equipment they needed from the
Army. Has Senator Obama talked to you or anyone in the
Department about this?
Secretary Geren. No. I have not discussed it with Senator
Obama. General Casey, though, has looked into this issue, and
I'd like to give him the opportunity to respond, with your
permission.
Senator Graham. Please.
General Casey. Senator, as we looked into this, the best we
could tell is, this incident occurred back in 2003 and 2004,
and it was in a brigade of the 10th Mountain Division. We have
talked to the brigade commander, and we've looked at their
readiness reports. The brigade was manned over 100 percent, and
stayed over 100 percent manned the whole time they were there.
Now, it's certainly possible that platoons within that brigade
might not have been filled to the same level as the rest of the
brigade.
You'll recall that was a difficult time, as we were all
working very hard to get uparmored Humvees in to the troops.
There were no uparmored Humvees available for him in training,
which is one of the points that he made; there were only, at
that time, a little over 50 in all of Afghanistan.
There may have been some spot shortages of spare parts and
ammunition, but the commander said that there was never a
shortage of ammunition that impacted on the unit's ability to
accomplish its mission.
Senator Graham. But, you were never contacted by Senator
Obama in 2003 or 2004, or any other time?
General Casey. No, I have not been.
Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since we had a McCain moment, I think I need to have an
Obama moment, out of fairness. It wasn't what I intended to ask
about, but Secretary Geren and General Casey, I think you both
are certainly aware that this captain has been contacted and
has independently verified to independent sources the
frustration he had with getting everything they needed, to do
what they needed to do in Afghanistan. Is that your
understanding, that this captain who has served valiantly and
heroically, has independently verified that, certainly, there
was a frustration over getting what they needed to do the job
in Afghanistan at that point in time?
General Casey. Senator, I don't think there's any doubt
about that. We have purposefully not tried to seek out the
captain, individually.
Senator McCaskill. Which I respect.
General Casey. I've seen the same reports that you've seen.
Again, I have no reason to doubt what it is the captain says.
But, this was 2003-2004, almost 4\1/2\ years ago. We
acknowledge, and we all worked together to correct,
deficiencies with equipment that we saw during that period, not
only in Afghanistan, but in Iraq. It was a period that we have
worked our way through.
Senator McCaskill. I admire the acknowledgment that has
occurred in this hearing room, by command, DOD, Secretary
Gates, and by you and all of your colleagues, at the
shortcomings, in terms of getting the equipment and we all know
the shortages we have in Afghanistan right now, in terms of
boots-on-the-ground. I mean, that is a critical, critical
problem for us right now, in terms of us having success with
NATO, getting the number of other countries involved, like we
should have and haven't been able to, because of their
unwillingness. So to act as if this Army captain is speaking
about something that we all haven't acknowledged, I think,
frankly, is misleading.
Now I'll get to my questions.
First of all, I want to congratulate Senator Nelson for
speaking about maternity leave. I'm glad that he showed his
softer side today and acknowledged that this is a career issue
for the Army.
I also want to talk, in passing, before I get to officer
retention, about paternity leave. I think that it's time for
the Army, frankly, and for the Secretary of Defense to look at,
overall, a uniformity of policy between the various branches as
it relates to both maternity leave and acknowledgment of some
recognition of paternity leave. I know this was being
discussed. I know that there was a pullback that occurred by
one of the Under Secretaries of Defense about paternity leave.
But, I just wanted to say that I'm hopeful that you all
continue to look at that issue, because it dovetails nicely
with what I want to ask you about this morning, which is our
ability to retain officers.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Department of Defense is reviewing a legislative proposal that
will amend section 701 of title 10, U.S.C., to include a new
authorization to allow up to 21 days of permissive temporary duty for
servicemembers in conjunction with the birth of a new child. The
legislative proposal is consistent with a recent congressional change
to section 701 of title 10 (section 593), which authorized up to 21
days of administrative leave for a servicemember adopting a child. As
with all leave, paternity leave would be granted on an individual basis
dependent on the unit's mission and operational circumstances.
Senator McCaskill. I would like both of you to speak to
what I think the Government Accountability Office (GAO) pointed
out, which is, we need to consolidate the command over West
Point and Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), in terms of
officer retention and it worries me that we are promoting 98
percent of our captains and majors right now. That's an
extraordinarily high number. It also worried me that we are
doing the officer ascension program directly through Officer
Candidate School, as opposed to West Point and ROTC. Looking
from the outside, it appears to me that we may have a little
turf war going on here between the command of West Point and
the command of ROTC. Clearly, if I have young people that have
applied to go to West Point, and they don't make it, we need to
make sure we're grabbing those folks and getting them in the
ROTC program. I'm very worried about this lack of coordination,
especially when you realize that this is a huge hole that we
can't patch. We have to integrate a solution and I'd love both
of you to speak to that.
Secretary Geren. Thank you for raising that. I appreciated
the letter you sent on that. I've studied the GAO report and
agree with many of those concerns.
We have tasked a retired general to look at this issue and
make some recommendations on how we could do a better job of
coordinating the overall officer accessions. We are already
working to do a better job of taking those outstanding young
men and women who are not accepted into West Point, and trying
to make them aware and recruit them into ROTC programs. But,
overall, we have to do a better job of taking what, right now,
are, by and large, three stovepipes--the military Academy,
ROTC, and OCS--and bring those together and break down the
walls between them. Over the course of this spring, we'll be
back to you with a proposal to address those very important
concerns. We are in agreement about the challenge, and we'll be
getting back with you soon on a recommended way ahead.
Senator McCaskill. I'm happy. I know that the stovepiping
is resisted by the commands, and if some pointed letters to any
of those commands, General, would help, I'm more than happy to
let my pen fly.
General Casey. Thank you for the offer, Senator. I find
they respond pretty well to my direction.
Senator McCaskill. I think that you can handle it, but I
just want you to know there are several of us that have your
back on this one. I think it's really important.
General Casey. Thank you.
Secretary Geren. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. General Casey, one of the things that you
promised to do when you returned as our commander in Iraq was,
as Chief of Staff, to check on the status of families, those
who've served, how they're doing. Your wife has been active in
that. You've visited with a lot of people. First, are you
continuing to do that? What are your observations, in general,
and concerns about the state of the Army family health?
General Casey. Senator, as I took over here, and we--my
wife and I--traveled around the Army, it was clear to us, and
this is late last summer, that the families were the most
brittle part of the force, that we were asking more of Army
families than I, frankly, thought that we should have been. We
weren't doing enough for them. I've been a member of an Army
family for 60 years, so I have some experience in this.
In October, the Secretary and I issued an Army Family
Covenant where we restated the commitment of the Army to
families. We focused that covenant on five key areas, and they
were the five key areas that families gave to my wife and I,
that they were most concerned about.
They wanted standardized services. They said, ``We don't
need a bunch of fancy new programs. What we need is you to fund
what you have, standardize them across the installations.''
They want better access to quality health care. Quality is
not usually the problem; it's accessing, getting into the
system. So we're working with the Defense Health Services on
that one.
They want quality housing, they want better education and
childcare opportunities for their children, and they want
better education opportunities and employment opportunities for
themselves.
So we have focused $1.4 billion last year, and $1.2 billion
this year, in this budget, on improving family programs. That's
about double what we've done in the past. I believe it is
absolutely essential to continue on that track, to retain the
quality force that we have today.
Mr. Secretary, anything you want to add to that?
Secretary Geren. I'd like to add something quickly. We
signed the Family Covenant, our leaders at each command signed
it, all across the world--we had 120 Family Covenant signings--
to make sure that families understood our commitment to them.
Senator Sessions. Were the families participating in these
signing ceremonies?
Secretary Geren. Yes, they did. We had large family groups
at every signing. The Chief mentioned some of the funding and
some of these new initiatives that have been undertaken, but
some of the most important initiatives that help the families
are going to come from those commanders on the ground, those
garrison commanders and those command sergeant majors, as they
identify ways to just make the Army work better for families.
General Caldwell, out at Leavenworth, he took over the
command there, and saw that we had a start time for the classes
at Leavenworth that conflicted with the start time for
children's classes in the area schools. So General Caldwell
moved the start time of his classes back 30 minutes, so the
parents, who had the responsibility of taking care of those
children, could take the kids to school, and could eat
breakfast with them. I think it's little things like that, in
addition to some of these major budget initiatives, that are
going to make the Army work better for families. So, we are
going to see a lot of creativity coming out of leaders, up and
down, NCOs and officers, as we try to make the Army work better
for families.
I'd like to briefly mention, we did the Covenant with
Families last fall, this spring, we're going to do a covenant
between the communities and families. Every installation in
America has some wonderful programs in which the local
communities stand up and support families; Adopt a Platoon, the
Hugs program that helps families through difficult times. Every
one of the installations all over the country has some, or
many, innovative programs to help families.
We're going across the whole force in trying to identify
those, catalog them, identify the best practices, and, over the
course of this spring and through the summer, we're going to be
going to all the major installations across our country to
invite our community leaders to join us in this Covenant with
Families, and give them some ideas on things they can do to
help families better; take good ideas from Alabama and take
them to Texas, or take them to Oklahoma. So, it's our second
step in this.
We are, the Chief used the term, brittle. The families no
doubt are stretched. They have shown extraordinary resilience.
But, we can do more as an Army, we can do more as a government,
and our communities can do more. So we're inviting them to join
hands with us and help better support those families during
these challenging times.
Senator Sessions. I think you're wise to spend time on
that. I think it's the right thing to do. We are asking a great
deal of men and women in uniform, and, as a result, we want
them to be supported in every feasible way.
My time is up, but I do believe we're making some progress
on improving housing. Some very good housing programs are out
there that have accelerated our ability to produce housing much
faster than we've done in the past. But, I hope that the Army,
in particular, will emphasize, because we don't mean that our
Army personnel, who oftentimes are away while their family's at
home, are in anything but the best housing we can give them.
So, thank you, General Casey, for your commitment to that
issue. I believe you'll fulfill the commitments you made when
you were confirmed and I asked you about that.
Secretary Geren, I appreciate your report. I think that's a
step in the right direction, because we are all worried that
our personnel are supported adequately in a whole host of
different areas.
Secretary Geren. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your getting
personally involved in this case of the World War II veteran
who was inaccurately imprisoned and given a dishonorable
discharge. The Army, a half a century later, recognized its
mistake and gave him an honorable discharge; but then, to
compensate him for the year that he spent in prison, sent him
his pay of $720. I want to thank you for personally getting
into it, with the VA, to try to figure out some appropriate
compensation, given the fact that 50 years has passed. So,
thank you.
Mr. Secretary, the chairman has already asked you to
release the full classified version of the RAND report, which
was on the planning for post-war Iraq, which was prepared for
the Army by the RAND Corporation, and also to prepare an
unclassified summary. I'd like to, additionally, suggest that
the RAND study be sent to the Intelligence Committee. I have
the privilege, as does the chairman, of sitting on both
committees, and, if you will do that, we would appreciate it
very much.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Chief of Legislative Liaison, Major General Galen Jackman,
responded to your request on March 20, 2008. A copy of the letter from
General Jackman is attached.
Senator Bill Nelson. Now, what I want to suggest to you
here is that, it has come to my attention, from women in my
State, the rapes that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq. I
have been after this to try to get information, but what we'd
like is to know the number of sexual assaults. Now, this is not
military people, these are contractors. If you had this in the
military, you have the UCMJ. Now, the chairman has already
asked you, earlier today, what law applies if a civilian
contractor commits a crime, and you said you would get back to
the chairman on that. What we're finding is incomplete
information and also this Never-Never Land of not knowing what
to do and what laws to apply, and who's going to enforce it.
You would think, if it's a contractor to DOD, DOD would enforce
the prosecution of these crimes. Same for a contractor with the
State Department, and so forth. So, for the record, let me just
lay out a number of questions that I'd like you to address.
We're not going to have time, obviously, in this setting here.
The Inspector General (IG) has given us what they thought
were the sexual assaults in 2005, 2006, and 2007, but we need
to know, going back to the beginning of October 2001 in
Afghanistan, and then, likewise, March 2003 in Iraq, what's the
disposition of each of those sexual assault cases? What are the
Service components or government agencies involved in each
investigation? What is the status of the persons involved in
each case? In other words, are they Active Duty military? Are
they U.S. Government civilian employee, contract employee, or
Iraqi national? Who has the jurisdiction or investigative
authority for these sexual assault allegations in both
Afghanistan and Iraq? This committee should have a clear
explanation of the rules, regulations, policies, and processes
under which these sexual assaults are investigated and
prosecuted.
It's obviously in our oversight responsibility to ask these
questions. We would be most appreciative if you could help us
get this information, because we've gotten very limited
information, thus far, as a result of the IG referring us to
the Army Criminal Investigative Command.
Senator Bill Nelson. I come to the table with this,
because, indeed, there is a Tampa lady that was part of a
contractor that had contracted to the DOD. I've already talked
to the chairman. In my capacity as chairman of a subcommittee
in Foreign Relations, I'm going to have a hearing on this, as
it involves the contractors to the Department of State. But, we
need this information with regard to the DOD.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
This information would be more appropriately addressed by the
General Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. Let me
just, first of all, commend you for your pursuit of this issue.
We will ask our witnesses whether or not they will be able to
promptly provide that information.
Secretary Geren?
Secretary Geren. We'll certainly work to provide everything
we can acquire. Now, it's possible that some of this
information will come from other departments of government, but
we'd be glad to cooperate with them and do everything we can to
get you the information you request.
Chairman Levin. That's great. Thank you so much.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to follow up briefly on what the Senator from Florida
just asked you. General Casey could tell us what law applied to
contractors when you were commanding troops over there.
General Casey. We did this earlier, Senator, and the UCMJ
applied to the folks that were working for the DOD.
Senator Webb. Applied to civilians?
General Casey. The contractors.
Senator Webb. Civilian contractors were under the UCMJ?
General Casey. That worked for DOD. Not all of them.
Senator Webb. That worked for DOD. How many are you talking
about?
General Casey. It varied over the time I was there,
Senator. I want to say around 20,000.
Senator Webb. You had 20,000 civilian contractors subject
to the UCMJ?
General Casey. I'm sorry not----
Senator Webb. How many were subject to the UCMJ when you
there?
General Casey. Senator, I do not recall the number right
now.
Senator Webb. Approximately. You were commanding the
troops. How many were subject to the UCMJ?
General Casey. Senator, we worked very hard over time to
get an accurate number on contractors, and I want to say the
number that was subject to UCMJ was around 7,000 to 8,000, but
I am not sure of that number.
Senator Webb. When you were commanding, 7,000 to 8,000
civilians were subject to the UCMJ?
General Casey. That's my recollection, yes, Senator.
Senator Webb. Do you know if any of them were ever charged
under the UCMJ?
General Casey. Senator, I have vague recollections of a
couple of cases, but I can't say for certain.
Senator Webb. As someone who has spent some time in
military law, and sat on courts-martial and been involved in
the appeal of cases out of the UCMJ, I'm not even sure how you
could have a proper court for a civilian under UCMJ, or how you
could charge them. The most recent news I've heard about this
was that this was a proposal last year, when I arrived on this
committee. You're saying that you actually had civilians in
Iraq subject to the UCMJ, who were subject to proceedings under
the UCMJ?
General Casey. Senator, my recollection is that we had UCMJ
authority over some number of DOD civilians that were
contracted by DOD. I am not 100 percent certain of that.
Senator Webb. I'd like to know. I would think, quite
frankly, if you were commanding people over there, you'd know
that.
General Casey. At one time, I did Senator, and it's been a
while.
Senator Webb. It's been a while since you knew that? I can
remember when I was commanding troops in 1969.
General Casey. Yes, Senator.
Senator Webb. It's not a difficult concept, whether people
are subject to the UCMJ. This isn't something I was going to
ask about, but I find it very curious.
Senator Bill Nelson. May I say to the Senator that I have
been told that the UCMJ does not apply, and that's the reason
why we have to get some clarity about what law does apply to
protect these Americans that are serving their country in a
civilian capacity abroad. Thank you.
Senator Webb. I would agree. I would say to the Senator
from Florida that this was an issue that came up in the
Personnel Subcommittee last year as a proposal.
I'm not aware of anyone, Mr. Chairman, who as a civilian,
has been subjected to UCMJ.
Chairman Levin. We've asked the question so that we can get
very clear answers for the record. We've not gotten them
clearly this morning. I believe that my chief of staff has just
told me that, in the last couple of years, we've taken some
steps relative to contingency operations, and people who are
contracted for, relative to those operations, to be covered.
But, that's within the last couple of years, and I'm not sure I
even heard my own chief of staff, because he was whispering in
my ear as you were asking the question.
In any event, Secretary Geren has also, this morning,
indicated a backup form of prosecution, and used an acronym,
which I'm not personally familiar with.
Perhaps, Secretary Geren, you could repeat for us what you
made reference to earlier this morning, in terms of possible
prosecution by the Department of Justice.
Secretary Geren. It's a law that was passed in the early
1990s, and it goes by the acronym of MEJA. It gives our Justice
Department the authority to prosecute crimes by American
citizens abroad, and it came out of a case in which an American
citizen, I believe in Saudi Arabia, committed a crime and led
to this initiative. It has not been used much. As I understand
it, it's been used 12 to 18 times.
Chairman Levin. In Iraq? In Afghanistan?
Secretary Geren. No. I think just overall, as I understand
it. It's a Justice Department authority, it's not a DOD
authority. I believe it's been used twice in Iraq. One was a
CACI contractor, having to do with one of the detainee
investigations. It was a CACI contractor that was accused of
detainee abuse, and I believe he was prosecuted under MEJA.
There was one other case, and I don't remember the details of
that one. But, it's been used very sparingly. At one point, I
heard the Justice Department discuss some of the challenges
associated with applying that as a prosecution tool. There's
problems with witnesses and gathering evidence. They could,
obviously, provide you more insights than I could.
As I understand it, in 2007, Senator Graham offered an
amendment that expanded the application of the UCMJ for use
against civilians, and broadened that authority, and clarified
that authority. Some of our commanders are waiting for some
implementing instructions to figure out exactly how you do it.
As Senator Webb noted, there are some obvious complications
using the UCMJ as broadly as it's now allowed under Senator
Graham's amendment.
Chairman Levin. Yes, that is the reference which my chief
of staff made, was to that 2007 amendment by Senator Graham,
which became law.
Secretary Geren. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Yes.
Okay, we ought to give you some additional time, Senator.
Senator Webb. I would just say to the chairman, I would
appreciate if we could really stay on top of this a little bit,
because I think that Congress has been rolled on this issue for
quite some time. We now have in excess of 150,000 contractors
in Iraq, from the count that I've seen; it's probably higher
than that. I'm not aware of any case, there may be a case, but
I'm not aware of any case where serious crimes have been
brought to justice. We know serious crimes have been committed.
Chairman Levin. We did ask before for a very prompt
assessment, because other committees are also interested in
this subject, and there's been an IG report on this subject so
that Secretary Geren committed to a very prompt overview of the
law in this area.
Senator Webb. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I was told by Senator Warner, who's not here
today, that, in a meeting with him, you expressed, I'm not sure
whether they were your personal views or the views of the
Department of the Army, that you were in support of the concept
of a GI bill that would take care of these people who have been
serving since September 11 in the same way that those who
served in World War II were taken care of.
Secretary Geren. We talked, in general, about expanding the
benefits of the GI bill, and talked, most specifically, about
expanding the eligibility of benefits so that a soldier could
transfer his or her GI bill benefits to spouses and children.
That was really the focus of our conversation that day.
Congress had passed legislation several years ago that allowed
us, for critical skills, to offer an expansion of the use of GI
bill benefits allowed to be transferred to children, and
talked, that day, about how we might expand that benefit and
make it more broadly available.
Senator Webb. Right. That's a totally separate concept than
the issue of S.22, the GI bill that's before the Senate right
now. That's taking the Montgomery GI bill and moving it
laterally rather than measurably increasing the benefits
themselves.
Secretary Geren. That was our discussion.
Senator Webb. Does the Department of the Army have a
position on the expansion of GI bill benefits other than the
Montgomery GI bill?
Secretary Geren. No, Senator, we have not had an
opportunity to reach a final recommendation on it. The
Secretary of Defense, Dr. Gates, has taken ownership of that
initiative, for want of a better word. The Services are working
with his Under Secretary in analyzing the bill. We have not had
an opportunity to work through all the provisions of it. In the
President's State of the Union, he noted the GI bill is one of
the areas that he wants to see our Department expand its
benefits.
Senator Webb. I am told that the administration opposes
this and so I'm trying to get some clarification. I mentioned
that to Secretary Gates when he was testifying, and in concept,
I think he agreed with what we were saying here. I would note
that you have a pilot program, I just got something on this
about a week ago, that as a recruitment incentive will pay
enlistees who sign up for 5 years, as it reads here in this
article, $40,000 toward purchasing a home when they leave the
Army.
Secretary Geren. Yes.
Senator Webb. I don't know what the cost of that program
is, but the argument against S. 22 is that it would affect
retention at the end. What you're seeing here is clearly an
incentive for someone to get out and cash in their $40,000 to
buy a home at the end of an enlistment. As someone who spent a
lot of my life working manpower issues, I would respectfully
say that probably the best recruitment incentive you can give
people if you want to broaden your recruiting pool is good
educational benefits. You seem to be pounding on one potential
pool of enlistees over and over again, when you have this whole
group over here of people who are struggling to get through
college, who might have some incentive to serve, that aren't
being fit into the formula.
Secretary Geren. Unquestionably, educational benefits are
one of the most appealing benefits for service in the United
States military. It's a big part of our recruiting, it's a big
part of our retention. The Secretary of Defense, again, has
taken ownership of evaluating that. The Services are providing
input, and to my knowledge, the administration has not taken a
position on the bill. I'm not aware of it, if the
administration has.
Senator Webb. We've had a number of articles in the Service
Times where the administration has opposed the bill. The VA
opposed it in hearings last year. I'm on the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs as well. Like the General, I've been around
the military since the day I was born. I feel very strongly
about the people who are serving. I think that the military,
right now, has been doing a very good job, in terms of managing
its career force. We have some disagreements on the dwell-time
issues and that sort of thing. But, there are so many people
who come into the military because of family tradition, love of
country, with no intention of really staying. Those are the
people who are getting lost in the system. That is a pool that
actually would expand with the right sort of educational
benefits, and they'd have something when they walked back into
the community. The number one recruiting tool, at least from
the time that I was doing this, back in the community, is a
veteran who is proud of their service and believes strongly
that the military took care of them. So, this is kind of a no-
brainer to me. I can't see why we can't get it done.
Secretary Geren. It's being actively evaluated right now,
and the Department will take a position on it, I expect, soon.
I checked, just as of yesterday, and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense was still accepting input from the
Services, and evaluating it, and looking at the financial
implications. As soon as a decision is made, sir, we'll get
back with you, Senator.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
When you present the analysis of the law which applies to
contractors as to whether they can be prosecuted either in a
military court or in an American court, include in that any
understandings or agreements which have been reached between
the American authorities and the Iraqi authorities relative to
the prosecution of these folks in Iraqi courts.
Secretary Geren. We will.
[The information referred to follows:]
The information you requested was provided in a March 31, 2008,
letter from the Honorable Benedict S. Cohen, General Counsel of the
Department of the Army. I have enclosed that letter for your records.
Chairman Levin. Okay.
Secretary Geren. Just to expand, earlier you asked us to
address the State Department.
Chairman Levin. That is correct.
Secretary Geren. We'll try to pull together a picture of
the entire governmental position.
Chairman Levin. We appreciate that.
Senator Kennedy, thank you for your patience.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, General.
I'd like to talk with you a little this morning about the
kinds of pressures that are upon those that have served, and
also those that are serving in the military, in order to
understand the state of our Army.
First of all, in this area of Army suicide in 2007, the
Army suicide rate was the highest it's ever been. In 2006, Army
suicides rose to 17 percent. That number increased to 20
percent in 2007, when 121 soldiers committed suicide, more than
double the numbers reported in 2001, before we sent troops into
Iraq.
The Army strives to ensure that 90 percent of its enlistees
have high school diplomas. Last year, only 79 percent of the
enlistees achieved that goal. The Army conduct waivers have
more than doubled since 2003. The felony conviction waivers
have increased 24 percent. Serious misdemeanor waivers have
increased by 168 percent. These obviously highlight the strain
we placed on the Armed Forces. The Army is currently facing a
shortage of 3,000 officers or more, and the shortage is
overwhelming in the mid-grades, the senior captains and majors.
The Army recently announced that it failed to meet its goal of
retaining 14,184 captains, and retained only 11,933, despite an
aggressive campaign that offered cash bonuses, as much as
$35,000, plus ability to choose next assignment or attend
military-funded graduate school in exchange for continued
service. All told, 67 percent of those eligible for the program
agreed to serve an additional 1 to 3 years. The goal was 80
percent. The attitude of the very young, in terms of how they
view joining of the Service, has been dramatically altered or
changed in the last several years.
Several weeks ago, Senator McCaskill and I and others wrote
to you about some of these challenges that you're having, in
terms of the expansion of West Point and Officers Candidate
Schools. We've reached sort of a level on this. It seems that
we're reaching a perfect storm here, both in terms of attitude
of young people going in, and in terms of the key personnel
that are in there, remaining and staying. For those that do
remain and stay, and that have been called on to go to Iraq and
Afghanistan, it's an explosion in terms of domestic problems
and challenges that are happening.
What's your take of this? How should we view all of this?
Is this the perfect storm, what's happening in terms of the
military? How much should we be concerned about it? Is it just
enough to change the tempo of service from 15 to 12 months? If
you look at all of these kinds of indicators together, and take
them, it certainly poses a very serious kind of challenge for
the military. How are we going to deal with this?
General Casey. Senator, you're right, and you are seeing
the signs of a force that is stretched and under stress. The
Secretary and I monitor these and other trends on a very
regular basis, and it is something that we are all very
concerned about and watch very closely.
That said, there are some other positive indicators that we
also watch. For example, retention: NCO retention in all three
of our components is well above 100 percent. That's a very
strong signal. We believe that even though the force is
stretched, they are still a very dedicated and committed group.
The second thing I'd say is that all of these indicators
that you've mentioned, we are looking at and addressing. You
mentioned suicides; that is something that concerns us all. We
have a four-point program that we've been implementing for some
time to reduce the stigma, to raise awareness, increase access
to behavioral health care, and provide feedback to commanders.
So, it's a combination of, one, recognizing that, yes, the
force is stretched and stressed, and then, two, taking
aggressive action to provide as much support and mitigation to
the soldiers and the families as we can.
Senator Kennedy. You had a task force that was focused on
suicide, and then that became, as I understand, generally
underfunded until very recently. I don't know what the take is
on that. It seems to me, the re-enlistment rate is certainly
something to be watched, but if you're looking across the board
on this, in terms of the youths' attitude about whether to join
the Service, all the steps that's been necessary to try and
bring people into the Service, the challenge that people have
in remaining in the Service, who are the high-quality figures
in their mid-career, the majors and the captains, particularly
those who have been involved in combat arms, it's certainly a
pattern of enormous kinds of dangers. I'm just interested in
what we're looking at. Do you take each of these components and
try and deal with them individually? Do you look at this
globally? How are you trying to come to grips with this in a
meaningful way?
Secretary Geren. Senator, we're in our 7th year of combat
operations, and next month will have been 5 years in Iraq. I
don't think it's surprising to see some of these personal
indicators that you've noted start to show the stress on the
force, both on the soldiers and on the families. On a macro
level, one of the most important things we can do is get the
deployment lengths down from 15 months to 12 months, and get
the dwell time greater than the deployment length. That will go
a long way towards reducing a lot of this stress on the force.
But the symptoms of the stress, and you've done an
excellent job of detailing them, we are approaching every one
of those individually, as well. The suicides we've seen; we've
watched the divorce rates; we've seen an increase in the number
of divorces among females; we have family programs, chaplain
programs, and other support programs to try to address that. We
have an increase in the number of soldiers that have sought
treatment for mental health. We're trying to staff up and do a
better job of meeting those needs.
So on a macro level, we're trying to grow the Army, and
we're trying to reduce the stress on individual soldiers. But
then, in detail, we're going after every one of those symptoms.
We have an aggressive program to try to attack every single one
of those and help soldiers, and help families deal with this
stress.
Senator Kennedy. Let me just say, finally, in December I
mentioned I sent a letter to you with Senators Biden, Bayh, and
McCaskill urging you to develop a plan to efficiently and
effectively manage your accession pipeline. In developing a
plan, we suggested that you conduct a thorough review of the
Army's professional military education and career progression
and selection programs. Your response, Mr. Secretary, to our
letter detailed some long-term solutions to these problems,
such as precommissioning retention programs and increasing West
Point and ROTC production. For many of us, though, our concern
is more immediate, and I'd hope you'd take a look again at the
letter that we sent.
Secretary Geren. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
Secretary Geren. We have taken immediate steps to respond
to the concerns raised in your letter, and I share your
concerns. The GAO report that you noted in your letter made
some very important observations about our officer accessions,
and we are taking immediate steps, and we have a task force
that is going to be reporting back to the chief and me within a
couple months. Then we're going to take some additional steps.
But, you've raised some very important points in that letter
about the need to do a better job of coordinating officer
accessions, and we are acting on that.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Just one more question about the FCS program. It's, as you
point out, a critically important program for Army
modernization, and you've given us some of the funding
assumptions in the future, and are confident that the program
will be completed.
Secretary Gates said, and perhaps you were asked this and I
missed it, that it's hard for him to see how that program can
be completed in its entirety.
General Casey. We discussed that with Senator Reed.
Chairman Levin. Is there not a disconnect there?
General Casey. I've talked directly to the Secretary about
it. He has no problems with the program. As he said, he
particularly likes the spinout program to help the current
force. My sense is that, the question was formed, ``Faced with
the inevitability of a downturn in resources, would you have to
relook the program?'' It's a $162 billion program, and I think
that's where he framed his answer.
Chairman Levin. I don't understand then what your answer
is. Did he say that it is his expectation that the program will
not be completed in its entirety?
General Casey. Senator, my recollection of the exchange
was, it was about, ``Faced with a drawdown in resources, could
we afford a $162 billion program?''
Chairman Levin. It was on the assumption that there would
be a reduction in overall resources, that he gave that answer?
General Casey. I think, as the Secretary said earlier, even
at the high point of the funding, it's less than a third of our
procurement accounts, which are about a quarter of our overall
budget. So, we believe that it is affordable.
Chairman Levin. I just want to be clear that you're saying
that Secretary Gates' comment, that it's hard for him to see
how the program can be completed in its entirety, that was left
out in that quote was that, ``if there is a reduction in
overall resources for the Army,'' that then it would be hard
for him to see it? Is that what you're saying?
General Casey. That's my recollection. There was something
in there about the inevitability of a decrease in resources.
Chairman Levin. He said it was inevitable there will be a
reduction in resources?
General Casey. Senator, my recollection is that's the way
the question was posed.
Secretary Geren. He has expressed his strong support for
the program. I also have discussed his comment with him since
that hearing. He was expressing concern over long-term, when
you have a program that depends on funding over many years,
about the challenges associated with maintaining support over
those years in the face of budget challenges. But, he assured
me in our conversations of his strong support for FCS, and
nothing to do with the quality of the program or the importance
of the program. But, he was being candid about what he sees as
the challenges, long-term, in maintaining a program such as
that over many years.
Chairman Levin. We thank you both. It's been a morning
which, happily, had only three interruptions instead of five,
so as it was, it was a bit hectic, but we very much appreciate
your testimony and your service. Again, please, always
represent to our troops and their families the support of this
Senate.
Secretary Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. We are adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
future combat systems
1. Senator Akaka. General Casey, with regard to the Army's Future
Combat Systems (FCS), cost estimates continue to rise, and the most
recent analyses by the Army and the Department of Defense (DOD) predict
that the total cost for the program will be between $230 and $300
billion. This program has come under scrutiny lately both due to its
price and its immediate relevance in fighting the global war on
terrorism. Given the level of immature technologies that are being
integrated into FCS, and recent concerns over available networking
bandwidth, what is the Army doing to control costs of this system over
the coming years?
General Casey. The Army's FCS cost estimate has not continued to
rise. With the exception of the one-time program restructure initiated
in 2004 (restoration of four deferred systems, introduction of current
force Spin-Outs, added experimentation, and a 4-year program extension
to reduce concurrency), FCS costs have been stable. The Army is aware
of other independent cost estimates that are higher than the Army
estimate, but much of the difference between the Army's estimate and
the independent estimates is driven by potential risks that to date
have not manifested themselves in negative cost performance. The Army
has acknowledged these risks and has implemented program metrics and
risk mitigation strategies to minimize the likelihood of the risks that
may lead to cost growth. At this point, it would not be prudent to plan
and budget the program to a set of potential risks.
FCS program costs are managed through an integrated life-cycle cost
containment strategy. The safeguards reflected in this strategy include
state-of-the-art processes, systems, and incentives. The independent
estimates have been reviewed by the Army and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
cultural training of soldiers
2. Senator Akaka. General Casey, there has been a lot of emphasis
within the DOD lately about increasing the cultural awareness of our
soldiers so that they may better perform counterinsurgency and
stability operations. Training soldiers to effective levels in language
and culture differences comes at a price, however, in reduced resources
and time to train them in more traditional conventional areas of
warfare. From a soldier's perspective, what do you make of these calls
to create an Army of culture warriors, and do you think there will be
an impact on the capabilities of the Army to perform large force
traditional combat operations as more resources are invested in
cultural training?
General Casey. Training soldiers to effective levels of culture and
foreign language capabilities is a daunting task and does indeed come
with a price. However, the benefits to the conduct of current and
future operations are worth the investment of both time and funding.
Within the scope of counterinsurgency and stability operations, a
basic level of cultural awareness is vital to plan operations and
interact with the local populace, to include building trust and
cooperation. Culturally aware and foreign language-enabled soldiers are
much more adept and responsive to situations that may arise during
these operations. Moreover, culturally aware and foreign language-
enabled soldiers and leaders contribute to the successful planning and
execution of all types of operations, not just counterinsurgency and
stability operations.
The Army has several initiatives underway that build on existing
capabilities for the total force. Cross-cultural competence training is
embedded throughout Army professional military education. Our Training
and Doctrine Command is developing an Army Culture and Foreign Language
Strategy that expands training in cultural and foreign language
competencies throughout a soldier's career. This strategy allows for
additional focused training for units during their pre-deployment
preparations. The Secretary of the Army has initiated a program that
will encourage future officers to begin foreign language study during
their participation in the Reserve Officer Training Corps.
Cultural awareness and foreign language capabilities are combat
multipliers that we can ill afford to neglect in the training and
preparation of America's soldiers. Our challenge is to develop these
skills while maintaining our basic warrior skills.
retention
3. Senator Akaka. General Casey, America is now engaged in the most
enduring conflict since establishment of the all-volunteer professional
military, and retention has emerged as a significant challenge for the
Army. Recently, it was reported that almost 60 percent of the 2002
graduating class from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point left the
Army as soon as their service commitment was fulfilled. This compares
with only 20 percent of the class of 1998 leaving when they had
fulfilled their commitments. Given the high taxpayer cost of training a
cadet at West Point, what sort of programs is the U.S. Army
implementing to try to do a better job of retaining Academy graduates
when they complete their initial service requirements, since as
captains they fulfill such a critical role in combat leadership
positions in both Iraq and Afghanistan?
General Casey. The average United States Military Academy (USMA)
graduate loss rate for year groups 1991-2002 at 60 months of service (5
years) is 29 percent, and it increases to 41 percent at 66 months of
service (5.5 years). Attrition rates for year groups 2000-2002 are
approximately 5 percent higher than the average at 60 months and 2
percent higher than at 66 months of service. Overall, there is no
statistical significance in the loss rate differences from USMA year
groups 1991-2002.
The increased loss rates, regardless of statistical significance,
are still of concern to the Army. We have, therefore, begun a thorough
review of officer accession and retention policies, and are assessing
the overall health of the officer corps. We have instituted two
initiatives to boost officer retention. First, we provide the highest-
performing cadet officers from West Point and our ROTC scholarship
programs the opportunity to select either their branch of choice,
initial post of choice, or a fully-funded graduate degree program. This
incentive has garnered over 9,000 additional man-years of obligated
service among year groups 2006 and 2007 officers. We expect this
incentive will raise the number of high-performance officers electing
to serve 8 years by more than a third. Second, our unprecedented
captain retention program offers a number of incentives, including
graduate school or a cash bonus, to encourage our best and brightest
officers to remain on Active Duty. Analysis of the results of our first
several months of this program indicate a slight reduction in the loss
rates of captains in the 2000 and 2001 year groups graduating from West
Point.
waivers
4. Senator Akaka. Secretary Geren and General Casey, the number of
waivers granted by the Army to recruits with prior criminal offenses
and/or illegal drug usage has risen markedly since the beginning of the
Iraq conflict. Are the commanders in the field experiencing any
noticeable detriment to the quality of the force as a result of this
increase in waivers?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The number of enlistment waivers
has increased over the last few years, in an era of persistent conflict
and growth of the Army. Army mechanisms for screening these individuals
are designed to mitigate risk and have proven very effective. A recent
study comparing trends of waivered soldiers to non-waivered soldiers
who entered the Army from fiscal years 2003-2006 indicates that the
soldiers who received enlistment waivers performed comparable to their
non-waivered peers in most areas. We continue to monitor these trends
closely.
5. Senator Akaka. Secretary Geren and General Casey, with the
understanding that basic training standards have not been adjusted, has
there been any change in discipline-related failures to complete
training as a result of this policy?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. Overall, there has been no
discernable adverse change in the discharge rate for discipline-related
failures in Initial Entry Training as a result of waiver policy. A
review of attrition rates for entry level performance and conduct
demonstrated a decline in attrition for this category from 2003 to
present. A recent analysis by the Human Resources Research Organization
showed that attrition rates among individuals with approved conduct
waivers were not significantly different from the rates among
individuals without conduct waivers. The use of these waivers does not
currently appear to be causing any marked overall decrease in soldier
quality, proficiency, or abilities or increase in related attrition in
the training base.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
sexual assault allegations and prosecution in afghanistan and iraq
6. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, how many sexual assault
allegations and prosecutions have there been since October 2001 in
Afghanistan?
Secretary Geren. There have been 76 unrestricted sexual assault
allegations in Afghanistan since October 2001. Of the 76
investigations, four remain in open investigative status. There were at
least nine military courts martial, one trial by Italian authorities
for an allegation against one of their soldiers, and one trial by
Egyptian authorities for an allegation against one of their soldiers.
In addition to the 76 unrestricted reports of sexual assault
investigated by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC),
there have been five restricted reports of sexual assault recorded by
soldiers in Afghanistan since DOD instituted the restricted reporting
option in June 2005. Restricted reports are not reported to the chain
of command or USACIDC, and are, therefore, not investigated or
prosecuted.
7. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, how many sexual assault
cases have been reported since March 2003 in Iraq?
Secretary Geren. There have been 454 unrestricted sexual assault
cases in Iraq since March 2003. In addition to the 454 unrestricted
reports of sexual assault investigated by USACIDC, there have been 15
restricted reports of sexual assault recorded by soldiers in Iraq since
DOD instituted the restricted reporting option in June 2005. Restricted
reports are not reported to the chain of command or USACIDC, and are,
therefore, not investigated or prosecuted.
8. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, what is the disposition of
each of these cases?
Secretary Geren. The disposition of the 454 sexual assault
investigations in Iraq:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some cases had more than one suspect, so dispositions will not
equal investigations.
80........................................ Courts Martial
72........................................ Non-judicial punishment
(Article 15, Uniform Code
of Military Justice)
1......................................... U.S. Federal District Court
prosecution under provision
of MEJA
2......................................... Referred to the U.S. Navy
for action as subjects were
Navy personnel
64........................................ Adverse personnel actions
21........................................ Referred to local
authorities
15........................................ No action taken by
responsible authorities
25........................................ Remain unsolved
160....................................... Either not substantiated or
unable to develop
sufficient evidence to
support any type of
judicial or adverse action
29........................................ Still pending action by
commanders in the field
39........................................ Still open and active
investigations
9. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, what are the Service
components or government agencies involved in each investigation?
Secretary Geren. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the USACIDC is the
agency responsible for investigating all unrestricted sexual assault
allegations that occur and either involves U.S. Army soldiers as
subjects or victims or both, no matter the location, or occurs on Army
installations and involves anyone, regardless of status. Depending on
the availability of other military and Federal criminal investigative
organizations such as the Navy, Air Force, or FBI, the location of the
alleged offense and persons involved and the status of the alleged
offender joint investigations between USACIDC and these other agencies
may occur. For the cases mentioned in the preceding question, USACIDC
was the primary investigative agency. Recent changes provide Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authority over civilians and USACIDC
investigative authority has expanded to include all civilians accused
of criminal acts who are accompanying the Army, or working on Army
contracts, no matter where the crime occurs. For civilian offenders,
prosecution would be with local judicial authorities (especially for
local and third country nationals), U.S. Federal prosecutors under the
provisions of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA),
or, as of October 2007, with military authorities under the UCMJ.
10. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, what is the status of the
persons involved in each case, i.e. Active military, U.S. government
civilian employee, contract employee, or Iraqi national?
Secretary Geren. Of the 76 investigations in Afghanistan, 49
suspects were U.S. Army soldiers, 14 suspects were local or third
country nationals, two suspects were U.S. civilians, one was a member
of the U.S. Air Force, three suspects were from foreign militaries, and
nine were unknown. In those same 76 investigations in Afghanistan,
there were 78 U.S. Army soldier victims, 3 local or third country
national victims, 5 U.S. civilian victims; 3 were in the U.S. Air
Force, 1 in the U.S. Navy, and 1 in the U.S. Marine Corps. Some of
these investigations remain active investigations and the number and
type of persons involved may change in the future.
For the 454 investigations in Iraq, there were 375 U.S. Army
soldier suspects, 62 local or third country national suspects, 16 U.S.
civilian suspects, 3 U.S. Navy suspects, 2 U.S. Air Force suspects, 2
U.S. Marine Corps suspects, 5 suspects from foreign militaries, and 28
unknown suspects. In those same 454 investigations in Iraq, there were
467 U.S. Army soldier victims, 14 local or third country national
victims, 22 U.S. civilian victims, 4 U.S. Navy victims, and 6 U.S. Air
Force victims. Some of these investigations remain active
investigations and the number and type of persons involved may change
in the future.
11. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, who has jurisdiction or
investigative authority for sexual assault allegations in both
Afghanistan and Iraq?
Secretary Geren. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the USACIDC is the
agency responsible for investigating all unrestricted sexual assault
allegations that occur and either involves U.S. Army soldiers as
subjects or victims or both, no matter the location; or occurs on Army
installations and involves anyone, regardless of status. Depending on
the availability of other military and Federal criminal investigative
organizations such as the Navy, Air Force, or FBI, the location of the
alleged offense and persons involved, and the status of the alleged
offender, joint investigations between USACIDC and these other agencies
may occur. For the cases mentioned in the preceding question, USACIDC
was the primary investigative agency. Recent changes provide UCMJ
authority over civilians and USACIDC investigative authority has
expanded to include all civilians accused of criminal acts who are
accompanying the Army, or working on Army contracts, no matter where
the crime occurs. For civilian offenders, prosecution would be with
local judicial authorities (especially for local and third country
nationals), U.S. Federal prosecutors under the provisions of the MEJA,
or, as of October 2007, with military authorities under the UCMJ.
12. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, could you provide a clear
explanation of the rules, regulations, policies, and processes under
which sexual assaults are investigated and prosecuted?
Secretary Geren. Allegations of sexual assault involving soldiers
as either suspects or victims, regardless of location, or allegations
of sexual assault that occur on Army installations, regardless of the
status of the participants, are investigated by the USACIDC.
Allegations of crimes involving soldiers that occur on other Service
controlled bases (e.g. U.S. Marine Corps) are investigated by that
Service's criminal investigative organization. Prosecution of soldiers
is a command function pursuant to the UCMJ, and the Manual for Courts-
Martial (MCM). The MCM provides general guidance to commanders on the
disposition of any offense. However, pursuant to Army policy, authority
to dispose of cases that resulted from allegations of sexual assault is
withheld to the Battalion commander level and above, and that commander
may do so only after receiving the advice of a judge advocate.
Prosecution of civilians accused of criminal offenses may be
accomplished either through local law enforcement/judicial authorities
(especially for local nationals) or through the Department of Justice
(DOJ) under the MEJA of 2000, if the acts occurred overseas. Under
MEJA, the USACIDC provides its investigative report concerning a
civilian suspect to either the Combatant Commander, or his Staff Judge
Advocate, who may refer the case and the investigative report to the
DOD General Counsel's office for coordination with the DOJ. Article
2(a)(10), UCMJ, also provides for UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians
serving with or accompanying the force in the field during contingency
operations.
13. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, have any civilians been
prosecuted during the entirety of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and
Iraq under the UCMJ?
Secretary Geren. No. Jurisdiction over civilians was expanded on
October 17, 2006 when the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ. The expansion
provided for UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians serving with or
accompanying the force in the field during contingency operations.
Prior to the effective date of the act, there were no prosecutions,
because UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians was limited to periods in
which there is a formal declaration of war. There have been no
prosecutions of civilians since the statutory amendment became
effective.
14. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, have any civilians been
prosecuted during the entirety of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and
Iraq under any other U.S. or international law? If so, what
international laws?
Secretary Geren. Yes. I am aware that one former soldier,
Specialist Steven Green, is being prosecuted under the MEJA of 2000 in
Federal District Court in Kentucky, after being accused of murder and
rape of Iraqi nationals in Iraq. Additionally, one U.S. civilian, who
indecently assaulted a soldier in Iraq in 2005, was prosecuted and
convicted in Federal District Court in Georgia. Issues relating to the
prosecution of civilians serving with or accompanying our forces
overseas under U.S. laws and international law are under the purview of
the DOD Office of General Counsel (OGC). DOD OGC coordinates directly
with the DOJ in its exercise of jurisdiction under MEJA, and maintains
records and information on these cases or their disposition. Given
DOD's and DOJ's responsibility and control over this process, they
would be better positioned to provide specifics regarding the number of
cases and their disposition. I am not aware of any American civilian or
soldier being prosecuted in international tribunals. However, DOD OGC
is the best source of data for this question.
15. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, what are the
circumstances of all cases that have been prosecuted under the UCMJ or
U.S. or international law?
Secretary Geren. For Army activity under the UCMJ, there have been
96 summary, special and general courts-martial of soldiers for sexual
assaults in Iraq and Afghanistan. The alleged offenses include rape,
forcible sodomy, sodomy with a child, and indecent assault. There have
been an additional 92 adverse administrative and non-judicial actions
for soldiers accused of sexual assaults. Under MEJA, one former
soldier, Specialist Steven Green, is being prosecuted in Federal
District Court in Kentucky, after being accused of murder and rape of
Iraqi nationals in Iraq; and one U.S. civilian who indecently assaulted
a soldier in Iraq in 2005 was prosecuted and convicted in Federal
District Court in Georgia. Given DOD's and DOJ's responsibility and
control over the application of MEJA, they would be better positioned
to provide specifics regarding the number of cases and their
disposition. I do not know of any cases where U.S. soldiers have been
prosecuted for sexual assault under international law, at international
tribunals, or in foreign domestic courts arising from allegations of
misconduct in Iraq or Afghanistan. I would again encourage consultation
with DOD OGC concerning this matter.
16. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, what is the law that
governs civilian contractors (DOD, State, or any other U.S. Government
agency) who are alleged to have committed crimes?
Secretary Geren. Civilian contractors are subject to prosecution
under the MEJA of 2000, and as of October 17, 2006, the UCMJ, Article
2(a)(10). If a civilian in Afghanistan or Iraq commits a criminal
offense that violates U.S. Federal criminal law, the MEJA allows the
military to investigate the incident and coordinate with the DOJ
concerning prosecution of the case. Under MEJA, civilian contractors
are subject to prosecution under U.S. Federal criminal law if they
commit a criminal act that would have been a felony-level Federal
offense if committed within the United States. MEJA also requires that
the contractor be employed by or contracted to the DOD, or that their
employment or contractual work for another agency supports the mission
of DOD. Since October 17, 2006, UCMJ jurisdiction extends to civilian
contractors serving with or accompanying the force in the field during
contingency operations. Therefore, civilian contractors who fall within
this category are subject to prosecution for UCMJ offenses at courts-
martial. If jurisdiction exists under both MEJA and the UCMJ, by DOD
policy, Federal prosecution takes precedence over UCMJ prosecution.
17. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, what role, if any, does
the MEJA of 2000 play in the prosecution of civilian contractors who
allegedly commit crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Secretary Geren. If a civilian in Afghanistan or Iraq commits a
criminal offense that violates U.S. Federal criminal law, the MEJA of
2000 allows the military to investigate the incident and coordinate
with the DOJ to determine a United States Attorney's Office to
prosecute the case. Under MEJA, civilian contractors are subject to
prosecution under U.S. Federal criminal law, if they commit a criminal
act that would have been a felony Federal offense if committed within
the United States. MEJA also requires that the contractor be employed
by or contracted to the DOD, or that their employment or contractual
work for another agency supports the mission of DOD. Prosecution in
MEJA cases is conducted by a United States Attorney's Office in a
Federal District Court within the United States. If jurisdiction exists
under both MEJA and the UCMJ, by DOD policy, Federal prosecution takes
precedence over UCMJ prosecution of civilians.
18. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, how many prosecutorial
investigations have been initiated under MEJA?
Secretary Geren. Issues relating to the prosecutions of civilians
under U.S. laws and international law are under the purview of the DOD
OGC. DOD OGC coordinates directly with the DOJ in its exercise of
jurisdiction under the MEJA of 2000. According to the DOD OGC, eight
investigations of alleged sexual assault have been referred to the DOJ
under the MEJA. Thus far, DOJ has proceeded with prosecution in two of
these cases. Former soldier, Specialist Steven Green, is being
prosecuted under MEJA in Federal District Court in Kentucky, after
being accused of murder and rape of Iraqi nationals in Iraq; and one
U.S. civilian who indecently assaulted a soldier in Iraq in 2005 was
prosecuted and convicted in Federal District Court in Georgia. Both
cases were investigated by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation
Command. Three cases have been declined for MEJA prosecution because
there was insufficient evidence. The remaining three cases are listed
as ``pending.''
19. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, what is the earliest date
that you can provide to the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence
Committees the classified and unclassified RAND report and all
summaries titled ``Rebuilding Iraq''?
Secretary Geren. The Chief of Legislative Liaison, Major General
Galen Jackman, responded to your request on March 20, 2008. A copy of
the letter from General Jackman is attached.
missile defense transition to the army
20. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Geren, the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) has indicated that it is in discussions with the Army
about its proposal for how and when to transition and transfer certain
missile defense capabilities, such as the Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) system. Can you describe your view of the proposed
transition plan, and any concerns you have about it?
Secretary Geren. The Army and MDA have been working plans to
transition and transfer those Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)
elements for which the Army is the lead Service. There are currently
three BMDS elements designated to be transferred to the Army: the
ground-based interceptors and ground-based midcourse defense fire
control and communications; the THAAD system; and the AN/TPY-2 Forward
Based Mode Radar. A fourth BMDS element, the PAC-3, has already been
transferred to the Army. For the past 2 years, we have collaborated on
the transition and transfer plans and have participated on integrated
product teams for each element in order to work the specific details
associated with transition and transfer. Transition and transfer was
the main topic of a recent Army/MDA board of directors meeting where it
was decided to develop and sign an overarching memorandum of agreement
with individual, event-driven element annexes to further guide the
transition and transfer process. Our only concern with the transition
and transfer of BMDS elements to the Army is long-term affordability.
Element transitions must only occur when full funding is secured, as
procurement and operations and support costs anticipated at transfer
are beyond the Army's ability to program and fund without a total
obligation authority increase.
thaad system delays
21. Senator Bill Nelson. General Casey, the MDA budget request for
fiscal year 2009 would delay the delivery of THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4
by 1 year. These are near-term capabilities that we understand the
regional combatant commanders want delivered as soon as possible to
defend their forward-deployed forces against existing missile threats.
If it is possible to eliminate this delay and deliver these fire units
on time to the combatant commanders, would you support doing so?
General Casey. Yes, and the MDA has recently taken steps to realign
internal funding to restore planned procurement and delivery of these
two fire units and interceptors as originally planned and scheduled.
THAAD represents a cutting edge ballistic missile defense capability
that we need to field as early as possible.
22. Senator Bill Nelson. General Casey, the Joint Capabilities Mix
study of missile defense systems indicates that we will need about
twice the number of THAAD interceptors as the 96 we are currently
planning to buy. Do you agree that we will need more than 4 THAAD Fire
Units and 96 THAAD interceptors to provide adequate capability for our
forward-deployed forces?
General Casey. The Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) II+ Sensitivity
Analysis was completed in early January 2008. To date, the results of
the study have been briefed at the Force Protection Functional
Capabilities Board (FP FCB) and went to the Joint Capabilities Board in
mid-February 2008. Results are scheduled to be briefed to the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). JCM II+ results support the
findings of the Upper Tier interceptor inventory requirements for U.S.
forces in 2015 that were detailed in the JCM II. These studies clearly
show that current inventory levels are not sufficient to operate in
multiple theaters in near-simultaneous combat operations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
mental health
23. Senator Bayh. Secretary Geren, as I understand, the reality is
that our Nation and the military's medical system face significant
shortages of mental health professionals. In fact, the Army is trying
to hire 272 new mental health professionals this year. Unfortunately,
the Army has estimated that it will have only 150 by March. As a
result, our system today is hard-pressed and strained, at best, to
provide the essential care that so many of our soldiers who suffer from
traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
need. With that in mind, should we instead be focusing our efforts on
taking the needed steps to increase access to quality, community-based
and private care for our wounded soldiers?
Secretary Geren. To provide optimal care for our soldiers, we must
make full use of the Military Health System (MHS), the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), and private sector care. Currently, the MHS
makes extensive use of private sector care through the TRICARE Network.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs
(HA) recently issued a new policy to ensure beneficiaries have
appropriate access to mental health services by aligning mental health
access standards with existing primary care access standards. This
policy directs two new business practices. First, military mental
health clinics must provide more self-referral capabilities, much like
a primary care clinic. Mental health clinics traditionally operated as
specialty referral clinics, with soldiers only having limited self-
referral capabilities. Second, the policy establishes a 7-day routine
standard for receiving mental health treatment for a new onset, non-
urgent behavioral health condition or the exacerbation of a previously
diagnosed condition. Military treatment facilities closely track access
standards for our wounded soldiers. If access to care standards cannot
be met at a military facility, the soldier is referred to the private
sector for care. In addition, we are partnering with civilian health
care providers to ensure that civilian providers have the education and
training to care for our soldiers and veterans.
DOD has focused its efforts on increasing access to community based
care through a health care program called Military OneSource. The DOD
provides Military OneSource at no cost to servicemembers and their
families, and it is accessible 24/7. The health care system provides
access to community counseling services by phone and in person. These
counseling sessions are private and focus on issues ranging from
reactions to deployment, to grief and loss, to stress related problems,
to relationship problems. The servicemember or family member receives
up to six free sessions per issue. Servicemembers can call 1-800-342-
9647 toll free, or they can access services through the website at
www.militaryonesource.com.
24. Senator Bayh. Secretary Geren, are you pursuing a comprehensive
examination of TBI sufficient to provide protection for our future
soldiers? That is, are the engineering and scientific communities being
joined with the medical community to develop a deep understanding of
the issues of blast waves and their interaction with the human body?
Secretary Geren. Yes. The Army's core medical research program is
currently supporting multiple parallel efforts to examine the medical
effects of blast waves on the human body, and specifically on the
brain. These efforts include evaluating the attenuating effects of
protective equipment, as well as assessing design considerations that
will improve the protective effect of the soldier's equipment. The
medical research community is actively working with the engineering
research community, multiple academic institutions, and private
industrial labs to advance our understanding of primary and secondary
blast effects on the human body, and to develop effective
countermeasures to prevent injury to our warriors in the future.
25. Senator Bayh. Secretary Geren, what are your plans to develop a
broad body of investigators with new approaches, as opposed to a small
number of research organizations, to research TBI and its remediation?
Secretary Geren. There are already a myriad of research projects
under way across a vast multidisciplinary research community, which
includes academia, private organizations, and governmental
organizations. The results of these multidisciplinary research
initiatives being pursued by the best scientists in the field will
advance our understanding of how to prevent, detect, diagnose, and
treat TBI. Some examples of these research initiatives include
neuroprotection and repair strategies, rehabilitation and reintegration
strategies, and the physics of blast injury relative to brain injury.
DOD PTSD/TBI Research Program supports basic and clinically
oriented research that will: (1) result in substantial improvements
over today's approaches to the treatment and clinical management of
TBI; (2) facilitate the development of novel preventive measures; and
(3) enhance the quality of life of persons with TBI. Congress mandated
that the program be administered according to the highly effective U.S.
Army Medical Research and Materiel Command's two-tiered review process
that includes both an external scientific (peer) review conducted by an
external panel of expert scientists, and a programmatic review. After
the scientific peer review has been completed for each proposal, a
programmatic review is conducted by a Joint Program Integration Panel
(JPIP), which consists of representatives from DOD, VA, and Department
of Health and Human Services. The JPIP identified several gaps in TBI
research, including (1) treatment and clinical management; (2)
neuroprotection and repair strategies; (3) rehabilitation/reintegration
strategies; (4) field epidemiology; and (5) physics of blast. Research
proposals that address these gaps will have the highest priority for
funding.
The DOD's investment strategy for the $150 million appropriation
included multiple intramural (DOD and VA) and extramural award
mechanisms focused primarily on pre-clinical TBI research. The funding
mechanisms include the Concept Award, which supports the exploration of
a new idea or innovative concept that could give rise to a testable
hypothesis; the Investigator-Initiated Research Award which supports
basic and clinically oriented research; the Advanced Technology-
Therapeutic Development Award, which supports studies designed to
demonstrate the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals (drugs, biologics, and
vaccines) and medical devices in preclinical systems and/or the testing
of therapeutics and devices in clinical studies; the New Investigator
Award, which supports bringing new researchers into the field of TBI;
and the Multidisciplinary Research Consortium Award which supports
optimizing research and accelerating the solution of a major
overarching problem in TBI research within an integrated consortium of
the most highly-qualified investigators.
The DOD PTSD/TBI Research Program is offering competitive funding
for a Clinical Consortium, which will combine the efforts of the
Nation's leading investigators to bring to market novel treatments or
interventions that will ultimately decrease the impact of military-
relevant PTSD and TBI within the DOD and the VA. Further, the Clinical
Consortium is required to integrate with the DOD Center of Excellence
(DCoE) and is intended to support the DCoE's efforts to expedite the
fielding of PTSD and TBI treatments and interventions. Several other
award mechanisms offered by the PTSD/TBI Research Program will also
support preclinical and clinical trials for more effective treatments
for TBI.
The opportunities for funding research in TBI through these award
mechanisms is open to all investigators worldwide, including military,
academic, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other industry partners.
The competition is open, but rigorous, and the process ensures that the
best research and brightest people are funded to provide solutions to
the problem of TBI.
26. Senator Bayh. Secretary Geren, how have the responders to your
solicitations for TBI research shown investments that compliment and
accelerate the programs of research?
Secretary Geren. The DOD PTSD/TBI Research Program solicited
proposals under intramural and extramural funding opportunities.
Intramural funding mechanisms were dedicated to supporting research
aimed only at accelerating ongoing TBI-oriented DOD and VA research
projects or programs. Intramural proposals were solicited under two
TBI-focused funding mechanisms, the Investigator-Initiated Research
Award, which supports basic and clinically oriented research, and the
Advanced Technology-Therapeutic Development Award, which supports
studies designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals
(drugs, biologics, and vaccines) and medical devices in preclinical
systems and/or the testing of therapeutics and devices in clinical
studies. Approximately $35.3 million of the $150 million TBI
appropriation has been approved for funding ongoing DOD and VA research
projects or programs. It is anticipated that other ongoing DOD and VA
research will be supported indirectly through the extramural funding
process.
Congress mandated that the program be administered according to the
highly effective U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command's two-
tiered review process that includes both an external scientific (peer)
review conducted by an external panel of expert scientists, and a
programmatic review. After the scientific peer review has been
completed for each proposal, a programmatic review is conducted by a
JPIP which consists of representatives from the DOD, VA, and Health and
Human Services. The members of the JPIP represent the major funding
organizations for TBI and, as such, are able to recommend funding
research that is complimentary to ongoing efforts.
unmanned aerial vehicles
27. Senator Bayh. General Casey, as I understand, the Air Force and
Army utilize different models for their unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
crews. The Air Force's model, as it has been explained to me, is called
Remote Split Operations. This places crews (pilots, sensors, analysts)
in installations across the United States to allow for their constant
usage. In turn, this means that the crew footprint in theater is
relatively small and limited to only the launch and recovery elements.
However, I understand that the Army is deploying the units forward
allowing for only the use of those deployed assets (1/3 deployed, 1/3
in train up, 1/3 in reconstitution). Does this not allow for 100
percent utilization of Air Force crews instead of the Army's
approximately 33 percent utilization rate?
General Casey. The Army uses a modular Brigade Combat Team (BCT)
centric model to generate forces for deployment. Our BCT structure
incluces a Shadow UAS platoon of 22 soldiers. This small platoon
conducts all launch, recovery, and flight operations. The UAS operators
are fully integrated into the BCT mission planning and fully understand
the commander's intent. If an unanticipated high priority mission
occurs while a Shadow UAS is flying, the BCT can direct the operator to
change the planned mission to provide immediate support. The Army
currently has 20 Shadow UAS platoons, 2 Hunter UAS companies, 1 I-Gnat
UAS detachment, and 4 Warrior-A UAS platoons deployed in OIF; and 2
Shadow UAS platoons and 1 Warrior-A UAS platoon deployed in OEF. All
BCTs scheduled to enter theater on the next rotation train with their
Shadow UAS platoon to ensure the commander and staff understand how to
employ this critical asset.
28. Senator Bayh. General Casey, commanders abroad continue to note
their growing UAV requirements for operations abroad. As I understand,
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) is currently
reevaluating the UAV requirement for the entire DOD. Given what appears
to be a modest explosion in need for the kind of persistent
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) that UAVs provide,
why is the Army not following the Remote Split Operations model the Air
Force uses?
General Casey. The Army focuses on tactical Reconnaissance,
Surveillance, and Target Acquisition with its UAS assets. The
integration of the UAS operator into mission briefings allows for
greater understanding and facilitates dynamic retasking, effective
manned/unmanned teaming, full use of on-board communications relay
capabilities, and dynamic flexibility to meet emerging, time sensitive
high risk threats. Of the 22 soldiers in the Shadow Platoon only two
are operators not involved in launch and recover operations. If the
Army placed those soldiers in the States they would not attend mission
briefings, would not understand the commander's intent, and would not
be readily available for dynamic retasking. The Army would have to add
satellite technicians at each BCT and in the locations in the States.
This would likely increase the footprint in theater, require the
recruitment and training of large numbers of satellite technicians, and
sever the critical link between the BCT commander and his UAS
operators.
29. Senator Bayh. General Casey, the Army currently supports an
equivalent of 12 combat air patrols (CAPs) with its UAV fleet. The Air
Force is anticipating that they will be able to support an estimated 24
CAPs by June of this year thanks to a surge in their usage of personnel
and assets. What are the Army's current UAV or ISR needs in Iraq and
Afghanistan?
General Casey. As of February 19, 2008, the Army has flown over
429,000 UAS hours in theater. That includes 99,000 Raven Small UAS
hours. Over the past 3 months, approximately two thirds of the major
subordinate commands' full motion video requests were satisfied. The
Army will provide a Sky Warrior Quick Reaction Capability and six more
Shadow platoons to meet stated MNC-I shortfalls. We are awaiting
feedback from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on our
recommended courses of action to support the ISR surge.
30. Senator Bayh. General Casey, has the Army considered an
approach similar to the Air Force's to try and meet that current need?
General Casey. The Army has provided the Secretary of Defense with
options for increasing the number of Army UASs in theater. One option
would be to accelerate the deployment of the Sky Warrior Block 0 and
Shadow UAS into theater. Other options include mobilizing additional
Reserve component units and adding Government Owned/Contractor Operated
systems into theater. With all the options the Army balances the
current need for UAS systems in theater with the scheduled rotations
and to meet the Secretary of Defense's dwell time and boots-on-the-
ground requirements.
iraq and afghanistan
31. Senator Bayh. Secretary Geren and General Casey, can you please
delve into your plans to ensure that the force is appropriately
balanced for future counterinsurgency or nation-building contingencies?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The Army continuously assesses
capabilities to ensure the right mix of force structure to meet current
and future strategic demands. The Army's ongoing analysis will directly
result in the rebalancing of more than 142,000 spaces of capability,
including the growth of 74,200 spaces of structure in the Grow the Army
plan, by the end of fiscal year 2013. The focus of the Army's
rebalancing and growth is to provide more special operations forces,
infantry, military intelligence, military police, engineers, civil
affairs, psychological operations, and critical combat service support
enablers. These capabilities have allowed the Army to shift its weight
to meet increasing requirements for counterinsurgency and nation
building capabilities. The combined impact of rebalancing and growth
will build strategic and operational depth across all three Army
components to meet combatant commander requirements; mitigate high-
demand/low-density persistent shortfalls; and ensure the capability to
generate, train, and sustain the force in an era of persistent
conflict.
32. Senator Bayh. Secretary Geren and General Casey, how is the
Army training soldiers for both the situations today in Iraq and
Afghanistan while also balancing the potential requirements of
tomorrow?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. Army training has aggressively
adapted to fully prepare deploying forces. However, we face challenges
to maintain balance for full spectrum conflict and future force
modernization. The Army continues to deploy highly trained forces
prepared for their projected mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. Units are
alerted of their expected deployment as early as possible, identify
mission essential tasks associated with their assigned mission, and
focus pre-deployment training on achieving proficiency in those tasks.
The Army has improved the capability of training venues at units' home
stations and Combat Training Centers (CTCs) to realistically portray
the ever changing operational environments--terrain, social, language,
and culture--in which our soldiers are fighting. Every deploying unit
conducts a mission rehearsal/readiness exercise or capstone event which
features nongovernmental organizations, contractors, media, coalition
role players, and hundreds of civilians on the battlefield.
Given the predominance of operational deployments to Iraq and
Afghanistan and the high demand for forces there, the Army is sensitive
to likely atrophy of expertise for other kinds of operations. To
counter any such trend and regain more suitable balance, the Army
requires units to retain training focus as long as possible on the core
tasked for which they were designed, before shifting to the tasks and
operational conditions associated with their projected deployment.
Doing so enables a unit to build skill on the fundamental tasks
required of full spectrum operations--offense, defense, and stability
operations--which are executed during any kind of operation whether
counterinsurgency or major combat operations. As the dwell time before
units must deploy increases over time, units will be able to train more
on their as-designed, core tasks. Additionally, to ensure leaders
develop in a balanced way over their extended careers, the Army
requires professional military education courses for commissioned
officers and noncommissioned officers to retain a broad focus on the
entire range of military operations.
Sustained demand of current operations has stressed the Army's
training capability. For example, replicating current operational
conditions at unit home stations and Army CTCs is accomplished by using
a combination of base and supplemental funding at the expense of
modernization. Overtime the training capability of the Army generating
force has slipped out of balance with requirements of operating force
because we have taken risk in manning, equipping, and resourcing the
training base. The Army seeks to achieve balanced training capability,
in part, by:
Investing in training modernization for a fully integrated
live, virtual, and constructive training environment.
Transferring training tasks from post-mobilization to pre-
mobilization for Reserve component units.
33. Senator Bayh. Secretary Geren and General Casey, can you please
explain how long you believe the Army will be able to handle the
current operations tempo?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The cumulative effects of the
last 6-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance. The impacts
on soldiers and units of increasing time deployed and decreasing time
between deployments are visible in several different areas such as
training and readiness. Additionally, there is a backlog of soldiers
who have not attended professional military education schools
commensurate with their rank. Units are only able to train to execute
counterinsurgency operations rather than full-spectrum operations.
Other potential indicators are worrisome: the competitive recruitment
environment with a declining number of qualified potential recruits,
the increase in the number of soldiers with post traumatic stress
disorder, and an increasing number of suicides. However, we predict
that we will continue to recruit and retain enough soldiers to meet our
end strength requirements.
The Army has identified four imperatives that we must accomplish to
put ourselves back in balance: Sustain, Prepare, Reset, and Transform.
The Army has accelerated its planned growth of soldiers and units and
we expect to complete our growth by the end of 2011. In this era of
persistent conflict, the Nation needs to field fully prepared and
resourced forces wherever required.
34. Senator Bayh. Secretary Geren and General Casey, you both
mention that the force is strained; can you please contrast and compare
your definitions of a strained force and a broken force?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. Today's Army is out of balance,
it is strained but not broken. Indications that the force is strained
and out of balance include demand exceeds supply, counterinsurgency-
focused, rather than a full-spectrum trained force, accelerated
equipment wear out, and stress on soldiers and families. Nevertheless,
today's Army is able to meet the national strategy. The Army sends only
properly manned, trained, and equipped units to Iraq and Afghanistan. A
broken force lacks the capability to man, train, and equip itself to
meet the national strategy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
joint cargo aircraft
35. Senator Pryor. General Casey, the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 states that no funds will
be appropriated for the procurement of the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA)
until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense signs off on six reports,
one of which being the Joint Intra-theatre Airlift Fleet Mix Analysis.
Having been completed in December 2007, this report is long overdue to
Congress. Where is this Fleet Mix Analysis and when will it be signed?
General Casey. The Fleet Mix Analysis is a United States Air Force
report; therefore, you will receive it from the Chief of Staff, Air
Force.
36. Senator Pryor. General Casey, how will a delay in this report
affect the procurement and development of the JCA program for the Army?
General Casey. The authorization delay will not effect the
procurement of four aircraft in fiscal year 2008. The delay does impact
JCA testing and the Business Case Analysis to support the Joint Program
Strategy for Full Rate Production. Additionally, delayed funding will
have a direct impact on establishing the first bed down site in
Georgia, the maintenance contract, purchase of ground support equipment
and special maintenance tools, and training for pilots and crew
members. Today, we are in a day-for-day slip with regard to the first
unit equipped in fiscal year 2010.
37. Senator Pryor. General Casey, can you elaborate on the
importance of the JCA for the Army and the strategic differences in
intra-theater airlift and the last tactical mile?
General Casey. The importance of the JCA Program to the Army cannot
be understated. The JCA enables the Army to meet its inherent core
logistics functions as described by Joint Publication 3-17 and Joint
Publication 4-0. The primary mission of the Army JCA is to transport
Army time-sensitive mission-critical (TSMC) cargo and personnel to
forward deployed units, often in remote and austere locations, commonly
referred to as the last tactical mile. Because of the critical nature
of this cargo to the success of the tactical ground commander's mission
and the short notice of its need (usually less than 24 hours), lift
assets must be in a direct support relationship to provide the
necessary responsiveness.
For sustainment operations, Army fixed wing aviation performs those
missions which lie between the strategic and intra-theater missions
performed by the U.S. Air Force and the tactical maneuver and movement
performed by Army rotary wing or ground assets. The JCA will provide
point-to-point distribution where effectiveness vice efficiency is
critical to meeting the ground tactical mission needs. Simultaneously,
the JCA will continue to push the majority of supplies forward,
maintaining the potential synergistic effect between efficiency and
effectiveness. JCA for both the Army and Air Force is meant to be a
complimentary asset.
38. Senator Pryor. General Casey, on January 23, 2008, you met with
General Moseley at Bolling Air Force Base for Warfighter Talks in an
effort to strengthen joint partnerships between the Army and the Air
Force and to discuss issues about interdependence and interoperability
of operations. Specifically, what conclusions were drawn regarding the
joint nature of the JCA?
General Casey. The Army and Air Force have agreed to examine Intra-
theater Air Lift Roles and Missions as part of the Quadrennial Defense
Review. In the most recent Air Force-Army Warfighter Talks, we
recommitted our Services to the success of the C-27 program in its
current format, on the current fielding timeline, and in accordance
with the current beddown plan. Together, both Services will work any
roles and missions issues that may arise.
finance and accounting officers
39. Senator Pryor. Secretary Geren, what steps is the Army taking
to increase the number of finance and accounting officers both within
the Army and the combatant commands for current and future areas of
concern?
Secretary Geren. The Army's financial management community has
proactively embraced transformation and modularity. Initiatives such as
the Defense Integrated Military Human Resource Management System and
the General Fund Enterprise Business System leverage technology to
better use the talents of the officers within the financial management
community. Our financial management community is also combining the
functions of financial operations and resource management within the
tactical structures to provide a full scope financial management asset
for deployed commanders, while conforming to modularity for enhanced
scale efficiencies. All these efforts maximize the capabilities of our
current financial management officer population as the Army attempts to
meet an increasing number of mission requirements.
Despite these efficiencies, the experiences of OIF/OEF revealed the
increased need for both financial management and contracting officers
in deployed environments. The Gansler Report prescribed an increase to
the expeditionary nature of contracting culminating with the
establishment of the U.S. Army Contracting Command and a higher
percentage of Army officers comprising the acquisition profession.
Parallel efforts within the Army's financial management community
recognized that battlefield procurement far exceeded previously
anticipated volumes and recommended doubling the size of both corps and
division level resource management cells. The analysis prescribed an
increase from 4 to 8 soldiers at each echelon of these forward deployed
money management cells--a total of 88 commissioned and noncommissioned
officer positions across the Army. The next step toward achieving this
increase in financial management personnel occurs in April when the
Army's corps structure review revalidates the need and determines a
sourcing solution.
40. Senator Pryor. Secretary Geren, what are the incentives for a
soldier to go into this critical field and has the Army instituted a
general officer career path?
Secretary Geren The Army has a well-established financial
management career path for enlisted soldiers and officers through the
ranks of sergeant major and colonel. However, the extraordinary
financial circumstances of the past few years; the missions in
Afghanistan and Iraq; the Gansler report; and expectations for a
different budgetary landscape in the future indicate that the Army
should increase the number of general officers from the financial
management field.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial
Management and Comptroller) recently identified 16 positions across the
Army and Joint Staff for which our skilled financial managers would be
ideal fits. Both the Army and the Joint Staff would benefit from the
assignment of soldiers from the financial management field to these
jobs.
To support growth in the number of general officers from the
financial management community, I have agreed to the chief of staff's
recommendation to increase the number of financial management personnel
selected for brigadier general this fiscal year, and to select at least
one every year thereafter. For fiscal year 2009, we are contemplating
selecting two financial management personnel in order to accelerate by
1 year the plan to put more financial management general officers into
key Army and Joint Staff positions.
The Army has not experienced any difficulties in recruiting or
retaining uniformed financial-management personnel. Soldiers appreciate
the inherent challenge of the job and being part of a community in high
demand with enormous responsibility. Financial management offers the
opportunity to make a tangible difference from the micro to the macro
level--from helping to improve the quality of life and the service
environment for individual soldiers and their families, to obtaining
and shepherding the operational resources that enable the Army to
execute its mission and build for the future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
national guard aviation units
41. Senator Collins. Secretary Geren and General Casey, the Maine
Army National Guard's Air Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) Company of the
1st Battalion of the 126th Aviation Regiment is currently training at
Fort Sill, OK, and will soon be deployed to Iraq. This will be their
second deployment to Iraq since 2003, in addition to a deployment to
Kosovo in 2000. The proposed DOD budget has $5.01 billion for Army
aviation aircraft procurement. Some Army National Guard aviation units
will be trading in their older UH-60 A model Blackhawk helicopters for
newer model UH-60 M models. I also understand that there is a plan for
some National Guard units to get their UH-60 A model Blackhawks
modified to the UH-60 L configuration. While I am pleased to see that
the Army is making great efforts to get the latest and very best
equipment to our men and women in the National Guard, I am concerned
that the Maine Army National Guard is not included in any of these
plans despite the fact that they have deployed more often and more
frequently than other National Guard Army aviation units. Can you tell
me what the plan is to ensure that all of the Army Aviation National
Guard units receive the most modern aircraft in order to perform all of
their missions, both here at home, as well as when deployed overseas?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The Army is completely committed
to providing the best equipment available to all aviation units,
regardless of component. To this end, there is a deliberate review of
the capabilities of each unit prior to its being sourced for a
deployment to either Iraq or Afghanistan. If, during that review, it is
determined that additional capability beyond what it currently
possesses is either needed or appropriate for that unit to be able to
accomplish its mission, the mechanisms to accomplish that are put into
motion. This is the process that was used to upgrade the UH-60A MEDEVAC
aircraft in Maine's 1-126th Aviation with the newest engines
available--the T701D. These are the best engines in the Army and give
that unit the added aircraft performance that is needed for the
missions that it will perform. While the end result will be to have all
UH-60 aviation units upgraded to UH-60Ms or UH-60Ls, fielding nearly
2,000 Blackhawks in just these 2 configurations will take over 15
years. This fleet will be a mix of Active and Reserve component units
and will be fielded in a holistic manner. In the meantime, the Army
will ensure that each unit has the proper capability. To this end, the
needs of individual National Guard units are initially assessed by the
National Guard Bureau, which makes an informed decision about the order
in which these units need to receive new aircraft.
42. Senator Collins. Secretary Geren and General Casey, despite the
fact that the Maine Army National Guard's Air MEDEVAC Company of the
1st Battalion of the 126th Aviation Regiment has deployed more than any
other National Guard Air Ambulance company since 2000, it is troubling
to see that they are not on the list to receive newer equipment. Can
you describe the process and criteria used in determining which units
will receive the newest aircraft?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The Army is completely committed
to providing the best equipment available to all aviation units,
regardless of component. To this end, there is a deliberate review of
the capabilities of each unit prior to its being sourced for a
deployment to either Iraq or Afghanistan. If, during that review, it is
determined that additional capability beyond what it currently
possesses is either needed or appropriate for that unit to be able to
accomplish its mission, the mechanisms to accomplish that are put into
motion. This is the process that was used to upgrade the UH-60A MEDEVAC
aircraft in Maine's 1-126th Aviation with the newest engines
available--the T701D. These are the best engines in the Army and give
that unit the added aircraft performance that is needed for the
missions that it will perform. While the end result will be to have all
UH-60 aviation units upgraded to UH-60Ms or UH-60Ls, fielding nearly
2,000 Blackhawks in just these 2 configurations will take over 15
years. This fleet will be a mix of Active and Reserve component units
and will be fielded in a holistic manner. In the meantime, the Army
will ensure that each unit has the proper capability when it is needed
most. To this end, the needs of individual National Guard units are
initially assessed by the National Guard Bureau, which makes an
informed decision as to the order in which these units need to receive
new aircraft.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
community growth around bases
43. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Geren and General Casey, as you
are well aware, both Fort Stewart and Fort Benning in the State of
Georgia are in the process of growing as a result of the Grow the Army
plan and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, and we
welcome that growth and look forward to having more Army soldiers and
their families residing in the State of Georgia. This growth does bring
challenges, and one specific challenge that I've been aware of and
working to address for several years now is the growth in the number of
students at local school districts resulting from an influx of
military-connected children. No school district is going to turn away
additional students, and I know that the folks in Muscogee County,
Chattahoochee County, and Liberty County are eager to accommodate new
Army families and their children into their school districts--and they
will do so. I have had a very difficult time getting accurate estimates
from the Army regarding how many soldiers and, consequently, how many
school-aged children will be relocating to Georgia bases. The estimates
have varied widely and have made it very difficult for local school
districts to predict and plan how to accommodate this growth. However,
everyone agrees that, at least at Fort Benning, they will experience a
growth of several thousand students. But this is not just a Georgia
issue. Bases and communities in Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and
Kansas will be affected as well. As you can well understand, any
additional facilities and teachers required to accommodate additional
students will need to be funded in advance of the students arriving.
Local communities are challenged to pay for these expenses, especially
when the tax base for doing so does not exist, or will likely be made
up of non-residents who may not be paying income and property tax. Can
you tell me what the Army is doing to partner with communities around
bases experiencing this growth?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. Installation commanders maintain
dialogue with local education activities about timing and level of
projected growth, as well as associated challenges. In December 2007, a
Growth Summit was held in St. Louis, Missouri, where participants
shared their communities' experiences, including techniques or services
that would help others respond better to their anticipated growth.
Impact Aid, a function and responsibility of the Department of
Education, is a tool local communities use to meet the challenges they
face in funding additional facilities and teachers to accommodate
increased student loads. The aid is specifically designed to assist
local school districts that have lost property tax revenue due to the
presence of tax-exempt Federal property, or experience increased
expenditures due to enrollment of federally connected children. The
Army, in coordination with the DOD Office of Economic Adjustment and
Department of Education, conducted a series of installation visits to
provide Impact Aid stakeholders with on-the-ground knowledge of issues
surrounding mission growth, to improve communications among all
partners, and to identify gaps/lags in capacities.
The accompanying table reflects school-aged dependent growth at
Georgia installations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected school-aged
Georgia installations dependent growth from fiscal
years 2007-2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Benning.............................. 3,983
Fort Gillem............................... -838
Fort Gordon............................... 518
Hunter Army Airfield...................... 13
Fort McPherson............................ -2,251
Fort Stewart.............................. 1,963
------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Geren and General Casey, how are
you working to ensure that the children of Army families will have
schools to attend when they arrive at a new station?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The Army, in coordination with
the Department of Education's Offices of Elementary and Secondary
Education and Management, and DOD Office of Economic Adjustment and DOD
Military Community and Family Policy, conducted site visits to a
representative sample (Fort Benning, Fort Bliss, Fort Drum, and Fort
Riley) of locations to provide program stakeholders (Federal, State,
and local) with on-the-ground knowledge of issues surrounding mission
growth, improve communications among all partners, identify gaps/lags
in capacities, and to more extensively document the specific requests
for Federal action to assist communities and States responding to
student migration.
45. Senator Chambliss. Secretary Geren and General Casey, can you
give me your assurances that making sure this transition is seamless
and doing everything you can to help local communities prepare for this
growth will remain a priority for the Army?
Secretary Geren and General Casey. The Army is partnering with
local communities to deal with community needs, such as schools,
housing, and community activities, associated with Army stationing and
growth. Garrison commanders and staff regularly engage with community
leaders and have school liaison officers who facilitate communication
with local education agencies to help communities deal with stationing
and growth.
The Army is committed to providing soldiers and families with a
quality, supportive environment commensurate with their voluntary
service and daily sacrifices. The Army Family Covenant lays out the
Army's commitment to soldiers and families, and the fiscal year 2009
budget includes $1.5 billion to make the covenant a reality. The Army
Family Covenant is in direct response to concerns from Army families
who expressed concern about support for family programs, physical and
mental health care, housing, education, childcare, and employment
opportunities for spouses.
The Installation Management Command works extensively with
garrisons to develop individual plans to meet staffing, funding, and
programming requirements. Our BRAC plan addresses the needs of families
as their numbers change on our installations. Our global rebasing plans
include maintaining support to our soldiers and families throughout the
process. At our installations impacted by growth, we have programmed
new child development centers, youth centers, and fitness facilities
and increased staffing, as needed. The Army will closely monitor these
efforts to ensure that our families' needs are met as the Army
undergoes this dramatic era of growth, restationing, realignment, and
deployment.
[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy,
Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, Warner,
Sessions, Collins, Chambliss, Dole, Thune, and Martinez.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Creighton Greene,
professional staff member; Mark R. Jacobson, professional staff
member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Thomas K. McConnell,
professional staff member; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; and
William K. Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: William M. Caniano,
professional staff member; David G. Collins, research
assistant; David M. Morriss, minority counsel; Lucian L.
Niemeyer, professional staff member; Christopher J. Paul,
professional staff member; Sean J. Stackley, professional staff
member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard
F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Fletcher L. Cork, Kevin A.
Cronin, and Benjamin L. Rubin.
Committee members' assistants present: Bethany Bassett and
Jay Maroney, assistants to Senator Kennedy; Charles Kieffer,
assistant to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed;
Bonni Berge and Richard Kessler, assistants to Senator Akaka;
Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Andrew R.
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey,
assistant to Senator Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to
Senator Webb; Todd Stiefler, assistant to Senator Sessions;
Mark J. Winter, assistant to Senator Collins; Clyde A. Taylor
IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Lindsey Neas, assistant to
Senator Dole; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Brian
W. Walsh, assistant to Senator Martinez; and Erskine W. Wells
III, assistant to Senator Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. First, the
committee welcomes Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and
General James T. Conway, USMC, back to the committee this
morning. In addition, we'd like to welcome Admiral Gary
Roughead, USN, to his first posture hearing. You are well known
to this committee. You served as Chief of Legislative Affairs
not too many years ago, a fairly short time, I think. Do you
remember what years you were here as legislative affairs chief,
if you want to admit this?
Admiral Roughead. I wouldn't want to admit that. I think it
was in the 2000, 2001 timeframe.
Chairman Levin. It's great to have you back.
Admiral Roughead. It's great to be back, sir. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. We're grateful to each of you for your
service, and to the valorous and truly professional men and
women that you command and to their families, that we always
remember when we extend our greetings and our gratitude to the
men and women in uniform. We always remember to include their
families, for reasons which you gentlemen are very well aware
of.
You're faced with a number of critical issues that confront
the Department of the Navy in balancing modernization needs
against the costs of supporting ongoing operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In one notable case, the Nation is calling on the
Marine Corps to surge additional forces to Afghanistan because
of a refusal among our allies to support operations there.
General Conway's prepared statement highlights that at
least 3,200 marines will soon deploy to Afghanistan, without
relaxing commitments elsewhere in the United States Central
Command (CENTCOM) theater of operations. When I talked to
General Conway the other day in my office, I asked him whether
that failure on the part of our allies to do their committed
part had any impact at all on the morale of our marines. His
answer was a very firm, stout, and immediate ``No,'' and we
recognize that. If we can be doubly grateful to our marines for
that kind of a response, we are.
The Navy's been contributing directly to the war effort in
CENTCOM as well. In addition to the normal deployments of ships
and aircraft in support of these operations, according to the
Admiral's prepared statement the Navy has trained and deployed
more than 17,000 individual augmentees (IAs) to support these
missions on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, not
their usual duty, but there are no complaints, and we're
tremendously grateful for that response.
As we visit these men and women we talk to them about that
issue, and they are doing their duty, period.
General Conway. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. These activities further stress our troops
and represent challenges to our servicemembers and their
families. Again, let me express the thanks of every member of
this committee and I'm sure every member of the Senate and
every American for just how well and ably the men and women of
the Department of the Navy and their families are responding to
these challenges.
A number of challenges facing the Department of the Navy
center on acquisition programs. We have concerns about cost
problems in the shipbuilding arena, most notably with the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. When we met here last year,
the Navy had cancelled the contract for the second ship with
the first of the two LCS contractors. Since that time the
second LCS contractor has run into much the same cost and
schedule problems that plagued the first LCS contractor and the
Navy cancelled that contractor's second ship as well.
Changing requirements, poor cost estimates, inexperienced
program managers, and poor supervision of the contractors'
performance were among the causes of the overrun. Long ago, a
famous study concluded: Don't monkey with requirements after
signing a contract, because that leads to cost and schedule
problems. I've heard through the decades that the Navy has
learned that lesson, but it apparently still has not.
In Marine Corps programs, we saw significant cost growth on
the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program last year.
More recently, we've seen reports of significant problems in
affording the VH-71 helicopter that will replace the current
Marine Corps helicopters that support the President. We will
need to understand what has caused those cost growth overruns
and problems and what steps are being taken to correct them.
In the case of the Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP)
vehicle program, Congress intervened to accelerate this program
enough so that the Marine Corps will complete filling its
requirement for the MRAP vehicles in fiscal year 2008.
Another concern surrounds future force levels. We're facing
the prospect that the current Navy program will lead to
potentially large gaps between the forces that the Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO) has said that he needs and the forces
that will be available to his successors. In one case, the CNO
has said that the Navy needs to have 48 attack submarines to
meet combatant commanders' requirements, but we are faced with
the risk of falling well short of that goal for more than 10
years starting during the next decade.
Under current plans for tactical aircraft acquisition, the
Navy is facing a shortfall of as many as 200 tactical fighters
needed to outfit our aircraft carrier air wings. With
shortfalls that large, we could be faced with drastically
reducing the number of aircraft available on short notice to
the combatant commanders, either because we've deployed
understrength air wings or because we did not deploy the
carrier at all because of those aircraft shortages.
The Navy has predicted that the reduction in carrier force
levels to 10 will not prevent them from maintaining the current
capability to surge carriers under the Fleet Response Plan, the
so-called 6+1 capability. If the Navy were not to have enough
aircraft to outfit 4 of its 10 carrier air wings, this would be
a moot point in any event.
We look forward to the testimony of our witnesses this
morning. We're very grateful again for their presence, for
their commitment to this Nation, and to their fine work.
Senator Warner, I think this may be your last Navy posture
hearing, unless we sneak in another one before the end of the
year.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. I've enjoyed 30 years of being with you,
Senator, at these posture hearings, and then 5 years prior
thereto when I sat at that table. So it's been a very wonderful
opportunity for this humble person to have had that experience.
I join you, Mr. Chairman, in the respect and homage we pay
to the men and women of the Armed Forces, and today it's the
Navy-Marine Corps team and their families for their service to
country.
Mr. Secretary, I was pleased when we visited the other day
you told me about the centennial celebration for the Great
White Fleet launched by Teddy Roosevelt 100 years ago, and how
his aides said to him: Mr. President, we only have money to
really get them halfway around the world. The President said:
That's fine by me; we'll get them there and we'll park the
ships until Congress appropriates the money to bring them home.
So here we are. But I think those moments of history are
important to remember. We should reflect also upon the
Constitution, which says that this Nation shall maintain a Navy
and raise an Army as we see fit in the appropriate time.
Today, a third of our Fleet is underway at any one time,
from the Western Pacific to the Arabian Gulf, sailing with the
flag of freedom and hope, not only for our country, but for so
many countries. We also see the trends in naval construction of
other countries, notably China and now a rejuvenated Russian
interest in their Navy, and that brings to mind the essential
requirement of this country and we must remember, in effect,
we're an island nation, and we're dependent on a maritime
strategy for our overall security interests.
Meanwhile, 25,000 marines are conducting our Nation's most
pressing business in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more are on the
way. So we salute you, General, and your forces. Today's
hearing should ensure that we are doing all in our power so
that they can meet that motto, the most ready at all times.
For the Navy and the Marine Corps, this comes down to ships
and aircraft, ordnance and armor, and a trained force of
sailors and marines equally ready for sea and ready for war.
The chairman covered several points that are also of
interest to me and I'll just put that in the record as a part
of my statement. But I'd like to say to the Commandant, I was
impressed. I watched a piece last night, I believe it was on
the Lehrer show, about your concern of the current armor and
the weight of that armor and how that weight, not only of the
individual's armor, but the armor that we put on vehicles,
requires you to do some consideration about the future. I
commend you for that. Certainly the uparmored Humvee has been a
successful operation, and now the MRAP. But with that armor
goes some loss of tactical mobility of those vehicles as well
as the tactical mobility of the individual marine. Perhaps in
your testimony you will touch on that decision that you've been
making.
We also are interested in the recruiting and training. The
chairman and I will bring those issues into focus here.
As the CNO, we're encouraged by the Navy's continued focus
on the Fleet Response Plan, on stabilizing your steaming days
and flying hours. I join the chairman with regard to the
shipbuilding budget and, Mr. Secretary, we hope it is accurate
and we're hopeful that we can maintain the goals that you've
established for this coming fiscal year and in the outyears.
That's the essential part of our responsibility here, providing
for an adequate force.
The 313-ship total, Admiral, is still the goal, as it
should be, of our Fleet. We are also faced, as the chairman
said, with shortfalls in aircraft as we try to fill the gap
with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), and we'll cover that.
But a ``well done'' to each of you gentlemen and those that
you're privileged to have the responsibility to care for, both
in uniform and the families, and a very significant civilian
corps, Mr. Secretary, that you know well. I looked at your
overall figures. It's 900,000 individuals in the Department of
the Navy that you're responsible for, uniformed and civilian.
Secretary Winter. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement by Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Chairman Levin.
General Conway, Admiral Roughead, Secretary Winter, thank you for
your testimony today. I commend each of you for your outstanding
leadership to our Nation, our service men and women, and theirfamilies.
Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to note your recent centennial
commemoration of President Theodore Roosevelt launching the great white
fleet. President Roosevelt had a clear vision for American Seapower,
and in the century since, our Nation's security has been underpinned by
our preeminent position as a maritime power.
Today, you report that a third of the fleet is deployed from the
western Pacific to the Arabian Gulf, sailing with a freedom truly
unmatched in history. Yet, today we also see trends in naval
construction by foreign navies which alert us that this freedom, this
`command of the seas' will surely be challenged ahead, and it is our
responsibility to be prepared to meet such challenge.
Meanwhile, 25,000 marines are conducting our Nation's most pressing
business in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be joined soon by an additional
Marine task force deploying to Afghanistan--another demonstration of
the Corps' commitment, to be `most ready.'
Today's hearing should ensure that we are doing all in our power so
they can meet this commitment.
For the Navy and Marine Corps, this comes down to ships and
aircraft, ordnance and armor, and a trained force of sailors and
marines equally ready for sea and ready for war.
Commandant, you've stated that you're operating at ``surge-plus''
with marines experiencing a one-to-one ratio of time deployed to time
back home, and that equipment usage rates are seven times greater than
peacetime rates. I am most interested in your assessment of the Marine
Corps' ability to sustain this operational tempo, your readiness to
surge the additional 3,200 marines to Afghanistan next month, and how
you will transition the experience you've gained in the Al Anbar
province to achieve equal success in Afghanistan.
It is important to hear from you on trends in recruiting,
retaining, and equipping the force as you increase the Corps to an end
strength of 202,000 marines. While we are focused today on Iraq and
Afghanistan, it's important to understand your challenges in
maintaining the Corps' excellence in Expeditionary Warfare.
As well, Chief of Naval Operations, I'm encouraged by the Navy's
continued focus on the Fleet Response Plan, on stabilizing steaming
days and flying hours, and on increasing force readiness. Similarly,
the Navy has been successful at managing end strength while offsetting
increasing personnel costs--this done, while supporting ground forces
with 10,000 sailors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, the Navy's force readiness--current and future--will
ultimately rely on ships and aircraft at sea, and I remain concerned by
the continued downward trends in recapitalizing our fleet and naval air
force.
You have rightfully stated that the Navy's program to build a fleet
of 313 ships is ``the floor'' required to meet the future threat. Yet
today, with a force of 279 ships and just 7 ships in this budget
request, we are simply not building at the rate we need.
Compounding this problem, we are on the front end of a long gap to
strike fighter aircraft. Shortfalls of at least 2, perhaps 4 air wings,
threaten to extend beyond the next decade.
In considering this budget request, the debate should not center on
how we will make due with shortfalls in carriers, strike fighters,
submarines, and amphibious lift; but rather, how we can best close
these gaps. At the very core of this debate we must address spiraling
cost growth, or the 313 ship fleet under the cover of 10 carrier air
wings will remain beyond our reach. I know you all share this concern.
Secretary Winter, I greatly appreciate your efforts to strengthen
the business of building our Navy. Programs like the Littoral Combat
Ship and Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle received much attention this
past year, but the greater concern is that these programs' troubles are
symptomatic of systems, processes and an industrial base that are
struggling with today's demand for highly complex systems in low-rate
production.
I'm interested in your views on how we strike a course in
acquisition that brings the Navy's affordability imperative in line
with its mission requirements.
As always, we rely on you to advise this committee on the adequacy
of this budget request to fully support these objectives and to
identify any challenges you face that warrant the attention of this
committee. Again, I thank you gentlemen for joining us today and look
forward to your testimony.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Secretary Winter?
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD C. WINTER, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Secretary Winter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, and members of the committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
here to present the Department of the Navy's plan to support
our sailors and marines in their mission to defend our Nation
against current and future challenges.
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget will assist the
Navy and Marine Corps in accomplishing their complementary and
reinforcing missions while building capabilities necessary to
meet future threats. One of the primary responsibilities of our
Government is to provide for the Nation's defense. Those
responsibilities include the critical requirements to organize,
train, and equip the naval forces. For the vast majority of
citizens, the only cost imposed on us is financial. America is
able to provide for the national defense with such a minimal
impact on the citizenry because we are blessed to have among us
a generation of people, patriots all, who volunteer to serve.
They are the ones who bear many hardships, accept many risks,
and go in harm's way.
The pay and benefit funding levels in our 2009 budget
request reflect the compensation levels necessary to continue
to attract and retain quality personnel in the Navy and the
Marine Corps. Furthermore, although we are doing well in our
overall recruiting and retention numbers, I emphasize the need
for special pays and bonuses to meet critical sub-specialty
needs such as our requirements for nurses, physicians, and
explosive ordnance disposal personnel.
It is because of the hard work of our sailors and marines
that we are making progress, fostering maritime security,
defeating terrorist networks, progressing towards a stable
Iraq, supporting the Afghan government, countering piracy and
the proliferation of deadly technology, rendering humanitarian
assistance, and strengthening partnerships around the world.
Our sailors and marines have responded when called and superbly
performed their many missions in our Nation's defense. It is
truly an honor and privilege to work with them and support them
as their Secretary.
The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2009 budget meets
the challenge of resourcing the Navy and Marine Corps team
across a range of missions, from partnership building to combat
operations. It invests in our ability to operate, sustain, and
develop forces that are engaged in the global war on terrorism
while preparing the force for the challenges and threats of the
future.
We are requesting a total of $149 billion, a 7 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2008 baseline. This increase is
driven by factors such as rising oil costs and the critical
comprehensive growth of the Marine Corps. Our fiscal year 2009
budget reflects three key priorities, which are consistent with
those of previous years. They are: first of all, prevail in the
global war on terror; second, take care of our sailors,
marines, and their families, and particularly our wounded; and
lastly, prepare for future challenges across the whole spectrum
of operations.
To help meet our first priority, prevail in the global war
on terror, we are adapting our force for current and future
missions, to include growing the Marine Corps, shaping the
force by recruiting and retaining the right people, and
addressing critical readiness needs. Among the most critical
readiness needs is the ability to train our sailors and marines
for the threats that they may encounter. Unfortunately, our
Navy has encountered increasing encroachments in our ability to
conduct critical training. We recognize that there are on
occasion impacts on the citizenry at large associated with such
training. But these are necessary costs that are critical to
the defense of the Nation. We take extensive precautions to
minimize the impact of our training. We owe it to the American
people and we owe it to those who serve to acknowledge that, as
in all things in life, there are competing interests and
tradeoffs and that we treat the risks of sonar operation at sea
or the impact of jet noise the way we treat all public policy
issues, balancing risks and costs against legitimate national
security interests.
I greatly appreciate the support this committee provided us
last year with respect to Miramar Air Station, thereby ensuring
that our naval aviators can continue to receive vital training.
I commit to you today that I will continue to keep you apprised
of legal challenges and their implications for readiness that
we face over the course of the coming year.
Mr. Chairman, if in the future we are unable to properly
train our sailors and marines we will have failed to do our
duty to them and to the American people.
Another critical issue I would like to highlight concerns
doing right by those who go in harm's way. As Secretary of
Defense Robert M. Gates has stated, apart from the war itself
we have no higher priority than to take care of our wounded.
Our wounded warriors and their families deserve the highest
priority care, respect, and treatment for their sacrifices. Our
2009 budget honors our commitment to ensure that our sailors
and marines receive the appropriate care, training, and
financial support that they need.
Finally, to meet the challenges of the future, the 2009
budget provides for a balanced fleet of ships, aircraft, and
expeditionary capabilities with the fighting power and
versatility to carry out blue, green, and brown water missions
wherever called upon.
Furthermore, I would like to note that, consistent with our
commitment to assure affordability and timely delivery of
capabilities, we have launched an acquisition improvement
initiative to provide better integration of requirements and
acquisition decision processes, improve governance and insight
into the development, establishment, and execution of
acquisition programs, and formalize a framework to engage
senior naval leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the strong support this
committee and Congress at large have given our Navy and Marine
Corps team. I want to thank you on their behalf. Our Navy and
Marine Corps are a strong, capable, and dedicated team. I
appreciate the opportunity to represent them today and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Winter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald C. Winter
The Navy and Marine Corps Team . . . fighting today and preparing for
future challenges
i. introduction
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the committee, it is
an honor to appear again before you representing the men and women of
the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps--Active,
Reserve, and civilian--a force of over 800,000 strong.
I am here to present the Department of the Navy's (DON) plan to
support our sailors and marines in their mission to defend our Nation
against current and future challenges as they conduct operations
spanning the spectrum, from major combat to humanitarian assistance.
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget will assist the Navy and Marine
Corps in accomplishing their complimentary and reinforcing missions,
while building capabilities necessary to meet future threats. The
fiscal year 2009 budget balances capabilities to support both
traditional and irregular warfare demands. It also continues to expand
the Marine Corps' capacity and furthers the transformation from a blue
water navy into one that can fight and win in the blue, green, and
brown waters.
As I reflect upon my time as Secretary of the Navy, nothing is more
sobering than the experience of seeing--every single day--the
dedication, professionalism, and willingness to sacrifice shown by our
sailors, marines, civilian employees, and their families. I will attest
to you their unwavering commitment to duty. These patriots put
themselves in harm's way to protect our Nation. From those who have
given the ultimate sacrifice, such as Medal of Honor recipients
Lieutenant Michael Murphy and Corporal Jason Dunham, to those who daily
take the pledge to support and defend our Nation, our Navy and Marine
Corps Team is second to none. It is because of their efforts that we
are making progress fostering maritime security, defeating terrorist
networks, progressing towards a stable Iraq, supporting the Afghan
government, countering piracy and the proliferation of deadly
technology, giving humanitarian assistance to people in need after
tsunamis and earthquakes, and strengthening partnerships around the
world. The men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps have responded
when called upon. It is an honor and privilege to work with them and
support them as their Secretary.
Today our Nation is faced with a myriad of challenges and
uncertainties across the globe. There have been several unexpected, and
sometimes sudden, changes in the security environment over the past few
years. Yet many of the strategic imperatives of the United States--
particularly with respect to the maritime environment--remain
unchanged. It is clear the United States must have the capacity to act
in such a fluid and unpredictable environment, and that naval forces
offer unique flexibility to respond swiftly and decisively anywhere in
the world. Providing this flexibility requires that the DON invest
wisely across a wide range of capabilities, and that we take care to
deliver a balanced portfolio of capabilities to the joint force.
Worldwide presence, credible deterrence and dissuasion, projection of
power from naval platforms anywhere on the globe, and the ability to
prevail at sea are the critical, most fundamental elements of the Navy
and Marine Corps strategic posture; these are our indispensable
contributions to the joint warfighting capability of the Nation.
The United States is a maritime power, bounded by sea to the east
and west. The health of our national economy depends on assuring safe
transit through the seas--and the maritime dimension of international
commerce is ever increasing. Consider that 70 percent of the earth is
covered by water, 80 percent of the world's population lives in close
proximity to the coast, and 90 percent of the world's international
commerce is transported via the sea. Given our national interests, and
the role we play in the world, it is unsurprising that our sailors and
marines are constantly called upon to react to a wide range of
challenges. I suggest that the strength of a nation's naval force
remains an essential measure of that nation's status and role in the
world. I also submit that maritime dominance by the United States
remains vital to our national security, to our position in the world,
and to our ability to defend and promote our interests.
Last fall, the DON, in collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard,
reaffirmed its emphasis on the traditional capabilities of forward
presence, deterrence, sea control, and power projection in its new
Maritime Strategy: A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.
However, the Maritime Strategy also makes clear that we consider our
core capabilities to include maritime security and the provision of
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief--areas of growing
importance. The strategy emphasizes the use of soft power, and
highlights the criticality of our foreign friends and allies, while
reminding us that the underlying credibility for partnerships and peace
is the United States' ability to swiftly defeat a threat with
overwhelming and decisive combat power.
The unique nature of our Department is such that the Navy and
Marine Corps team is a constantly deployed force, both in peacetime and
in war, with the further ability to surge assets worldwide, anytime
required. As we consider the current and projected strategic
environment, we must anticipate a steadily growing reliance on our
unique expeditionary character. This is becoming ever more apparent.
The challenge of resourcing our two services across such a large range
of steadily growing global missions, from partnership building to
combat operations, is one that we have met with the President's fiscal
year 2009 budget.
Reflected in the budget submittal is the fact that today's Navy and
Marine Corps are operating in blue, green and brown waters, in the air
and on the shore--and sometimes deep inland--facing a wide variety of
threats. On any given day, approximately 40 percent of the fleet is
deployed at sea or involved in pre-deployment training. Forward
deployed carrier and expeditionary strike groups operate on the high
seas, unencumbered by constraints facing land-based forces. They are
providing our combatant commanders with many important and powerful
combinations of capability: tactical aviation, land attack systems,
SEAL and Marine Special Operations Forces (SOF), intelligence and
surveillance platforms, amphibious assault and forcible entry capacity,
over-the-horizon force projection, and flexible seabasing and at sea
logistical support. Our full spectrum of capabilities also includes
ship-based ballistic missile defense--providing a shield that not only
protects our maritime freedom of movement and access, but which also
contributes to the defense of our allies and our homeland against
missile threats. In other words, we are presenting a budget which
supports a force in high demand across the globe.
The President's budget does more than just fulfill our
responsibilities in today's complex environment; it continues to evolve
our portfolio of capabilities. This is essential to our ability to
defend against future threats which could range from the asymmetric--
from terrorists to proliferation and/or use of weapons of mass
destruction--to the more traditional challenges posed by nation-states
and possible future ``near peer'' competitors.
Evolving our portfolio of capabilities can be challenging, since
the Navy and Marine Corps have an operational construct that emphasizes
forward deployment and presence. Historically, while the bulk of U.S.
forces return home after cessation of a conflict or crisis, our
maritime forces often do not. They are continuously present in forward
regions, and through their forward engagement they maintain familiarity
with the environment and the characteristics of regional actors; they
also foster and sustain trust and cooperation with friends and allies.
Thus when a threat to our national security emerges overseas, it may
well be encountered first by the Navy and Marine Corps. Meeting that
threat, whether on land, in the air, on the high seas, or under the
sea, will require our forces to be in peak fighting condition. They
must be ready to fight and win at any time, and to do so at great
strategic distance. We have developed a budgetary plan which addresses
these requirements.
We have developed the budget in the face of a demanding and rapidly
changing security environment, and there are worrisome trends that bear
watching. Nations are developing weapons and systems which seem
deliberately intended to threaten our naval assets, deny access, and
restrict our freedom of maneuver. The proliferation of anti-access
weapons technology to unfriendly nations is a significant concern.
Furthermore, the DON, like other parts of the Department of Defense
(DOD), has been a target of aggressive foreign intelligence and data-
collection activities. As such, we need to invest in the capabilities
necessary to preserve our technological advantage. Additionally, aside
from growing costs and schedule delays in some acquisition programs, we
also struggle with regulatory encroachment and legal challenges that
threaten to undercut our ability to effectively train and maintain
readiness. We must address these challenges; doing so is fundamental to
maintaining our naval readiness and our capability to defend our
Nation.
In summary, the DON's fiscal year 2009 budget invests in the Navy
and Marine Corps to operate, sustain and develop forces that will
remain engaged in the global war on terrorism, while at the same time
preparing the force for the challenges and threats of the future. The
fiscal year 2009 budget requests $149.3 billion for these purposes.
This is a 7-percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 baseline and is
driven by factors such as rising oil costs and the critical,
comprehensive growth of the United States Marine Corps.
Priorities for the Department of the Navy
The DON is committed to finding solutions that allow the Navy and
Marine Corps to balance our current requirements and operational
realities with the likely needs of the future. We strive to maintain an
agile and flexible force that can not only contribute to winning our
Nation's wars but also can assist in preventing future conflict to the
extent possible--whether by dissuasion, deterrence, humanitarian
action, or disaster relief. As such, our priorities remain consistent
with those in previous years. They are to:
Prevail in the global war on terrorism;
Take care of our sailors, marines, their families and
particularly our wounded; and
Prepare for future challenges across the full spectrum
of operations.
As in the past, for the sake of brevity, some of the key programs
are highlighted and can be found in greater detail in the Highlights of
the DON fiscal year 2009 budget.\1\ This statement is designed to
reinforce, and build upon, initiatives articulated in previous
testimony and budget material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Highlights of the DON fiscal year 2009 budget, February 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. prevail in the global war on terrorism
The Department's top priority remains the global war on terrorism.
Today, approximately 29,300 marines and 11,300 sailors (including
individual augmentees) operate ashore, along with 12,000 sailors at
sea. They are conducting and supporting operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and throughout the U.S. Central Command region, and their
contributions are central to the progress being made.
Naval forces provide a major part of the national worldwide
rotational presence and an increasing portion of the required support
for ground units in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF). They operate across the spectrum--from low
intensity conflict, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, to
high intensity conflict involving airborne strike and Marine Corps
forces in coordinated joint and coalition ground operations. To
illustrate the wide range of activities undertaken, it is noteworthy
that, in 2007, five Carrier Strike Groups and five Expeditionary Strike
Groups deployed in support of OEF and OIF. Throughout 2007 the Marine
Corps provided three embarked Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) forward
positioned in all geographic commands. Two of these MEUs were employed
ashore in support of Multinational Force-West and participated in
sustained combat operations. Naval aviation, afloat and ashore, in
concert with U.S. Air Force and coalition aviation forces, has provided
critical strike, overland surveillance, logistical and electronic
warfare support to the joint land forces deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Navy has also deployed riverine forces for the first
time since Vietnam, operating on Lake Thar Thar and the Euphrates
River. The Marine Corps also achieved a milestone with successful
deployment of the first MV-22 Osprey squadron in OIF operations. Naval
Special Warfare (NSW) forces continue to be actively engaged in
combating terrorism. The Navy SEALs and the Marine Special Operations
Command have done outstanding work in OIF/OEF and have made critical
progress in countering the threat of international terrorism. We will
continue to prioritize investment and retention of our highly-skilled
Special Operations Forces.
In addition to traditional types of maritime activities, the Navy
continues to support the global war on terrorism in a variety of non--
traditional areas. For example, Navy sailors are leading a number of
Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan today. Significant
numbers of naval combat support and combat service support personnel
are relieving the Army and Marine Corps in select mission areas. In
U.S. Central Command, Navy personnel are providing base and port
operations support, medical, explosive ordinance disposal, construction
battalions, civil affairs, electronic warfare, mobile security forces,
detainee operations, intelligence, and headquarters staff support. The
Navy also continues command of the detainee mission in Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba and at Camp Bucca, a high security prison in Iraq. Executive agent
responsibilities are discharged by the Navy for the global war on
terrorism-related Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa (CJTF HOA)
in Djibouti. CJTF HOA has transformed from its initial seafaring force,
aimed at blocking terrorists fleeing Afghanistan (and preventing them
from establishing new safe havens), into a task force that also
conducts military-to-military training and humanitarian assistance over
a large geographic expanse of eight countries.
With respect to the Marine Corps, the II Marine Expeditionary Force
Forward, augmented by marines from around the Corps, conducted
counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and led the Multinational Force-
West in Al Anbar Province, supported by Army, Air Force, and Navy
personnel. The achievements of the marines in Al Anbar have been widely
noted, and their success in creating a permissive environment for local
governance and economic development--making significant inroads in
security, training, and transfer of responsibility to their Iraqi
counterparts--has been crucial. More broadly across the country, Marine
Corps Transition Teams have conducted training for Iraqi military,
police, and border teams. The Marine Corps provided over 800 personnel
across more than 50 types of Iraqi transition teams in 2007. Building
upon these successes in Iraq, recently the President approved the
deployment of 2,200 marines to Afghanistan in support of the NATO-led
International Security Assistance Force mission, and 1,000 marines to
assist in the training and development of the Afghan National Security
Forces. In preparation for these overseas missions, the Marine Corps
continues to implement comprehensive training programs at home, such as
Mojave Viper and Desert Talon.
At sea, the effective conduct of Maritime Security Operations is a
critical element of the fight against terrorism. In the Northern
Arabian Gulf, our sailors and marines are working with coalition and
Iraqi forces in a Coalition Task Group to defend the Al Basra Oil
Terminal and the Khawr al Amaya Oil Terminal. The security of these
platforms is provided through waterborne patrols in rigid hull
inflatable boats, platform security personnel, and helicopter
surveillance. Working with our NATO allies, the Navy continues to
provide support for Operation Active Endeavor, which is an ongoing
maritime interdiction effort in the Mediterranean. Similarly, the
conduct of operations to dissuade and counter piracy off the West
African coast and the actions of the guided missile destroyers U.S.S.
Porter, U.S.S. Arleigh Burke and U.S.S. James E. Williams off the coast
of Somalia this past October are examples of how the Navy is working to
provide a secure maritime environment.
Fostering enduring foreign partnerships and friendships is yet
another key contributor to the global war on terrorism, as we bolster
the capacity of nations to work with us, and to conduct
counterterrorism efforts of their own. The Navy is continuing to
develop the concept of Global Fleet Station (GFS), envisioned to be a
highly visible, positively engaged, reassuring, and persistent sea base
from which to interact with the global maritime community of nations.
The Department demonstrated the concept through the GFS pilot in
October, using the HSV-2 SWIFT in the Caribbean, and again with the
African Partnership Station in the Gulf of Guinea, using the U.S.S.
Fort McHenry and HSV-2 SWIFT. In addition to targeted outreach
activities, the Navy and Marine Corps team extends America's diplomatic
reach through the conduct of multinational exercises and port visits.
Throughout 2007, the naval force participated in over 230 bilateral and
multinational exercises with partners around the globe.\2\ The Marine
Corps also participated in over 60 Theater Security Cooperation events,
which ranged from deployment of small Mobile Training Teams in Central
America to MEU exercises in Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific.
Additionally, several overseas training events were held with foreign
special operations forces to improve interoperability with Navy and
Marine SOF, and the Department provided support to the stand-up of
NATO's new SOF Coordination Center. The cumulative effect of these
exercises and events is to foster trust and sustain cooperative
relationships with our international partners. This is critical to U.S.
national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Illustrative of our global security cooperation are exercises
involving the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force and the Indian Navy
during TRILAX 07 in the Northern Pacific; PHOENIX EXPRESS 07 with
Moroccan, Algerian, and Tunisian forces west of the Gibraltar Strait;
BALTOPS 07 in the Baltic Sea with Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden,
Poland, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, and NATO; AMAN
07 with Pakistan, Great Britain, China, France, Italy, Malaysia,
Turkey, and Bangladesh; UNITAS off of South America's Pacific coast
with Chile, Colombia, and Peru; and MALABAR with forces from India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outreach to foreign populations is also an important part of the
Nation's efforts to stem the spread of terrorism. This is an important
mission for the Navy and the Marine Corps and is a tangible way that we
can demonstrate the compassion and values of the American people. Last
year, the Navy and Marine Corps together were at the forefront of
numerous humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.
Sailors and marines in the Pacific provided desperately-needed
humanitarian support to Bangladesh in the aftermath of Cyclone Sidr.
The Marine Corps engaged in civil-military and humanitarian assistance
operations such as ``New Horizons'' in Nicaragua and land mine removal
training in Azerbaijan. The joint and combined crew aboard the U.S.N.S.
Comfort gave humanitarian aid during a 4-month tour in Latin America
and the Caribbean. During Pacific Partnership 2007, the joint and
interagency crew of the U.S.S. Peleliu gave similar aid to the
Philippines and other Pacific island nations. We hope that the support
given during these missions, whether it was the Seabees' reconstruction
of homes and schools devastated by a tsunami, or inoculation and
treatment of children and the elderly by Navy and Marine medical
professionals, helped convey a positive image of the United States with
local populations.
Finally, within the United States, the Department continues its
emphasis on providing increased force protection to our sailors and
marines, particularly in the area of counter-improvised explosive
devices (IED). As lead service for the joint Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) vehicle program, the Department accelerated production
for MRAP vehicles to rapidly field this capability in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Through the use of Lean Six Sigma activities and projects,
the Department synchronized an effort to build and transport MRAP
vehicles to the theater, rapidly identifying and mitigating
deficiencies in the MRAP vehicle pipeline. Over 2,000 MRAP vehicles
have been fielded to support the Department's joint urgent requirement,
over 900 of which are in the hands of marines and more than 150 fielded
to the Navy. Also as part of the broader counter-IED effort, the
Department is procuring Biometric Tools, the Family of Imaging Systems,
counter-IED robotics, and Counter Radio-Controlled IED Electronic
Warfare systems.
Adapting the Naval Force for Global War on Terrorism and Future
Missions
The Marine Corps and Navy are being called upon today to conduct
surge operations, conduct Iraq unit rotations, provide additional
forces to Afghanistan, and prepare for other challenges. The Department
has not only addressed these commitments, but is contributing low
density, high demand forces (e.g., Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
units) to support the other Services and coalition efforts. Of our
deployed EOD teams, over 50 percent operate in support of other
services. Additionally, over the course of 2007, the Navy provided
12,985 Active component augmentees and 9,527 mobilized reservists in
support of OEF and OIF globally, and filled approximately 8,000
individual augmentee and 4,500 ``in-lieu-of'' requirements. The Navy
has increased several low density, high demand specialties and units,
such as Construction Battalions and EOD teams. In October 2007, the
Navy commissioned its newest Construction Battalion and Construction
Regiment, bringing them to a total of nine Active Duty battalions and
three Active Duty regiments. Further, in order to relieve stress on
marines and their families, and to address future contingencies, the
Marine Corps is growing the force, exceeding its 2007 target of 184,000
marines; the Marine Corps is on track to meet the goal of 202,000 by
fiscal year 2011.
Reshaping of the force is an important and evolutionary process. To
do this, the Department is focused on three fronts: recruiting the
right people, retaining the right people, and achieving targeted
attrition. Recruiting objectives are focused on increasing the quality
of the Total Force and seeking qualified sailors to include special
emphasis on filling the ranks of SEAL, NSW, Navy Special Operations,
Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen, EOD, Divers, Hospital
Corpsmen, and Women in Non-traditional Ratings (Master-at-Arms and
Seabees). Recruiters are also focused on creating a smooth flow of
recruits into boot camp by maintaining and mentoring a healthy pool of
young men and women in the Delayed Entry Program.
The Department has also implemented initiatives to increase
visibility and incentives for medical recruitment. While we have seen
improvement in some medical programs, such as in the Nurse Corps with
direct accessions, numerous challenges remain in recruiting and
retaining medical personnel. Retention challenges exist in critical
specialties that require 3-7 years of training beyond medical school.
In the Dental Corps, we face challenges in retaining junior officers
between 4-7 years, and we also are experiencing high attrition rates
for junior officer ranks in the Nurse Corps. To combat the recruiting
challenges and continue supporting the increased demand for the OIF/
OEF, we implemented increased accession bonuses for the Nurse Corps and
Dental Corps; funded a critical skills accession bonus for medical and
dental school Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP)
participants; increased the stipend for HPSP students, as well as
Financial Assistance Program participants; expanded the critical skills
wartime specialty pay for Reserve component medical designators;
recently implemented a Critical Wartime Skills Accession bonus for
Medical and Dental Corps; and implemented a Critical Skills Retention
bonus for clinical psychologists.
We note that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 2008 restricts military-to-civilian conversions for the
medical community through September 30, 2012. Due to the date of
enactment of this legislation, it is not reflected in the fiscal year
2009 President's budget request, but the plan is now being readdressed.
Resolution will require careful planning, and we are working closely
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense on this matter.
Incentive programs were a key component of our enlisted recruiting
success in 2007. The enlistment bonus continues to be our most popular
and effective incentive for shaping our accessions. The authority to
pay a bonus up to $40,000 made a significant contribution to our Navy
Special Warfare and Navy Special Operations recruiting efforts.
Likewise, our Reserve component success would not have been possible
without the availability of enlistment bonuses. Extended incentive
authorities towards some of our more specialized skill fields,
including nuclear and aviation, will help to recruit and retain these
critical skill sets, while renewal of accession bonuses will help to
expand the force to newly mandated levels. The continued support of
Congress in the creation of flexible compensation authorities affords
the Department the tools that will help shape the force for the 21st
century.
The Grow the Force mandate by the President is a long-term plan to
restore the broad range of capabilities necessary to meet future
challenges and mitigate global risk to national security of the United
States. The Marine Corps will grow the force by 27,000 (from 175,000 to
202,000) marines over 5 years. This additional capacity and capability
will enable full spectrum military operations in support of allies and
partners as well as against potential enemies. In 2007, the Marine
Corps added two infantry battalions, capacity to the combat engineer
battalions and air naval gunfire liaison companies, and planned the
training and infrastructure pieces necessary to build a balanced
warfighting capability. The Marine Corps has achieved success in
recruiting and maintaining quality standards. This is a remarkable
achievement for an All-Volunteer Force during a sustained war. The
Marine Corps anticipates continued success in meeting recruiting and
retention goals to achieve this planned force level. This end strength
increase addresses more than current operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It ensures that the Marine Corps will be able to deal with
the challenges of the Long War and will reduce combat stress on marines
and their families by moving towards a 1:2 deployment to dwell ratio.
Currently many marines are on a 1:1 or less deployment to dwell ratio.
Navy and Marine Corps Reserves continue to be vital to successfully
fighting the global war on terrorism and in accomplishing routine
military operations. The Marine Corps and Navy activated, respectively,
5,505 and 5,007 reservists to fulfill critical billets in OIF and other
gaps in headquarters and operational units. At the close of fiscal year
2007, the Navy and Marine Corps Reserves end strength was 69,933 and
38,557 respectively.
Readiness
The Department's budget reflects a commitment to properly price and
fund readiness to meet the demands of the Combatant Commands. For
fiscal year 2009, the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) is funded to achieve
``6+1''--the ability to support deployment of six carrier strike groups
within 30 days and one additional group within 90 days. Additionally,
the fiscal year 2009 budget funds 45 underway steaming days per quarter
for deployed forces and 22 underway days per quarter for nondeployed
forces. For the Marine Corps, equipment readiness accounts are focused
on supporting the operational and equipment readiness of units engaged
in operations in OIF. The Marine Corps has made tradeoffs in this area
by cross-leveling equipment from units not in the fight, and while the
force made great strides in its overall readiness to conduct
counterinsurgency operations, this has been achieved at the expense of
other traditional training, such as amphibious assault and jungle
warfare.
Carrier Waiver
The Navy is committed to maintaining an aircraft carrier force of
11. However, during the 33-month period between the planned 2012
decommissioning of U.S.S. Enterprise and the 2015 delivery of the
U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford, legislative relief is requested to temporarily
reduce the carrier force to 10. Extending Enterprise to 2015 would
involve significant technical risk, challenge our manpower and
industrial bases, and require significant resource expenditure; with
only minor gain for the warfighter in carrier operational availability
and significant opportunity costs in force structure and readiness. The
Navy is adjusting carrier maintenance schedules to meet the FRP and
ensure a responsive carrier force for the Nation during this proposed
ten carrier period.
Law of the Sea Convention
It is critically important to the United States and our friends and
allies that the seas of the world remain safe and open for all nations.
Accordingly, the DON supports U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention. The Treaty codifies important principles of customary
international law, such as Freedom of Navigation and rights of passage.
Joining the Convention, with the declarations and understandings
reflected in Senate Report 110-9 (Senate Foreign Relations Committee),
will assist the United States to exercise its leadership role in the
future development of open oceans law and policy. As a non-party, the
United States does not have full access to the Convention's formal
processes (through which over 150 nations participate in influencing
future law of the sea developments). 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.
Suppression of Unlawful Acts
The Department supports expeditious U.S. ratification of the 2005
Protocol of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts (SUA)
against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the 2005 Protocol to the
1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety
of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (``SUA
Amendments''), adopted by the International Maritime Organization on
October 14, 2005, and signed by the United States on February 17, 2006.
The SUA Amendments significantly strengthen the legal regime to
criminalize terrorist acts and combat weapons of mass destruction
proliferation in the maritime domain making them an important component
in the international campaign to prevent and punish such acts.
Encroachment
A critical readiness issue is our ability to be prepared to meet
the full spectrum of operations that may arise globally. This requires
that we have the ability to properly train our sons and daughters in a
manner that effectively prepares them for the threats they may
encounter. In order for naval forces to be able to meet our operational
commitments we need installations and ranges, the ability to continue
to use them for their intended purposes, and the ability to augment
them when necessary to respond to changing national defense
requirements and circumstances.
We appreciate the action taken by Congress to recognize the
importance of protecting naval installations from encroachment
pressures by enacting section 2863 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that establishes prohibitions
against making certain military airfields or facilities, including
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, available for use by civil aircraft.
We seek your continued support to move forward with plans for the
Outlying Landing Field (OLF) that is critically needed to support
training requirements for Carrier Air Wing aircraft based at Naval Air
Station Oceana and Naval Station Norfolk. The OLF will directly support
the Department's ability to meet its national defense commitments under
the FRP and provide naval aviators critical training in conditions most
comparable to the at-sea operating environment they will face. In
response to public comments regarding the previous site alternatives,
the Navy has terminated the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and will initiate a new EIS that examines five new site
alternatives, three in Virginia and two in North Carolina, based upon
new information provided by officials in those states. I ask for your
continued support as we work with Congress and the States of Virginia
and North Carolina to preserve and improve the installation and range
capabilities needed to properly train our young men and women before we
send them into harms way.
Marine Mammals and Active Sonar
The most critical readiness issue relates to the Navy's ability to
train using active sonar while minimizing the effect on marine mammals.
One of the most challenging threats that our naval forces face is
modern, quiet diesel-electric submarines. These submarines employ
state-of-the-art silencing technologies and other advances, such as
special hull treatments, that make them almost undetectable with
passive sonar and also reduce their vulnerability to detection with
active sonar. A diesel-electric submarine so equipped can covertly
operate in coastal and open ocean areas, blocking Navy access to combat
zones and increasing United States vessels' vulnerability to torpedo
and anti-ship missile attacks. Currently, over 40 countries operate
more than 300 diesel-electric submarines worldwide, including potential
adversaries in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East areas. Naval strike
groups are continuously deployed to these high-threat areas. Training
with the use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar is a vital component
of pre-deployment training. The tactical use of MFA sonar is the best
means of detecting potentially hostile, quiet, diesel-electric
submarines. The inability to train effectively with active sonar
literally puts the lives of thousands of Americans at risk.
In January 2008, a Federal district court issued an injunction
precluding the Navy's ability to train effectively with MFA in critical
exercises scheduled to occur in the Southern California Operating Area
through January 2009, creating an unacceptable risk that strike groups
may not be certified for deployment in support of world-wide
operational and combat activities. Because the Composite Unit Training
Exercises and the Joint Task Force Exercises off Southern California
are critical to the ability to deploy strike groups ready for combat,
the President concluded that continuing to train with MFA in these
exercises is in the paramount interest of the United States and granted
a temporary exemption from the requirements of the Coastal Zone
Management Act for use of MFA sonar in these exercises through January
2009. Additionally, due to the emergency circumstances created by an
injunction that would prevent the Navy from reliably training and
certifying strike groups ready for deployment, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) authorized, and the Navy accepted,
alternative arrangements for compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act. Despite these developments, the trial court refused to set
aside the injunction. As a result the Navy has appealed the court's
refusal to give effect to the President's and CEQ's actions by
dissolving the injunction and correcting the court's failure to
properly tailor the injunction in the first place to allow the Navy to
train effectively. The appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit for
expedited review.
The Department continues to be a good steward of the environment,
while providing the necessary training that is essential to national
security and ensures the safety of our people. The Department is
engaged in a comprehensive effort to ensure compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act,
Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, and Executive Order 12114. Twelve EISs are in
development with associated Records of Decision (ROD) scheduled for
issuance by the end of calendar year 2009. The Navy implements 29
protective measures developed in conjunction with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Federal regulator responsible for oversight and
implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These measures
afford significant protection to marine mammals while maintaining
training fidelity. The Navy has steadily increased funding for marine
mammal research from $12 million in fiscal year 2006 to $18 million in
fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. The Navy's financial commitment
constitutes more that half of the world-wide funding for research on
the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. Over the past
several years, tremendous progress has been made in expanding the
scientific base of knowledge, especially concerning the species
identified as the most sensitive to MFA sonar, deep diving beaked
whales. The Navy, working with the National Marine Fisheries Service,
is engaged in a 3-year controlled exposure study of sound on whales at
the Navy's Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center in the Bahamas.
This study, along with other research, development, test and evaluation
efforts, will provide further information needed to understand and
effectively mitigate the effects of active sonar on marine mammals.
iii. take care of our people
In 2007 the Department implemented a Human Capital Strategy that
focuses on our most valuable asset, the Department's people. In the
strategy, the Department addresses the changes in warfare, workforce,
technologies, and processes and lays out the strategic objective to
produce and employ the right people with the right skills to support or
accomplish 21st century naval missions. The development and retention
of quality people is vital to our continued success. The DON is
committed to sustaining quality of service and quality of life
programs, including training, compensation, promotion opportunities,
health care, housing, and reasonable operational and personnel tempo.
The cost of manpower is the single greatest component in the fiscal
year 2009 budget. The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $41.6 billion
for military personnel and includes a 3.4 percent military personnel
pay raise. This investment is critical to ensuring a naval force with
the highest levels of ability and character.
Comprehensive Care
As Secretary of Defense Gates has stated, ``Apart from the war
itself, we have no higher priority (than to take care of our Wounded,
Ill, and Injured).'' Over the sustained combat operations in the global
war on terrorism, the Department has endured the loss of over 830
marines and 75 sailors killed in action, and over 8,500 marines and 600
sailors wounded in action. These marines and sailors and their
survivors deserve the highest priority care, respect and treatment for
their sacrifices. We must ensure our wounded warriors and families
receive the appropriate care, training and financial support they need.
Failing them will undermine the trust and confidence of the American
people. Consequently, the DON initiated a Comprehensive Casualty Care
effort in March 2007 to ensure visibility of the full range of needs of
servicemembers and their family members and the coordination and
expedient delivery of clinical and nonclinical services throughout the
continuum of care. Among the initiatives pursued under this effort was
a Lean Six Sigma mapping of the casualty care process to identify areas
of patient transitions, gaps in service, and unmet needs across key
functional service areas to include: Medical, Pay, and Personnel,
Family Support, Case Management, Information Technology, and the
Disability Evaluation System. The following sections provide some
specific examples of the Department's actions and plans for improving
care for our people.
Combat Casualty Care
Navy Medicine provides combat casualty care to Navy and Marine
Corps units, on Expeditionary Medical Facilities, aboard casualty
receiving/treatment ships and hospital ships, and in military
hospitals. Recent advances in force protection, battlefield medicine,
combat/operational stress control, and medical evaluation have led to
improved survival rates for wounded (approximately 97 percent) and
enhanced combat effectiveness. In September 2007 Naval Medical Center
San Diego stood-up a Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center
providing inpatient and outpatient services to all levels of combat
casualties, including rehabilitative, mental health and prosthetic
care. The unit is the military's first and only center for amputee care
on the west coast. This year the Marine Corps is reorganizing Medical
Battalions and fielding the Family of Field Medical Equipment,
modernizing 34 different medical systems such as the Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI) scanner and the Airframe First Aid Kit.
Wounded Warrior and Safe Harbor
In fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps expanded its existing
programs by establishing the Wounded Warrior Regiment with a Wounded
Warrior Battalion on each coast to provide better continuity of care
for wounded warriors. Specifically, these organizations provide wounded
warriors a location to recuperate and transition in proximity to family
and parent units. The Navy has a number of programs ensuring care for
all wounded, ill, and injured sailors and their families. Those
severely wounded, ill, and injured sailors and their families receive
non-medical case management and advocacy from the Navy's Safe Harbor
Program. Safe Harbor provides assistance in dealing with personal
challenges from the time of injury through return to duty or transition
to civilian life.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Specific improvements for post-traumatic stress disorder include
both preventive and post-deployment care. The Marine Corps is employing
Operational Stress Control and Readiness teams to provide early
intervention, outreach, and prevention at the unit level in close
proximity to operational missions, reducing stigma associated with
conventional mental health care. The Navy is enhancing the Operational
Stress Control Program and is completing phase two of the in-theater
Behavioral Health Needs Assessment Survey to identify mental health
needs, guide development of appropriate prevention and treatment
programs, and ensure adequate in-theater mental health support. To date
in fiscal year 2008, Navy Medicine expanded the Deployment Health
Clinic (DHC) concept to a total of 17 centers. These DHCs logged over
30,000 visits encompassing the entire range of post-deployment health
care symptoms. These clinics are designed to be easily accessible, non-
stigmatizing portals for effective assessment and treatment of
deployment-related mental health issues. Three additional DHCs are
planned for 2008. Specialized training is also being provided to the
Chaplain Corps and non-mental health medical personnel to include mind,
body, and spiritual practices. Augmenting the ability to deliver the
highest quality of psychological health care available, Navy Medicine
committed $7 million to stand-up a Naval Center for the Study of Combat
Stress that will support all of the varied and diverse mental health
needs.
Traumatic Brain Injury
The Department is engaged in activities to address TBI and remains
committed to the further expansion of TBI research and availability of
services for our service members. Navy Medical Research Command uses
new techniques to identify transmissibility of blast wave energy into
the brain, focusing on the nexus between the blast wave energy
transmission and the resulting brain pathology. Navy researchers serve
on the Health Affairs Senior Executive Advisory Committee on TBI sensor
development and coordinate closely with the U.S. Army Program Executive
Office in the development of helmet-mounted monitors. The National
Naval Medical Center's Traumatic Stress and Brain Injury Program serves
blast-exposed or head-injured casualties aero-medically evacuated out
of theater. Over 1,082 blast-exposed service members have been
evaluated for psychological health and TBI. In May 2007, Naval Medical
Center San Diego stood up a Traumatic Stress and Brain Injury Program,
and in September 2007, Camp Lejeune stood up a similar program.
Physical and Medical Evaluation Boards
The Department refined the physical and medical evaluation board
process to ensure timely, comprehensive and transparent actions
balancing the rights of the individual and the needs of the service.
Actions include upgrading the Council of Review Board website to
provide transition services and links to government agencies with post-
service benefits. Additional upgrades are underway to provide a portal
for members to monitor case processing. The Department is also
participating in the joint DOD-VA Disability Evaluation Pilot in the
National Capital Region that is designed to further streamline the
process and ensure a smooth transition to civilian life for service
members leaving active duty.
Family Readiness
The Department remains committed to the readiness and resilience of
Navy and Marine Corps families, including the spouses, children,
parents, and other extended family members committed to caring for
sailors and marines. To that end, the Department operationalized family
support programs to better empower sailors and marines to effectively
meet the challenges of today's military lifestyle. The Marine Corps is
redesigning and enhancing family readiness programs that most directly
prepare marines and their families, including: Unit Family Readiness
Program, Marine Corps Family Team Building Program, Exceptional Family
Member Program, School Liaison Program, and Children, Youth, and Teen
Program. As a companion effort, the Marine Corps will address quality
of life deficiencies at remote and isolated installations, expand
communication connections between separated marines and their families,
and make needed improvements to quality of life facilities and
equipment throughout the Marine Corps. The Navy increased emphasis on
prevention, education, and counseling to Navy families undergoing
frequent and often short notice deployments. It has created school
liaison positions to work with school districts and Navy families to
ensure teachers and other school officials understand the pressures and
issues facing military children. The Navy provides brief, solution-
focused clinical counseling services to more family members, as well as
increasing home visitation services to new parents who have been
identified as requiring parenting support. To better reach Individual
Augmentee families who do not live near a military installation but who
have access to a computer, the Navy has begun virtual Individual
Augmentee Family Discussion Groups to ensure outreach information,
referral and ongoing support.
The Department has developed an aggressive child care expansion
plan, adding over 4,000 new child care spaces within the next 18
months. This expansion includes construction of new Child Development
Centers (including facilities open 24/7), commercial contracts, and
expanding military certified home care. Combined, these initiatives
will reduce the waiting time for child care from 6-18 months to less
than 3 months. To assist parents and children with the challenges of
frequent deployments, an additional 100,000 hours of respite child care
will be provided for families of deployed servicemembers. In efforts to
combat youth obesity, the Navy has implemented a new world-wide youth
fitness initiative called ``FitFactor'' to increase youth interest and
awareness in the importance of healthy choices in life.
National Security Personnel System
The DON has successfully converted 30,000 employees into National
Security Personnel System (NSPS), with an additional 30,000 scheduled
to convert by 30 October 2008. The DON is already seeing a return on
investment: an unprecedented training effort focused on performance
management, greater communication between employees and supervisors,
people talking about results and mission alignment, and increased
flexibility in rewarding exceptional performance. While mindful of new
legislative restraints, maintaining key human resource elements of
NSPS, including pay-for-performance, is vital to the system's success
and the Department's ability to respond to ever-changing national
security threats.
Safety
Fundamental to taking care of sailors, marines, and DON civilian
employees is establishing a culture and environment where safety is an
intrinsic component of all decisionmaking, both on- and off-duty.
Safety and risk management are integrated into on- and off-duty
evolutions to maximize mission readiness and to establish DON as a
world class safety organization where no mishap is accepted as the cost
of doing business.
The Secretary of Defense established a goal to achieve a 75 percent
reduction in baseline fiscal year 2002 mishap rates across DOD by the
end of fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2007 the DON recorded our
lowest number of serious operational mishaps and the lowest rate of
serious aviation mishaps in our history.
One particular challenge that we continue to face is loss of
sailors and marines to fatal accidents on our Nation's highways--111 in
fiscal year 2007. While our rates are actually better than U.S.
national statistics, and fiscal year 2007 was one of our best years
ever, we find these losses untenable--we can and must do better. In
particular, the growing popularity of sport bikes, or high-powered
racing motorcycles, represents our biggest challenge. We are
restructuring our motorcycle training, and in partnership with the
Motorcycle Safety Foundation, we have developed a new hands-on Sport
Bike Rider Safety Course. We are also implementing methods and
technology to more rapidly assess our personnel to accurately identify
those individuals at high risk for private motor vehicle mishaps. They
will be targeted for intervention in an effort to further reduce
mishaps and our DON risk profile.
iv. prepare for future challenges
Building a Balanced Fleet
Today's Navy and Marine Corps must confront threats in the maritime
domain ranging from near-peer competitors, to non-state and
transnational actors, to rogue nations and pirates. To meet the
challenge the fiscal year 2009 budget provides for a balanced fleet of
ships, aircraft and expeditionary capabilities with the fighting power
and versatility to carry out blue, green, and brown water missions on a
global basis.
To ensure affordability and timely delivery of capabilities will
require improvements in the acquisition process--ensuring stable
requirements and clarity in design criteria, better program management
expertise, and new measures to incentivize contractors to complete
programs on cost and within schedule, while delivering a quality
product for military use. Military use also includes other factors such
as habitability conditions that support quality of life, reduced
variability of part types, and supportable logistics and sustainment.
In addition, independent cost, schedule, and risk assessments are
conducted and used to establish the foundation of program plans.
The Department has launched an acquisition improvement initiative,
planning for which has included the Secretary, Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) and Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), and which
will enforce discipline across the Department without altering existing
Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff-level
processes. Actions comprising the acquisition improvement initiative
include the following:
Acquisition Governance
Led by CNO/CMC, the requirements phase comprises three
``requirements gates:'' (1) Approval of Initial Capabilities Document;
(2) Approval of Analysis of Alternatives; and (3) Approval of
Capabilities Development Document and Concept of Operations. During
this phase the focus is on what we buy and the process ensures
completeness and unanimity of requirements, agreed upon by top
leadership early in the acquisition process.
The acquisition phase, led by the Component Acquisition Executive,
consists of three ``acquisition gates:'' (1) Approval of the System
Design Specification; (2) Approval to release the System Development
and Demonstration Request for Proposals; and (3) A Sufficiency Review
of the entire program. During this phase the focus is on ``how we
buy,'' emphasizing clear system design specifications, leveraging
commonality within parts and systems, and the use of open architecture.
During this phase CNO and CMC remain in support of the acquisition
force to ensure stability in the requirements.
Each ``gate review'' includes a comprehensive assessment using
detailed metrics to determine the health of the program and ensures
that the program is ready to proceed through the next phase of the
acquisition process. The key benefits are: (1) better integration of
requirements and acquisition decision processes; (2) improvement of
governance and insight into the development, establishment, and
execution of acquisition programs; and (3) formalization of a framework
to engage senior naval leadership throughout the review process.
Acquisition Workforce
To reinvigorate the acquisition workforce the Department has
aggressively pursued investment in several key areas. Using a model of
our total workforce, we've identified certain imbalances and
redundancies which Systems Commands and Program Executive Officers will
initiate corrective action for in fiscal year 2008. Further, the
Department will create a common business model across Systems Commands
to allow maximum flexibility of workforce utilization while sharpening
the skill sets of our acquisition professionals. Further, we are
creating common templates for acquisition program leadership that will
ensure adequate staffing of programs throughout their life cycle.
Notably we have adjusted the programmatic leadership structure of the
DDG-1000 and Littoral Combat ships to benefit from these common
templates.
Finally, to bolster our acquisition leadership, we have selected a
Vice Admiral to serve as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Research Development and Acquisition.
Fiscal Year 2009 Acquisition Programs
Shipbuilding
The fiscal year 2009 shipbuilding budget provides for seven new
ships: one Virginia-Class (SSN-774) nuclear-powered attack submarine,
one DDG-1000 Destroyer, two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), two Dry Cargo
Ammunition (T-AKE) ships, and one Joint High Speed Vehicle (JHSV). The
Navy also will procure an additional JHSV for the Army in fiscal year
2009. The budget also includes the next increment of funding for CVN-
78; research and development funds for CG(X), the future cruiser; the
first increment of funding for the Refueling Complex Overhaul for the
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71); funding for an engineered refueling
overhaul for an SSBN; and continued modernization for guided missile
cruisers, guided missile destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers.
Naval Aviation
The DON 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 aircraft in
the naval inventory to achieve a more efficient and effective
warfighting force. The fiscal year 2009 budget requests funding for 206
aircraft. The fiscal year 2009 budget supports the acquisition of the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the EA-18G Growler, the MV-22B, the KC-130J,
the E-2D; the MH-60, the UH-1Y and AH-1Z helicopters; and the continued
development of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft, the CH-53K and
VH-71 programs.
The Department will continue to recapitalize our aging inventory
with upgrades or new variants of existing aircraft where suitable and
cost effective. For example, the Navy helicopter community is replacing
six different aircraft with the MH-60R and MH-60S, while the Marine
Corps is buying the UH-1Y, AH-1Z, and CH-53K to replace older variants
of those aircraft.
Command, Control, Communications, Computers
Effective command, control, communications, computers (C\4\)
capabilities are key to ensuring that our forces have accurate
situational understanding to enable decision superiority. The Navy and
Marine Corps have planned several programs to deliver agile and
interoperable network-centric capabilities to ensure success for naval,
joint, and coalition forces, including naval contributions to the
National Security Space. The Department is planning the replacement for
the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet with the Next Generation Enterprise
Network. The Marine Corps is developing the Command and Control
Harmonization Strategy. Capitalizing on emerging capabilities such as
the Tactical Communications Modernization Program and the Very Small
Aperture Terminal, the Marine Corps intends to deliver an end-to-end
integrated, cross-functional capability across the force.
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
The Navy and Marine Corps are in the process of reviewing current
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and
formulating a long-term ISR strategy. This strategy, when completed,
will ensure the Department's current and future ISR capabilities are
used to the fullest extent possible and will maximize the use of other
services' and national capabilities to enhance the Department's variety
of missions. The Marine Corps' use of Department of Army's unmanned
aircraft system, Shadow, is an example of leveraging another service's
capability. Shadow meets the Marine Corps requirements for a
transportable ISR asset capable of providing tactical commanders with
day and night, battlefield and maritime reconnaissance. The Navy, with
unique maritime domain ISR requirements, is integrating manned and
unmanned capabilities with the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS)
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) and the P-8A program. The BAMS UAS will
provide a persistent, multi-sensor, maritime ISR capability with
worldwide access. Additionally, the Department of Navy is working
closely with the Office of the Under Secretary of the Defense for
Intelligence to ensure the current Distributed Common Ground System--
Navy and Marine Corp family of systems meet DOD standards, share
technology and minimize duplication.
Maritime Domain Awareness
The responsibility for Global Maritime Security lies with many
departments, agencies, and organizations across the spectrum of our
government, international partners, and industry. Each of these
stakeholders bring a part of the solution, and taking the lead in
establishing a global capability from those parts is one of the single
most important new steps of the DON. Protection of the global maritime
domain is fundamental to our national security, and requires an
integrated approach across the naval forces, with our Federal maritime
partners, with certain State and local authorities, and indeed with the
entire global maritime community. We have embarked on the
organizational behavior changes necessary to bring those disparate
stakeholders together, and are investing in creation of an enduring
operational capability for the Nation.
Infrastructure Investment
Facilities
The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $3.2 billion for military
construction projects at Active and Reserve Navy and Marine Corps
bases, a substantial increase over the enacted $2.3 billion in fiscal
year 2008. Much of the funding growth is to build training and housing
facilities to support the Marine Corps growth in end strength over the
next 5 years. Both Navy and Marine Corps will sustain existing
facilities at 90 percent of the DOD model requirement.
Base Realignment and Closure
The fiscal year 2009 budget requests $871.5 million to continue
implementation of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Commission recommendations. This request invests in construction
(including planning and design) and operational movements at key
closure and realignment locations. Fiscal year 2009 plans may require
some adjustment to ensure consistency with the approved fiscal year
2008 budget.
Walter Reed National Medical Center Bethesda
BRAC action 169 called for closure of Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, realignment of tertiary and complex care missions to National
Naval Medical Center Bethesda, and establishment of Walter Reed
National Military Medical Center Bethesda. The DOD approved an expanded
scope and acceleration of the original program. The Naval Facilities
Engineering Command is managing the EIS for Bethesda and a ROD is
scheduled for May 2008.
Family and Bachelor Housing
Privatization for housing in the continental United States is on
its way towards completion. The privatization of unaccompanied housing
is proceeding smoothly at our first pilot project in San Diego. The
construction of new apartments is well underway with completion of the
first building scheduled for December 2008. Moreover, the project won
an industry customer service award in its first year of operation in
recognition of the dramatic improvement in resident satisfaction in
existing housing that was privatized. We have broken ground on our
second pilot project in Hampton Roads in our effort to bring the
benefits of bachelor housing privatization to sailors on the east
coast. This year's budget reflects the continuation of the Marine
Corps' quality-of-life initiative to construct additional housing to
address the substantial, longstanding shortfall of adequate housing for
single marines. The objective is to provide quality bachelor housing
for all sergeants and below for our `pre-grow the force' end strength
by fiscal year 2012 and to support 202,000 marines by fiscal year 2014.
Our fiscal year 2009 budget request also includes a military
construction project to replace bachelor housing at Naval Station San
Clemente, completing elimination of inadequate bachelor housing in the
Department.
Wounded Warrior Housing
The DON completed inspections of all housing for wounded, ill, and
injured to ensure quality and accessible living quarters. Annual
inspections will ensure continued oversight by Department of Navy
leadership. In addition, Wounded Warrior Barracks are under
construction at Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton. Both barracks will
provide 100 two-person American with Disabilities Act-compliant rooms
allowing for surge capability.
Marine Corps Relocation to Guam
The fiscal year 2009 budget continues detailed studies, plans, and
environmental analyses for the U.S./Government of Japan Defense Policy
Review Initiative to relocate about 8,000 marines and their dependents
from Okinawa, Japan to Guam by 2014. The facilities, housing, logistics
and environmental requirements are being developed from the ground up
to support mission requirements as well as business-case prudence. The
measured investment in fiscal year 2009 is crucial to the 5-year $10.27
billion ($4.18 billion from the U.S. and $6.09 billion from the
Government of Japan) construction program scheduled to commence in
fiscal year 2010.
Naval Station Mayport
The Navy is preparing an EIS that examines several alternatives for
best utilizing the facilities and capabilities of Naval Station Mayport
after the retirement of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV 67). The options
being evaluated include:
Cruiser/Destroyer homeporting
Amphibious Assault Ship homeporting
Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier (CVN) capable
CVN homeporting
Amphibious Ready Group homeporting
Preparation of the Mayport EIS is on schedule. The draft EIS is
scheduled for release in March 2008, with the final EIS expected in
December 2008 and the ROD in January 2009.
Environmental Stewardship
Energy Initiatives
Energy efficiency is key to reducing life-cycle costs and
increasing the sustainability of installations and facilities. The
Department has led the way in supporting the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct05) by adopting the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Silver standard as a primary consideration for all DON military
construction projects. Using the LEED Silver standard, new energy-
efficient projects have been completed on several installations,
including Recruit Training Center Great Lakes and Naval Amphibious Base
Little Creek. DON also has a comprehensive energy program responding to
the requirements of EPAct05 and Presidential Executive Order 13423,
evidenced by an 8.85 percent reduction in fiscal year 2007 energy
consumption and an extensive renewable energy program.
Minimizing the overall environmental effects
The recently-announced Low-Impact Development (LID) policy is an
example of how the Department is emphasizing reduction of impact to the
environment. The goal of the policy is ``no net increase'' in the
amount of nutrients, sediment, and storm water escaping into the
watersheds surrounding facilities and installations. The use of cost-
effective LID Best Management Practices such as rainwater collection
systems in construction and renovation projects is central to achieving
this goal.
Alternative Fuels
The Department has been a leader in the use of alternative fuels.
The Navy and Marine Corps both reduced petroleum consumption in their
vehicle fleets by more than 25 percent from 1999 to 2006, and together
used almost 2 million gallons of biodiesel in 2006. Further gains in
alternative fuel implementation will be supported by the Department's
new Petroleum Reduction and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Strategy, which
challenges the Navy and Marine Corps to build on already substantial
progress to meet and exceed the established Federal goals contained in
Executive Order 13423 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. We are also expanding our use of alternative fuels in our
tactical fleet, to include ships, aircraft, and ground vehicles. In
fiscal year 2009 we will lay the groundwork for a testing and
certification program for alternative fuel use. The Navy is also
actively pursuing energy conservation initiatives, through energy
conserving alterations in propulsion plants and conservation practices
in operations.
v. management process improvement
Complementary action to our acquisition improvement initiatives is
our commitment to enhance process improvement across the DON to
increase efficiency and effectiveness and responsible use of resources.
The Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) program, planned for
implementation throughout the Department, began initial implementation
at Naval Air Systems Command in October 2007. It is an integrated
business management system that modernizes and standardizes business
operations and provides management visibility across the enterprise.
The Department continues to champion the use of Lean Six Sigma as the
primary toolset as a means toward increasing readiness and utilizing
resources efficiently. Over 4,420 leaders have completed Lean Six Sigma
training, and there are over 2,000 projects underway. The Department's
Financial Improvement Program leverages ERP and strengthens control of
financial reporting. The Marine Corps expects to be the first military
service to achieve audit readiness.
A major process improvement initiative to ensure that the
Department applies fundamental business precepts to its management is
the Secretary of the Navy's Monthly Review (SMR). The SMR is a senior
leadership forum, involving CNO, CMC, and Assistant Secretaries,
designed to afford greater transparency across the Department and set
into motion actions that garner maximum effectiveness and efficiency
for the Department. The SMR reviews a portfolio of the bulk of
Department activities and programs involving manpower, readiness,
acquisition, infrastructure, etc. Using Lean Six Sigma tools and other
business tools, this forum reviews the most urgent issues and discusses
and implements appropriate solutions. Ultimately, this monthly
interaction serves as a means to synchronize the Department's actions
to comprehensively address complex problems, accomplish strategic
objectives, and better position for challenges in the future.
The Department will incorporate the Chief Management Officer (CMO)
into the Secretariat in fiscal year 2008. The CMO will have
responsibility for improving Department business operations to carry
out objectives. These initiatives are all steps to make process
improvement a way of thinking in carrying out daily business throughout
the organization.
vi. conclusion
Thank you for this opportunity to report to you on the DON. I
provide the fiscal year 2009 budget to you and ask for your support for
this plan that will enable the Department to prevail in global war on
terrorism, take care of our people and prepare for future challenges.
The uniformed men and women of the DON, and our civilian workforce,
depend on our collective support and leadership. I appreciate the
opportunity to set forth the President's fiscal year 2009 budget and
look forward to working with you in furtherance of our maritime
capabilities and our national security.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Secretary.
Admiral Roughead, you're next.
STATEMENT OF ADM GARY ROUGHEAD, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Admiral Roughead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin,
Senator Warner, and distinguished members of the committee: On
behalf of our 600,000 sailors, Navy civilians, and families,
thank you for your support and the opportunity to appear before
you today. Together with Secretary Winter and General Conway,
I'm privileged to be part of this leadership team, committed to
our Nation's safety, security, and prosperity.
Today your Navy stands ready with the agility, the
flexibility, and the competence to do what no other Navy in the
world can do. Last week we successfully temporarily converted
our sea-based Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) capability to
engage a failing satellite. Sea-based BMD is here, it is real,
and it works.
But that is only part of what your Navy delivers to the
Nation. We recently deployed the first converted strategic
submarine for sea-air-land (SEAL) delivery. 2,800 sailors set
sail to patrol in the Mediterranean and Middle East, and the
three ships of our Africa Partnership Station conducted four
port calls in West Africa.
What you saw last week was just a small part of what your
Navy does in executing the maritime strategy, a strategy that
is more than just a glossy brochure. Four carriers last year
anchored our presence in the Arabain Gulf. SSBNs patrolled as
silent deterrence. Three carrier strike groups massed in an
array of joint power, exercising sea control in the western
Pacific in Exercise Valiant Shield. F/A-18 Hornets increased
projected power ashore in Operation Enduring Freedom when the
Air Force F-15s were grounded. Ships patrolled the Horn of
Africa, enhancing maritime security against piracy. U.S.N.S.
Comfort and U.S.S. Pelelly provided proactive humanitarian
assistance to tens of thousands in South America and Southeast
Asia. The U.S.S. Keasage Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG)
rushed to provide disaster relief to Bangladesh in the
aftermath of a cyclone.
We are out and about, doing essential missions for the
Nation. But as you so well know, our operations come at a cost
to our people, our current readiness, and the future Fleet,
those are my three areas of focus. Our people, our sailors, our
marines, our Navy civilians, and their families know they have
your support. We must continue to invest in their futures and
in the young men and women of America who will follow in their
wake. As a Nation at war, our utmost responsibility is to our
wounded warriors. I am proud of and committed to the Safe
Harbor program, which has dedicated staffs and teams
individually tracking and meeting the needs of those heroic
sailors and their families.
In the context of this generational war, however, investing
in the health of our force must go further. The health care we
provide, especially for traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as the
President's support for child care, hiring preferences for
spouses, and family education benefits, will bring welcome
relief to the military families and assist us in a very
challenging recruiting and retention environment.
Likewise, increasing the throughput of the U.S. Naval
Academy is an important investment in our future leadership,
especially as Marine Corps end strength grows.
But supporting our future force cannot be done without
readiness to fight today. To this end, quality shore
installations, responsive depot-level maintenance centers, and
unfettered ability to train responsibly are necessities. Where
area access and short support are denied, the Commandant and I
have been moving forward with a sea basing alternative. These
elements are essential to support our Fleet Response Plan,
which has enabled us to meet requirements, and will sustain us
through a requested temporary carrier force level adjustment.
Of my three focus areas, building tomorrow's Navy to be a
balanced, appropriately sized force is the most immediate
imperative and challenge. Fiscal realities, operational strain
on our ships and aircraft, and necessary decommissionings are
contributing to the risk we assume. Achieving the 313-ship
floor at current funding levels will require us to improve
processes, collaborate with industry, and make difficult
decisions in the near term.
I am pleased that the first two DDG-1000 contracts have
been awarded. The technology embedded in that ship will advance
our surface combatants of the future. I remain strongly
committed to funding those programs that provide critical
capabilities to our forces. There is no substitute for the LCS
in closing a littoral capability gap. Current F/A-18 Hornets
are needed to assuage a 2016 strike fighter shortfall. Surface
combatant superiority will be maintained through DDG-51
modernization. Multi-mission maritime aircraft will
recapitalize our maritime patrol antisubmarine warfare
capabilities, and space BMD will ensure future theater and
national defense and enable access.
These critical programs for our future Fleet require
appropriate disciplined investment now. The 2009 budget and its
associated force structure plans will meet our current
challenges with a moderate degree of risk. Clearly we have many
challenges, of which building tomorrow's Fleet is the greatest.
But with these challenges, it is our opportunity to have a
Fleet which will defend the Nation and assure our prosperity
for generations to come.
On behalf of our sailors, Navy civilians, and our families,
thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and thank you for your support for what we do today and what we
will do tomorrow.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Roughead follows:]
Prepared Statement by ADM Gary Roughead, USN
introduction
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the committee, it is
an honor to appear before you today representing the nearly 600,000 men
and women, sailors and civilians of our Navy. In 2007, the Navy
answered all bells. Surge and rotational expeditionary forces performed
brilliantly and we responded to global contingencies and requirements.
The fiscal year 2009 budget and its associated force structure plans
represent the capabilities needed to meet current challenges with a
moderate degree of risk. I appreciate your continued support as our
Navy defends our Nation and our vital national interests.
In 2007, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard released the
Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. The strategy represents
unprecedented collaboration among the three Services. It also
incorporates input from American citizens obtained through a series of
``Conversations with the Country'' that included the maritime Services,
business and academic leaders, and the general public.
The maritime strategy is aligned with the President's National
Strategy for Maritime Security and the objectives articulated in the
National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the
National Military Strategy. It recognizes that the maritime domain is
vital to national security and prosperity. Nearly three-quarters of the
Earth's surface is water; 80 percent of the world's population lives on
or near coastlines; and 90 percent of the world's trade, including two-
thirds of the world's petroleum, moves on the oceans to market. The
oceans connect us to populations around the world and our Navy's
presence and active engagement is vital to our collective security.
In addition to the Navy's engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan,
international military, political, and economic events beyond those
borders have direct and indirect implications for the Navy. Examples
include China's rapid build up of a blue water navy and their
development of cyber and space warfighting capabilities. Russia's first
Mediterranean deployment in 15 years and increased defense spending
demonstrate their desire to emerge as a global naval power. North
Korea's long-range ballistic missile program and their missile
proliferation history reinforce the need for a credible, forward-
deployed ballistic missile defense capability. Militaries in Central
and South American seek aircraft and submarines to back their regional
and international objectives. Iran's confrontational activities at sea
this past January, when the U.S.S. Port Royal, U.S.S. Hopper, and
U.S.S. Ingraham encountered five small Iranian boats operating
provocatively in the Strait of Hormuz, heightened tensions. Conflict is
likely to continue into the future and the Navy's global commitments
are likely to increase. As U.S. ground forces reset, reconstitute, and
revitalize, the Navy will remain on station to respond to threats and
crises.
The new maritime strategy recognizes the many existing and
potential challenges to national security and prosperity. To address
these challenges, the strategy articulates six core capabilities our
maritime Services provide: forward presence, deterrence, sea control,
power projection, maritime security, and humanitarian assistance and
disaster response (HA/DR). The first four capabilities are paramount
because they enable the defense of our Nation and its interests.
Forward presence, deterrence, sea control, and power projection must
remain the cornerstones of what makes our Navy a dominant global force.
The Navy will continue to enhance cooperation with existing and
emerging partners and build bridges of trust among the international
community. Proactive global involvement is a strategic imperative for
the Navy and our Nation, since trust cannot be surged in times of
crisis.
Execution of the maritime strategy is already underway in current
operations. As we plan and resource for the future, the maritime
strategy will guide our efforts. The execution of our current readiness
and force structure plans faces many challenges, but affordability is
the most pressing. I refuse to cede our technological advantage to
competitors; however current readiness, manpower, and escalating
procurement costs make pacing the threat exceptionally difficult. We
will continue to improve processes, work with industry, and maximize
cost saving initiatives. Stable procurement plans must be affordable
and realistic to deliver the balanced future Fleet. While I am
satisfied that the force structure plans deliver required capabilities,
the balance among capability, affordability, and executability in these
plans is not optimal. This imbalance has the potential to increase
significantly warfighting, personnel, and force structure risk in the
future.
Our operations, people, and equipment continue to serve our Nation
well, but it comes at a significant cost. It is my duty as CNO to
ensure our Navy is always ready to answer our Nation's call anytime,
anywhere, now and in the future. This duty shapes my priorities and
will influence the decisions and recommendations I will make regarding
the future of our Navy.
priorities for fiscal year 2009
My vision for the Navy is that we remain the preeminent maritime
power, providing our country a naval expeditionary force committed to
global security and prosperity. We will defend our homeland and our
Nation's vital interests around the world. We will prevent war,
dominate any threat, and decisively defeat any adversary. The Navy will
remain a powerful component of joint warfare by exploiting cutting edge
technology and cooperating closely with the other Services, the
interagency community, allies, and international partners. We will
remain a superbly trained and led team of diverse sailors and
civilians, who are grounded in our warfighting ethos, core values, and
commitment to mission readiness and accomplishment.
To achieve this vision, the Navy must address existing and emerging
challenges and create new opportunities. My priorities are to:
Build tomorrow's Navy
Remain ready to fight today
Develop and support our sailors and Navy civilians.
I will demand that we accurately articulate requirements and remain
disciplined in our processes. Achieving the right balance within and
across these focus areas will provide dominant seapower for our Nation,
today and tomorrow.
Building Tomorrow's Navy
Our Fleet must have the right balance of capability and the
capacity. Three hundred thirteen ships represent the minimum force
necessary to provide the global reach, persistent presence, and
strategic, operational, and tactical effects. Our fiscal year 2009
budget requests 7 new ships: 2 LCS, 1 DDG-1000, 1 SSN, 2 T-AKE, and 1
JHSV, and 47 new ships over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)
(fiscal years 2009-2013). I support a stable shipbuilding plan that
provides an affordable, balanced force and preserves our Nation's
industrial base. I intend to develop further our Navy's relationship
with industry to reinforce our commitment to a stable shipbuilding
plan.
As we pursue operational capability at reduced cost, we take into
account several industrial factors. Level loading of ship and aircraft
procurements help sustain appropriate employment levels, retain skills,
and promote a healthy U.S. shipbuilding industrial base. Common hull
forms, common components, and repeat builds of ships and aircraft that
permit longer production runs also reduce construction costs. Our
Navy's shipbuilding plans incorporate open architecture for hardware
and software systems and they increase the use of system modularity.
These initiatives reduce the cost of maintenance and system upgrades,
and keep the Navy's Fleet in service longer.
I seek your support for the following initiatives and programs:
Aircraft Carrier Force Structure
The Navy is committed fully to maintaining an aircraft carrier
force of 11. During the 33-month period between the planned 2012
decommissioning of U.S.S. Enterprise and the 2015 delivery of U.S.S.
Gerald Ford, however, legislative relief is requested to temporarily
reduce the carrier force to 10. Extending Enterprise to 2015 involves
significant technical risk, challenges manpower and industrial bases,
and requires expenditures in excess of $2 billion. Extending Enterprise
would result in only a minor gain in carrier operational availability
and adversely impact carrier maintenance periods and operational
availability in future years. We are adjusting carrier maintenance
schedules to support the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) and ensure a
responsive carrier force for the Nation during this proposed 10-carrier
period. I urge your support for this legislative proposal.
Littoral Combat Ship
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fills critical warfighting requirements.
It offers speed, draft, and modularity that no other ship offers.
U.S.S. Freedom (LCS-1) and U.S.S. Independence (LCS-2) enter service
soon and their performance at sea will enable us to decide on the
appropriate acquisition strategy for the class. Controlling and
reducing LCS costs are key to an affordable shipbuilding plan and we
have already improved management oversight, implemented stricter cost
controls, and incorporated selective contract restructuring to ensure
delivery on a realistic schedule. Although recent changes to the LCS
program resulted in the reduction of 13 ships across the FYDP, I remain
committed to procuring 55 LCS by fiscal year 2023. I appreciate your
continued support for this important ship class, including our fiscal
year 2009 request for $1.47 billion for procurement of two additional
ships and associated modules and continued research and development
(R&D).
Joint Strike Fighter
The increased operational tempo (OPTEMPO) of our legacy aircraft is
consuming service life at an accelerated rate. The recent groundings of
high demand P-3 aircraft highlight the need to bring the next
generation of aircraft in service and retire our aging aircraft. The
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) provides expanded capability that will meet
the needs of our Navy, Joint Forces, and international partners.
Because of the high OPTEMPO of the current strike aircraft fleet, and
despite JSF's initial operational capability (IOC) and delivery in
2015, we anticipate a shortfall of strike aircraft from 2016-2025.
Further delays in JSF will exacerbate this strike fighter gap. Navy's
fiscal year 2009 investment of $3.4 billion includes procurement of
eight aircraft and continued R&D for aircraft and engine development.
CG(X)
The next generation Guided Missile Cruiser CG(X) will be a highly
capable major surface combatant tailored for Air and Missile Defense.
CG(X) will provide maritime dominance, independent command and control,
and forward presence. It will operate as an integral unit of Joint and
Combined Forces. The CG(X) design and development program will feature
revolutionary acquisition and spiral development practices that
incorporate advanced technologies and next generation engineering
systems. By replacing the Ticonderoga (CG 47) class of ships at the end
of its 35-year service life, CG(X) capitalizes on the developments made
through DDG Modernization and DDG-1000. We are conducting a rigorous
analysis to examine alternatives for CG(X) consistent with the National
Defense Authorization Act requirement for nuclear power. Our fiscal
year 2009 R&D request for $370 million will support CG(X) and
associated radar development.
DDG-1000
Congressional approval of split funding for the dual lead DDG-1000
ships supports an acquisition approach that motivates cooperative
completion of detail design. Collaboration between Northrop Grumman
Ship Systems and Bath Iron Works during the detail design process has
enabled these shipyards to produce the two lead ships simultaneously.
Consequently, the DDG-1000 detail design will be more mature prior to
start of construction than any previous shipbuilding program. Our
budget request in fiscal year 2009 will procure the third ship of the
class.
Ballistic Missile Defense
The increasing development and proliferation of ballistic missiles
can threaten the homeland and our friends and allies. Ballistic
missiles can also impede our military operations. Maritime ballistic
missile defense (BMD) provides protection for forward-deployed joint
forces and regional allies while contributing to the larger defense of
the United States through the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
Maritime ballistic missile defense directly contributes to the Navy's
core capability of deterrence, and enables our core capabilities of
power projection and sea control. The Aegis BMD directorate of the
Missile Defense Agency has developed the Navy's BMD capability which is
installed on 17 ships including 3 cruisers and 14 guided missile
destroyers with installations continuing in 2008. These Navy surface
ships support the BMDS by cueing ground-based sensors and intercepting
Short to Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles with ship-based
interceptors (SM-3 missiles). The Near-Term Sea-Based Terminal Program
provides the ability to engage a limited set of Short Range Ballistic
Missiles (SRBMs) with modified SM-2 Block IV missiles. The Navy will
continue to work closely with the Missile Defense Agency to deliver
improved capability and capacity to defend against this proliferating
threat. While development and procurement funding is covered under the
Missile Defense Agency budget, Navy has committed $16.5 million in
fiscal year 2009 for operations and sustainment of Aegis BMD systems.
Navy Networks
Afloat and ashore networks enable warfighting command and control
capability. Data, hardware, and applications must be arranged in a way
that enables rapid upgrades to accommodate exponential increases in
demand. Incorporation of open architecture and common computing
environment in our networks will require us to redesign network
architecture to free us from proprietary control. Open architecture
will drive us to commonality and standardization, introduce
efficiencies, promote better data protection, and network security. It
will also allow our future war fighters to fight collaboratively and
more effectively.
The first step in achieving this new network architecture is
putting it to sea. The Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise
Services (CANES) system achieves an open, agile, flexible and
affordable network architecture that will move us forward. CANES
embraces cross-domain solutions that enable enhanced movement of data.
It is a revolutionary change in our information technology
infrastructure and it is absolutely vital for us to excel in 21st
century warfare. $21.6 million is aligned to CANES in the fiscal year
2009 budget request, all of which is redirected from existing budget
lines.
Research and Development
Science and technology (S&T) give the Navy warfighting advantage.
Last year the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, and my predecessor completed and published a combined Naval S&T
strategy that ensures our investments accomplish the vision and goals
of the Navy and Marine Corps. Selecting research for future naval force
capabilities must be balanced with fiscal realities. The S&T strategy
identifies 13 research focus areas and sets high-level objectives that
guide investment decisions. S&T investments present a balance between
applied science, focused on near-term challenges, and basic research
that advances the frontiers of science. We aggressively focus on
transitioning S&T into programs of record and push these programs of
record out to the Fleet through our Future Naval Capabilities program
at the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The fiscal year 2009 budget
requests $1.8 billion for Navy's S&T programs, an increase of 6 percent
over the requested fiscal year 2008 level.
Ready to Fight Today
Maintaining warfighting readiness demands a Navy that is agile,
capable, and ready. As operational demands and Joint Force posture in
the Middle East subside, I expect the Navy's posture, positioning, and
OPTEMPO to increase, not decrease. OPTEMPO, as expressed in terms of
steaming days, reflects the underway time of our conventionally powered
ships. OEF/OIF and additional global commitments have caused a
significant difference between budgeted and actual steaming days. The
Navy has funded this difference with war supplemental funding. Trends
indicate that anticipated operational requirements will continue to
exceed peacetime levels in fiscal year 2009. Additionally, increased
OPTEMPO drives accelerated force structure replacement and higher
maintenance and manpower costs that must be funded.
As the Nation's Strategic Reserve, the Navy must be ready to
generate persistent seapower anywhere in the world. The Navy must also
establish and evolve international relationships to increase security
and achieve common interests in the maritime domain.
We generate forces for the current fight and employ our Navy much
differently than in years past. We simultaneously provide ready naval
forces and personnel for Joint Force Commanders, sustain forward
presence, fulfill commitments to allies, and respond to increasing
demands in regions where we have not routinely operated, specifically
in South America and Africa.
The FRP has enhanced our ability to meet COCOM requests for forces
for the last 6 years. FRP provides naval forces that are well-
maintained, properly manned, and appropriately trained to deploy for
forward presence and surge missions. FRP increases operational
availability and generates more forward presence and surge capability
on short notice than was possible in the past. The unscheduled
deployment of a second carrier to the Middle East in January 2007 is an
example of how FRP provides the Nation with options to defend its vital
interests. FRP also allows the Navy to respond to global events more
robustly while maintaining a structured, deliberate process that
ensures continuous availability of trained, ready Navy forces.
Balancing capacity and capability across the spectrum of warfare is
essential. The challenge will be maintaining dominance in traditional
roles while meeting existing and emerging threats in asymmetric and
irregular warfare. My goal is to influence the entire range of military
operations from large scale conflict to maritime security and HA/DR.
Areas of particular interest to us are:
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Sonar-The Key ASW Enabler
Submarines remain an immediate threat and their roles and lethality
are increasing. More countries are buying submarines; some are building
anti-access strategies around them. Maintaining the ability to detect,
locate, track, and destroy submarines is essential and our active sonar
systems, particularly medium frequency active (MFA) sonar, are the key
enablers.
The Navy's use of sonar is being challenged in Federal court by
various lawsuits which seek to prohibit or severely limit it during
vital combat certification exercises, such as those conducted in our
southern California operating areas. In more than 40 years of sonar use
in southern California waters, not a single injury to marine mammals
has been linked to sonar. The Navy has worked closely with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to establish effective, science-based
mitigation measures. By implementing these measures NMFS does not
expect adverse population level effects for any marine mammal
populations during Fleet training exercises scheduled in southern
California in 2008. MFA sonar provides a robust and absolutely vital
capability to detect submarine threats. Limiting our ability to train
and exercise with MFA sonar will degrade operational readiness and
place our forces at risk.
Our measures provide an appropriate balance between good
stewardship of the environment and preparing our forces for deployment
and combat operations. Our sailors must be trained to the best of their
abilities with all of the technological tools available to fight and
win. It is vital that our Navy be allowed to train and exercise with
MFA sonar.
Intelligence
Our Navy provides a vital intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capability around the globe. These capabilities produce
warning and awareness in support of the planning and execution of
maritime and joint operations. We are expanding our intelligence
capability through development of trained human intelligence (HUMINT)
personnel, investment in operational intelligence at our Maritime
Operation Centers, and expanded synchronization with theater, joint,
and national intelligence capabilities.
Maritime Domain Awareness
Maritime security supports the free flow of commerce for all
nations. Maritime Domain Awareness is knowing what is moving below, on,
and above the sea. Without a high level of Maritime Domain Awareness
the free flow of commerce is jeopardized. The goal of Maritime Domain
Awareness is to establish a level of security regarding vessels
approaching our coastlines, while not infringing upon each nation's
sovereignty or sharing inappropriate information.
In partnership with the Coast Guard we established the Office of
Global Maritime Situational Awareness (GMSA). GMSA works with the
Office of Global Maritime Intelligence Integration in developing the
national maritime picture. The first spiral of Maritime Domain
Awareness capability arrives in the Central Command and Pacific Command
in August 2008 with later spirals in the Atlantic and Caribbean.
Seabasing
Seabasing represents a critical warfighting capability. It will
assure access to areas where U.S. military forces are denied basing or
support facilities. In the near term, our amphibious and prepositioned
ships (including MPF(F)) are the key ships in the seabase. They provide
the required lift for the Marine Corps across the range of military
operations. These ships and marines, and the defensive and strike
capabilities of our surface combatants and aircraft, provide
operational maneuver and assured access for the force while
significantly reducing our footprint ashore.
The Navy is exploring innovative operational concepts combining
seabasing with adaptive force packaging that will further support
national security policy and the combatant commanders' objectives
worldwide. Our 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan provides for seabasing that
covers the spectrum of warfare from Joint Forcible Entry to persistent
and cooperative Theater Security Cooperation.
Future Joint Sea Basing requirements are still being defined but
will be significantly greater than today's Navy and Marine Corps
warfighting capabilities. The next generation long-range, heavy lift
aircraft, joint logistics support system, intra-theater lift and sea
connectors will provide these future capabilities.
Shore Installations
Our shore installations are extensions of our warfighting
capabilities and among our most complex systems. Our installations must
be ready to deliver scalable, agile, and adaptive capabilities to meet
the requirements of our fleet, sailors, and families. We must reverse
our historical trend of underinvestment in our shore establishment. I
will leverage and expand upon the successes of our Navy Ashore Vision
2030 and enhance the linkage between our installations, our
warfighters, mission accomplishment, and quality of service.
In the past, we accepted significant risk in our shore
establishment to adequately fund Fleet readiness. As a result, the
condition, capability, and current and future readiness of our shore
installations degraded to an unacceptable level by industry standards.
I directed the implementation of a systematic and consistent approach
to assess the material condition of our shore establishments and
develop a comprehensive investment strategy to arrest and reverse the
decline of our shore establishment.
We will take advantage of every opportunity to leverage the joint
capabilities we share with other Services and the capabilities of the
supporting communities where we work and live. The power of this
leverage is highlighted in our new Public-Private Venture Bachelor
Quarters at San Diego and Norfolk. With the authorities granted by
Congress and very progressive private partners, we provide our sailors
the best housing I have seen during my naval career. These quarters
will have a dramatic impact on sailors' decisions to reenlist.
We owe our sailors, their families, and our civilian workforce, who
selflessly serve our Nation, world-class facilities and services to
enhance their productivity and effectiveness and to motivate them to
remain in the Navy. The decline in the shore infrastructure must be
reversed by a prudent review of current capacity and a forward leaning
investment strategy that defines our shore footprint for the
foreseeable future. The shore establishment is a critical system for
the Navy and provides the foundation for our training, manning, and
equipping. It is imperative we invest and sustain our shore
establishment at the right level to ensure a ready, mobile, and capable
Navy.
Depot Level Maintenance
The increased OPTEMPO of our ships and aircraft in combat
operations elevates the importance of performing timely depot level
maintenance. Depot level maintenance ensures continued readiness and
the safety of our men and women operating our ships and aircraft.
Adequate funding for depot level maintenance ensures we do not incur
unnecessary risk by extending our ships and aircraft well past their
periodicity of maintenance. In addition to the challenges of
maintaining our ships and aircraft, the capacity of the industrial base
remains challenging. Consistent, long-term agreements for the efficient
use of shipyards are necessary to keep our ships and aircraft in the
highest states of readiness.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The Law of the Sea Convention codifies navigation and overflight
rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global
mobility of our Armed Forces. It directly supports our National
Security Strategy. I believe strongly that the Convention furthers our
national security interests. Our maritime security efforts necessitate
that we become a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the bedrock
legal instrument in the maritime domain, to which 154 nations are
party. Our current non-party status constrains our efforts to develop
enduring maritime partnerships. It inhibits our efforts to expand the
Proliferation Security Initiative and elevates the level of risk for
our sailors as they undertake operations to preserve navigation rights
and freedoms, particularly in areas such as the Strait of Hormuz and
Arabian Gulf, and the East and South China Seas. Accession to the Law
of the Sea Convention is a priority for our Navy.
Developing and Supporting Our Sailors and Navy Civilians
Our talented and dedicated sailors and Navy civilians are
absolutely essential to our maritime dominance. Attracting, recruiting,
and retaining in a competitive workplace is increasingly more
expensive. We must devote adequate resources and shape our policies to
ensure our people are personally and professionally fulfilled in their
service to our Nation. We have identified a steady-state force level of
322,000 Active component/68,000 Reserve component end strength as the
optimum target for our projected force structure. It is critical that
future funding sustains this level.
Recruiting, developing, and retaining diverse and highly capable
men and women are imperatives. The Navy must address the changing
national demographic to remain competitive in today's employment
market. Only 3 out of 10 high school graduates meet the minimum
criteria for military service. The propensity to serve is declining
among youth and more often influencers of these youth, such as parents
and teachers, are advising against military service.
``Millennials'' are the generation of youth currently entering the
workplace and they comprise 43 percent of our Navy. Born into a
globalized world saturated with information and technology, Millennials
are more accomplished for their age than previous generations. They are
a technology-savvy and cyber-connected group who may find the
military's hierarchical command and control structure contradictory to
the flat social networks they are used to navigating. The different
paradigm under which this generation views the world and the workplace
has implications for how the Navy attracts, recruits, and retains top
talent. Additionally, to better meet the needs of the U.S. Marine
Corps, we must increase the through-put at the U.S. Naval Academy. I
urge your support of our legislative proposal to increase the number of
Midshipmen at the Naval Academy.
The Strategy for Our People ensures we have the best and brightest
on our team. The strategy outlines six goals for achieving a total Navy
force of sailors and civilians that is the right size and possesses the
right skills to best meet the needs of the Navy. These goals are:
capability-driven manpower, a competency-based workforce, effective
total force, diversity, being competitive in the marketplace, and being
agile, effective, and cost-efficient. Many of the efforts currently
underway in support of the strategy are discussed in further detail
below.
Recruiting Initiatives
The Navy Recruiting Command is relentless in its pursuit of
attracting the best young men and women in America to serve in our
Navy. Recruiting priorities are currently focused on attracting
personnel for the Naval Special Warfare/Naval Special Operations,
nuclear power, medical, and chaplain communities. Recruiting Command is
constantly searching for new ways to recruit America's talent. For
example, the Medical Leads Assistance Program employs Navy officers as
ambassadors for generating interest in Navy Medicine. In the NSW and
Naval Special Operations communities, we provide mentors for recruits
before enlistment and during training with the two-fold goal of
improving recruiting results and ensuring applicant success at Recruit
Training Center and Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training.
To recruit nuclear-trained officers and chaplains, we encourage our
personnel to share their story with the American public. Through visits
to college campuses and career fairs, nuclear-trained officers share
their experiences of operating nuclear reactors on board carriers and
submarines. These visits have improved short-term Nuclear Propulsion
Officer Candidate recruiting and our officers will continue to
cultivate personal relationships with faculty and university
representatives to ensure long-term program health. Through the Reserve
Officer Goals Enhance Recruitment program, Reserve chaplains use their
network of ministerial relationships to share their experiences as Navy
chaplains and provide information on how to become Active or Reserve
chaplain candidates.
Over the past 5 years, Navy Reserve Junior Officer recruitment has
declined. To encourage young officers to stay Navy, we authorized a
mobilization deferment policy for officers who affiliate with the Navy
Reserve within the first year after leaving active duty. Combined with
a $10,000 affiliation bonus, we have had some success in improving the
recruitment of Reserve officers, but this market remains a challenge.
We established a Reserve Retention and Recruiting Working Group to
identify near-term and long-term solutions that will achieve
sustainable success.
Development Initiatives
Our people deserve personally and professionally fulfilling careers
that provide continuous opportunities for development. We offer
multiple programs and we partner with outside organizations so that
sailors and Navy civilians can pursue job-relevant training, continuing
education, and personal enrichment. One such program is a pilot called
``Accelerate to Excellence.'' This program provides enlisted recruits
in specific ratings the opportunity to earn an Associate's Degree at a
community college while undergoing specialized training after boot
camp.
The Navy also provides developmental opportunities for officers and
enlisted personnel through Professional Military Education (PME). PME
is designed to prepare leaders for challenges at the tactical,
operational, and strategic levels of war. The PME continuum integrates
advanced education, Navy-specific PME, Joint PME (JPME) and leadership
development in a holistic manner. The competencies, professional
knowledge, and critical thinking skills sailors obtain from PME prepare
them for leadership and the effective execution of naval missions. PME
graduates are 21st century leaders who possess 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 part of the Joint force.
Enrollment in JPME courses is up: JPME Phase I in-residence
enrollment is up 5 percent; JPME Phase I non-residence enrollment is up
15 percent; JPME Phase II enrollment is up 50 percent. Congressional
support to allow Phase II JPME to be taught in a non-residency status
would enable sailors to pursue professional development while
continuing their current assignments.
In addition to JPME courses, the Navy supports Joint training
through the Navy Continuous Training Environment (NCTE). NCTE is a
distributed and simulated Joint and coalition training environment that
replicates real-life operations. NCTE integrates into the Joint
National Training Capability (JNTC) training architecture and satisfies
COCOM requirements at the operational and tactical level.
Retention Initiatives
As the Navy approaches a steady-state force level of 322,000 Active
component/68,000 Reserve component end strength, attracting and
retaining sailors with the right skills is critical. In fiscal year
2008, the goal is to shift our focus beyond numbers to ensure we have
the right skill sets in the right billets at the right time. This
approach increases opportunities for advancement and promotion by
assigning personnel to positions that utilize and enhance their
talents, and emphasizes continued professional growth and development
in stages that align to career milestones.
The Navy is also addressing retention through Active component to
Reserve component transition. This program is changing the existing
paradigm under which a sailor leaves the Navy at the end of their
obligated service and is instead promoting service in the Reserve
component as an alternative to complete detachment. The Perform to
Serve (PTS) program screens Zone A sailors, who are at the end of a 4-
to 6-year enlistment for reenlistment within their rating or for rating
conversion. The manpower, personnel, training, and education enterprise
is adding Reserve component affiliation to sailors' PTS options at the
end of Zone A enlistment. Additionally, Reserve component affiliation
will become increasingly seamless as we shift responsibility from Navy
Recruiting Command to Navy Personnel Command.
Taking Care of Families
When a sailor or civilian joins the Navy team our commitment
extends to their family. Mission success depends upon the individual
readiness of our people and on the preparedness of their families.
Supporting Navy families is critical to mission success.
Keeping families ready and prepared alleviates some of the stress
associated with deployments. Our continued commitment to programs and
resources that maximize family readiness remains high. We continue to
improve and expand child care programs and centers. Crisis management
and response procedures coupled with enhanced ombudsman programs
demonstrate our commitment to give deployed sailors confidence that
their families are in good hands.
In 2007, Navy programs cared for 45,780 children ages 6 months to
12 years and served over 70,000 youth, ages 13 to 18, in 124 child
development centers, 103 youth centers, and 3,115 on and off-base
licensed child development homes. In response to the needs of Navy
families, we have launched an aggressive child care expansion plan that
adds 4,000 child care spaces within the next 18 months and reduces
waiting lists in most places below the current 6-month average.
At the end of fiscal year 2007, we successfully privatized 95
percent of the continental U.S. (CONUS) and Hawaii family housing. We
aggressively monitor the ratification of Navy housing residents and our
Public Private Venture efforts are clearly resulting in continuous
improvement in the housing and services provided to our sailors and
their families. The ability of the private partner to renovate and
replace family housing units at a much quicker pace than military
construction (MILCON) has positively impacted the quality of Navy
housing.
Taking care of our families includes proactively reducing financial
stresses placed on sailors and families. We are focused on family
counseling in response to increased OPTEMPO as a result of OEF/OIF. We
provided one-on-one job search coaching services to 21,730 Navy family
members and made 10,830 military spouse employment ready referrals to
employers. Fleet and Family Support Center (FFSC) financial educators
provided more than 186,000 sailors and family members seminars/
workshops focusing on financial fitness, increased our financial
counseling services to military spouses by more than 50 percent, and
launched a robust campaign to encourage wealth building and debt
reduction.
Health Care
We have some of the best medical professionals in the world serving
in the Navy. Health care options the Navy offers its people are
valuable recruitment and retention incentives. Still, health care costs
are rising faster than inflation. Operations in OEF and OIF increased
the demand for medical services in combat and casualty care. Part of
this demand is straight forward: our wounded need traditional medical
care and rehabilitation services. The other part of this demand is more
complex and addresses the increased occurrences of mental health
disorders resulting from combat operations. Medical professionals are
rapidly learning more about assessing and treating the effects of
mental health issues associated with war such as post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. We are implementing these
lessons to more effectively treat these sailors.
Wounded Warrior/Safe Harbor Program
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 through DOD or the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Since its inception, 162 sailors
including 143 Active and 19 Reserve members have joined the program and
are being actively tracked and monitored, including 126 personnel
severely injured in OEF/OIF. Senior medical staffs personally visit and
assist seriously injured sailors and their families to ensure their
needs are being met.
conclusion
We are truly a ready, agile, and global Navy. To ensure that we
maintain our naval dominance, we must achieve the optimal balance of
building the Navy of tomorrow as we remain engaged and ready to fight
today while fully supporting our people.
I will continue to work closely with the Secretary of the Navy, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, Congress, and industry to build the
levels of trust and collaboration necessary to resource, acquire, and
effectively manage a Fleet of the right size and balance for our
Nation.
Despite the challenges, I am very optimistic about our future and
the many opportunities ahead. The dedication of our sailors and Navy
civilians is inspiring. They are truly making a difference and it is an
honor to serve alongside them. I thank you for your continued support
and commitment to our Navy and for all you do to make the United States
Navy a force for good today and in the future.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Admiral.
General Conway?
STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES T. CONWAY, USMC, COMMANDANT OF THE
MARINE CORPS
General Conway. Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, and
distinguished members of the committee: I have pledged to
always provide you with forthright and honest assessments of
your Marine Corps and I bear that in mind today as I report to
you on the posture of our Service.
In the written statement I provided you a list of
priorities that would enable your Corps to best serve our
Nation's security interests, both today and in the uncertain
future. But in brief, our young warriors in combat are my
number one priority. Those magnificent patriots have been
extremely effective in disrupting insurgents and the al-Qaeda
in the al-Anbar Province. In the spirit of jointness, I must
note that it hasn't been just marines, rather marines, sailors,
and soldiers, a composite effort over time, that has brought
success to the al-Anbar.
Quiet in their duty and determined in their approach, your
marines are telling us loud and clear that wherever there's a
job to be done they'll shoulder that mission with enthusiasm.
They're tough and they'll do what it takes to win.
We are still supporting the surge in Iraq and have already
shifted from population protection to transitioning security
responsibilities to Iraqi security forces. They are actively
stepping up to the task. Though it may not be our core
competency, marines have addressed the Nation-building aspect
of our duties with enthusiasm and determination.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the most
recent call from the Secretary of Defense, we are also
deploying more than 3,400 marines to Afghanistan. Your marines
will assist the joint force in either gaining or maintaining
momentum there. We fall in on our expeditionary ethos of living
hard and fighting well as part of the air-ground team.
I've just returned from a visit to Iraq and Afghanistan
and, ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to report to you that
your marines are demonstrating amazing resiliency in the face
of multiple deployments to dangerous lands. In spite of a one-
to-one deployment-to-dwell regimen that has virtually no chance
of getting better until fall, the factors that we track monthly
to determine health of the force, that include desertion and UA
rates, suicide, divorce, child or spousal abuse, and not in the
least, reenlistment rates, are all as good or better than they
were in 2001.
We do have a significant issue with our families. Simply
put, they are proud of their contributions to this war, but
they're tired. We owe it to those families to put our family
service programs onto a wartime footing. For too long our
programs have been borne on the backs of our volunteers--
perhaps acceptable during peacetime, but untenable during a
protracted conflict. Congress has been exceptionally supportive
in enabling us to make good on the promise to do more.
Of course, we look beyond today and our obligation to the
Nation, and we have learned lessons in trying to build the
force as we fight. In response to a clear need, we are growing
the Corps to 202,000 marines. We do this without lowering our
standards and we are ahead of our goals. During the last fiscal
year, we needed to bring aboard 5,000 additional recruits. We
actually grew 7,000 additional marines, 96.2 percent of them
high school graduates.
But more than just manpower, the growth requires training,
infrastructure, and equipment to meet the needs of our Nation.
You've helped us meet those requirements with steady support
and encouragement, and for that we thank you.
Though our capacity is currently stretched, the Marine
Corps retains the mission to provide a multi-capable force for
our Nation, a two-fisted fighter, if you will, able to destroy
enemy formations with our air-ground team in a major
contingency, but equally able to fall back on our hard-earned
irregular warfare skills honed over decades of conflict.
By far the most complex of our congressionally mandated
missions, amphibious operations, requires deliberate training
and long-term resourcing to achieve a high level of
proficiency. The operational expertise, the special equipment
sets, and the amphibious lift are not capabilities that we can
rapidly create in the face of a threat.
Finally, on behalf of your marines, I extend great
appreciation for your support thus far, and I thank you in
advance for your efforts on behalf of our brave service men and
women in harm's way. I assure you that the Marine Corps
appreciates the increasing competition for the Nation's
discretionary resources and will continue to provide a tangible
return for every dollar spent.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to
speak.
[The prepared statement of General Conway follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gen. James T. Conway, USMC
executive summary
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the
committee; I have pledged to always provide you forthright and honest
assessments of your Corps. I bear that in mind today as I report to you
on the posture of your Corps.
Your Marine Corps is fully engaged in what we believe is a
generational struggle against fanatical extremists; the challenges we
face are of global scale and scope. This Long War is multi-faceted and
will not be won in one battle, in one country, or by one method. Your
marines are a tough breed and will do what it takes to win--not only in
these opening battles of Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in the
subsequent conflicts which we endeavor to prepare for today.
In the face of great hardship, your marines have made a positive
and selfless decision to stay resolved. More than 332,000 marines have
either enlisted or re-enlisted since September 11, 2001; more than
208,000 have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan--a telling number for a
force of less than 200,000 marines. Make no mistake, they joined or
decided to re-enlist knowing they would go into harm's way.
They have answered the Nation's call and are fully engaged in this
fight--serving with distinction as the professionals they are. It falls
on us, then, to fully support them--we owe them the full resources
required to complete the tasks ahead. Now more than ever, they need the
sustained support of the American people and Congress to provide them
the help they need to fight today's conflict, prepare for tomorrow's,
and fulfill our commitment to our marine families.
Without question, marines in combat are our number one priority.
Taken as a whole, combat operations are indeed stressing our forces and
families. That said, the Marine Corps will not fail her country when
called. In fact, in answer to the most recent call to provide ready
forces to serve our Nation, the Marine Corps is deploying more than
3,200 marines to Afghanistan in addition to supporting ongoing surge
operations in Iraq and other force requirements worldwide.
It is with these great men and women in mind that the Marine Corps
has shaped its priorities--which are enduring and serve not only the
conflict of today, but also the inevitable crises that will arise in
our Nation's future. Through this budget request, we seek to:
Right-Size the Marine Corps for today's conflict and tomorrow's
uncertainty
To fulfill our obligations to the Nation, the Marine Corps will
grow its personnel end strength to 202,000 Active component marines by
the end of fiscal year 2011. This increase will enable your Corps to
train to the full spectrum of military operations and improve the
ability of the Marine Corps to address future challenges of an
uncertain environment. Our growth will enable us to recover our ability
to respond in accordance with timelines outlined in combatant commander
war plans--thereby, reducing operational risk. More than just manpower,
this growth will require training, infrastructure, and equipment to
meet the needs of our Nation.
Reset the force and prepare for the next contingency
To meet the demands of this war, we must reset the force so that we
can simultaneously fight, train, and sustain our Corps. The Long War is
taking a considerable toll on our equipment, and we continue to make
tough choices on how best to apply the resources we are provided.
Congress has responded rapidly and generously to our requests for
equipment and increased protection for our marines and sailors. We are
committed to fulfilling our responsibility to manage these resources
prudently as we modernize our force.
Modernize for tomorrow to be ``the most ready when the Nation is least
ready''
Congressionally-mandated to be ``the most ready when the Nation is
least ready,'' your multi-capable Corps is committed to fulfilling this
responsibility. We remain focused and steadfast in our responsibility
to be the Nation's premiere expeditionary Force-in-Readiness. To do so,
we continue to adapt our organization and equipment to provide our
country the best Marine Corps in the world.
Provide our Nation a naval force that is fully prepared for employment
as a Marine Air Ground Task Force across the spectrum of
conflict
The newly published Maritime Strategy reaffirms our naval character
and reemphasized our enduring relationship with the Navy and, now,
Coast Guard. Current operations limit our ability to aggressively
commit forces to strategy implementation at this time. However, as we
increase our end strength to 202,000 marines and as security conditions
continue to improve in Iraq, the Marine Corps will transition our
forces to other battles in the Long War. The most complex mission in
the Maritime Strategy is the congressionally-mandated mission of
amphibious forcible entry. Such an operation requires a high level of
proficiency and long-term resourcing and is not a capability that we
can create on short notice.
Take care of our marines and their families
Our most precious asset is the individual marine. Our marines and
families have been steadfast and faithful in their service to our
country, and we have an equally enduring obligation to them. As such,
we are committed to putting our family programs on a wartime footing--
our marines and families deserve no less.
Posture the Marine Corps for the future beyond the horizon
The United States faces a complex mix of states who sponsor
terrorism, regional and rising peer competitors, failing states that
undermine regional stability, and a variety of violent non-state
actors--all serving to destabilize legitimate governments and undermine
security and stability of the greater global community. We see this
global security context as a persistent condition for the foreseeable
future.
The Marine Corps continues to create a multi-capable force for our
Nation--not only for the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
but also for subsequent campaigns of the Long War. We are committed to
ensuring we remain where our country needs us, when she needs us, and
to prevail over whatever challenges we face.
On behalf of your marines, I extend great appreciation for your
support thus far and thank you in advance for your ongoing efforts to
support our brave service men 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.
i. marines and sailors in combat are our number one priority
Marines in the operating forces have been pushed hard by the tempo
and frequency of operational deployments; yet, their morale has never
been higher--because they believe they are making a difference. Thanks
to Congress, your marines know that the people of the United States and
their Government are behind them. Your support has been exceptional--
from the rapid fielding of life-saving equipment to the increase of
Marine Corps end strength. With your continued support, your marines
will continue to make progress in their mission.
USMC 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 deployed
throughout the U.S. Central Command's Area of Responsibility,
Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Enduring Freedom (OEF) remain our
largest commitment. The Marine Corps continues to support surge
operations in Iraq in the form of two additional infantry battalions
and the enabling forces that accompany them. As part of the Marine Air
Ground Task Force in Iraq, these forces have proven extremely effective
in the disruption of insurgent activities in the Al Anbar province.
As part of these forces, Marine Corps provides more than 250
personnel to OEF-Afghanistan. Approximately 100 of these marines are
members of a Marine Special Operations Company that routinely engages
in combat operations with partnered Afghan and U.S. Special Forces
units. The remaining Marine complement to Afghanistan forms the nucleus
of seven Embedded Training Teams (ETTs); these detachments provide
strong mentorship to Afghan National Army units in the continuing fight
against the Taliban.
Taken as a whole, these recurring commitments of Marine forces in
support of combat operations is indeed a stressing challenge on our
forces and families. That said, the Marine Corps is fully cognizant of
the regional and global effects of progress in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
the Middle East. In fact, in answer to the most recent call to provide
ready forces to serve our Nation, the Marine Corps is deploying a
Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU)-sized Marine Air Ground Task Force and
an additional Battalion to conduct combat operations in Afghanistan.
These 3,200 marines are in addition to surge operations in Iraq and
other force requirements worldwide.
The Marine Corps also deployed forces to participate in over sixty
Theater Security Cooperation events, which ranged from small Mobile
Training Teams in Central America to MEU exercises in Africa, the
Middle East, and the Pacific. The Marine Corps also took part in civil-
military and humanitarian assistance operations such as New Horizons
events in Nicaragua, land mine removal training in Azerbaijan, and
disaster relief in Bangladesh after a devastating cyclone.
ii. right-size the marine corps for today's conflict and tomorrow's
uncertainty
To meet the demands of the Long War, as well as the unforeseen
crises that will inevitably arise, our Corps must be sufficiently
manned, well-trained, and properly equipped. Like the Cold War, the
Long War is a long-term struggle that will not be measured by the
number of near-term deployments or rotations; it is this long-term view
that informs our priorities and plan for growth.
To fulfill our obligations to the Nation, the Marine Corps will
grow its personnel end strength to 202,000 Active component marines.
This increase will enable your Corps to train to the full spectrum of
military operations and improve the ability of the Marine Corps to
address future challenges of an uncertain environment. Our growth will
enable us to recover our ability to respond in accordance with
timelines outlined in combatant commander war plans--thereby, reducing
operational risk.
Current wartime deployment rates dictate an almost singular focus
to prepare units for their next rotation and counterinsurgency
operations. This focus and the deployment rate of many units threaten
to erode the skills needed for Marine Corps missions such as combined-
arms maneuver, mountain warfare, and amphibious operations. Our
deployment cycles must not only support training for irregular warfare,
but also provide sufficient time for recovery and maintenance as well
as training for other contingency missions. By increasing dwell time
for our units, 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 operations.
Just as importantly, this growth will relieve strain on those
superb Americans who have volunteered to fight the Nation's battles. We
must ensure that our personnel policies, organizational construct, and
training enable our marines to operate at the ``sustained rate of
fire.'' This means that we must have sufficient dwell time, equipment
for training, and resources for our marines and their families to
sustain their efforts over time. Our recently begun growth to 202,000
marines will significantly enhance our ability to operate at the
``sustained rate of fire.''
Our goal, during the Long War, is to achieve a 1:2 deployment-to-
dwell ratio for all of our Active Forces; for every 7 months a marine
is deployed, he or she will be back at home station for 14 months.
Right now, many of our forces are at a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio or
less--which cannot be sustained in the long-term. We also aim to
implement a 1:5 deployment to dwell ratio for our Reserve Forces and,
eventually, achieve a peacetime deployment-to-dwell ratio goal is 1:3
for our Active Forces.
As we grow, we will develop all the elements of our Marine Air
Ground Task Force in a balanced manner to meet the diverse challenges
of an uncertain future. This growth includes:
An increase in our end strength to 202,000 marines;
Adequate expansions of our infrastructure to provide
for our marines, their families, and their equipment; and
The right mix of equipment for the current and future
fight.
This additional end strength will result in three Marine
Expeditionary Forces--balanced in capacity and capability. The
development of Marine Corps force structure has been the result of a
thorough and ongoing process that supports the combatant commanders and
accomplishes our Title 10 responsibilities. The process addresses all
pillars of combat development (Doctrine, Organization, Training,
Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities) and
identifies our required capabilities and the issues associated with
fielding them. The most recent assessment revealed a requirement to
front-load structure for recruiters and trainers to support our
personnel growth and a phased introduction of units balanced across the
Marine Air Ground Task Force.
In fiscal year 2007, we stood up two infantry battalions: 1st
Battalion, 9th Marines and 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines. We also added
capacity to our combat engineer battalions and air naval gunfire
liaison companies. Our plan will gradually improve the deployment-to-
dwell ratio of some of our other habitually high operational tempo
units--such as military police, unmanned aerial vehicle, helicopter,
air command and control, combat service support, and explosive ordnance
disposal units.
Growing the Marine Corps as we simultaneously fight the Long War is
a challenge, but we are committed to being the best stewards of the
Nation's resources and working with Congress to achieve these important
goals.
Growing to 202,000 Marines
The Marine Corps surpassed its fiscal year 2007 authorized end
strength goal of 184,000 and is on track to meet the goal of 189,000
marines for fiscal year 2008 as well as our target end strength of
202,000 marines by fiscal year 2011.
Recruiting
A vital factor in sustaining our force and meeting end strength
goals is continuing to recruit qualified young men and women with the
right character, commitment, and drive to become marines. With over 70
percent of our end strength increase comprised of marines on their
first enlistment, our recruiting efforts are a critical part of our
overall growth.
While exceeding Department of Defense quality standards, we
continue to recruit the best of America into our ranks. In fiscal year
2007, the Marine Corps achieved over 100 percent of the Active
component accession goal necessary to grow the force as well as 100
percent of our Reserve recruiting goals. We reached this goal without
compromising the high quality standards the American people expect of
their marines.
We forecast that both Active and Reserve recruiting will remain
challenging in fiscal year 2008, particularly given the increased
accession missions needed to meet our end strength growth. We will need
the continued indispensable support of Congress to sustain our existing
programs and other incentives essential to achieving our recruiting
mission.
Retention
Retention is the other important part of building and sustaining
the Marine Corps. As a strong indicator of our force's morale, the
Marine Corps has achieved unprecedented numbers of reenlistments in
both the First Term and Career Force. The expanded reenlistment goal,
in which we sought to reenlist over 3,700 additional marines, resulted
in the reenlistment of 31 percent of our eligible First Term force and
70 percent of our eligible Career Force--compared to the 22 percent
first term and 65 percent career force reenlistments in fiscal year
2006. This achievement was key to reaching the first milestone in our
end strength increase--184,000 marines by the end of fiscal year 2007--
without sacrificing our high quality standards. In fact, a recent
Center for Naval Analyses study concluded that the quality of our first
term force who reenlist has improved steadily since fiscal year 2000.
For fiscal year 2008, our retention goals are even more aggressive,
but we fully expect to meet them. Our continuing success will be
largely attributable to several important enduring themes. First,
marines are motivated to ``stay marine'' because they are doing what
they signed up to do--fighting for and protecting our Nation. Second,
they understand our culture is one that rewards proven performance; our
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses are designed to retain top quality
marines with the most relevant skill sets.
There is no doubt that your marines' leadership and technical
skills have rendered them extremely marketable to lucrative civilian
employment opportunities. To retain the most qualified marines, we must
maintain Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) funding. In fiscal year
2007, the Marine Corps spent approximately $460 million in SRB and
Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP) to help achieve our end strength goal.
With a reenlistment mission of 17,631 in fiscal year 2008--compared to
an historical average of 12,000--the Marine Corps expects to spend
approximately $500 million in reenlistment incentives during fiscal
year 2008.
This aggressive SRB plan will allow us to retain the right grade
and skill sets for our growing force--particularly among key military
occupational specialties. The continued support of Congress will ensure
we have the necessary combat-trained marines for the Long War and other
contingency operations.
Reserve Component End Strength
Our fights thus far in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a Total Force
effort--our Reserve Forces continue to perform with grit and
determination. Our goal is to obtain a 1:5 deployment-to-dwell ratio
within our Reserve component. As our Active Force increases in size,
our reliance on our Reserve Forces should decrease--helping us achieve
the desired deployment-to-dwell ratio. We believe our current
authorized end strength of 39,600 Selected Marine Corps Reserves is
appropriate. As with every organization within the Marine Corps, we
continue to review the make-up and structure of our Reserve in order to
ensure the right capabilities reside within the Marine Forces Reserve
units and our Individual Mobilization Augmentee program.
Military-to-Civilian Conversions
Military-to-civilian conversions replace marines in nonmilitary-
specific billets with qualified civilians, enabling the Corps to return
those marines to the operating forces. Since 2004, the Marine Corps has
returned 3,096 marines to the operating force through military-to-
civilian conversions. We will continue to pursue sensible conversions
as this will aid in our deployment-to-dwell ratio goals for the force.
Growing to 202,000: Infrastructure
Military construction is one of our keys to success in increasing
the Marine Corps to 202,000 marines by 2011. We have determined the
optimal permanent locations for these new units and have generated
estimates for the types and sizes of facilities needed to support these
forces. Because our end strength will increase before final
construction is complete, we are providing interim support facilities
that will include lease, rental, and purchase of temporary facilities.
Our plan will ensure adequate facilities are available to support the
phase-in and Final Operating Capability of a 202,000 Marine Corps while
meeting our environmental stewardship responsibilities.
Military Construction--Bachelor Enlisted Quarters Initiative.
Housing for our single marines continues to be our top military
construction focus. Barracks are a significant quality of life element
in taking care of our single marines. We have put ourselves in extremis
with regards to new barracks as we have degraded their priority for
decades in lieu of operational requirements. We are now committed to
providing adequate billeting for all of our existing unmarried junior
enlisted marines and noncommissioned officers by 2012--and for our
increased end strength by 2014. To do that, we doubled the amount of
our bachelor housing funding request from fiscal year 2007 to 2008; we
will more than triple the 2008 amount in fiscal year 2009. We are also
committed to funding replacement of barracks' furnishings on a 7-year
cycle and prioritizing barracks repair projects to preempt a backlog of
repairs.
Public Private Venture (PPV) Housing
Our efforts to improve housing for marines and their families
continue. The housing privatization authorities are integral to our
efforts to accommodate both current housing requirements and those
resulting from our planned force increases. Thanks to congressional
support, the Marine Corps had business agreements in place at the end
of fiscal year 2007 to eliminate all of our inadequate family housing.
However, we need to continue our PPV efforts to address the current
insufficient number of adequate housing units as well as the deficit
being created by the increase in end strength to 202,000 marines.
Training Capacity
Marine Corps Training and Education Command is increasing its
training capacity and reinvigorating our pre-deployment training
program to provide support to all elements of the Marine Air Ground
Task Force (MAGTF) across the full spectrum of potential missions. In
accordance with the Secretary of Defense's Security Cooperation
guidance, we are developing and coordinating training and education
programs to build the capacity of allied and partner nations. We are
also developing the capability to conduct large-scale MAGTF exercises
within a joint, coalition, and interagency context to maintain
proficiency in core warfighting functions such as combined arms
maneuver, amphibious operations, and maritime prepositioning
operations. Finally, we are ensuring our training and education
programs and training ranges accommodate the 27,000 Marine Corps end
strength increase.
Growing to 202,00: Equipment
Our assessment of the materiel requirements for our growth has been
significantly enhanced through cooperation between the Marine Corps and
industry partners. Through this effort, the units we created in fiscal
year 2007 were provided the equipment necessary to enter their pre-
deployment training cycle. By prioritizing marines in combat and
redistribution of some of our strategic stocks, these new units were
able to meet training and deployment requirements for combat. With
Congress' continued support, the numerous equipment contracts required
to support our growth were met during fiscal year 2007 and will be met
through fiscal year 2008 and beyond.
iii. resetting the force and preparing for the next contingency
To meet the demands of this war, we must reset the force so that we
can simultaneously fight, train, and sustain our Corps. The Long War is
taking a considerable toll on our equipment, and we continue to make
tough choices on how best to apply the resources we are provided--
either to replace our rapidly aging equipment with similar platforms or
to modernize with next generation equipment. Additionally, we have
routinely drawn additional equipment from strategic stocks, which need
to be replenished in order for us to remain responsive to emerging
threats. Congress has responded rapidly and generously to our requests
for equipment and increased protection for our marines and sailors. We
are committed to fulfilling our responsibility to manage these
resources prudently as we modernize our force.
Costs of Resetting the Force
Reset funds replenish the equipment necessary to keep the Marine
Corps responsive to emerging threats. Costs categorized as ``reset''
meet one of the following criteria: maintenance and supply activities
to restore and enhance combat capability to unit and prepositioned
equipment; replace or repair equipment destroyed, damaged, stressed, or
worn out beyond economic repair; and enhance capabilities, where
applicable, with the most up-to-date technology.
Our current reset estimate is $15.6 billion. To date, Congress has
appropriated a total of $10.9 billion for Marine Corps global war on
terrorism reset costs. As the nature of the Long War evolves, ``reset
the force'' cost estimates evolve as well. We not only need to
``Reset'' the force to support current readiness, but we also need to
``Reconstitute and Revitalize'' the force in preparation for future
challenges. We are coordinating with other Services and the Joint Staff
to refine estimates, and we are aggressively executing funding to
ensure the marines in the fight have the proper equipment in a timely
manner.
Equipment Readiness
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 increased vehicle mileage and
operating hours as well as harsh environmental conditions--resulting in
an escalated maintenance effort. This maintenance requirement is a
consequence of not only operational tempo and operating environments,
but also the sheer amount of equipment employed in operations.
Approximately 26 percent of all Marine Corps ground equipment is
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 a pace that far exceeds
normal peacetime usage.
For example, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, crews are driving Light
Armored Vehicles in excess of 8,700 miles per year--3.5 times more than
the 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.
Many weapon systems have been modified during this conflict; some of
these modifications have led to further wear and tear due to additional
weight--for example, armor plating has been added for protection
against improvised explosive devices. These factors, coupled with the
operational requirement to keep equipment in theater without
significant depot repair, has tremendously decreased the projected
lifespan of this equipment. As a result, we can expect higher than
anticipated reset costs and more replacements than repair of equipment.
The depot level maintenance requirements for the equipment that is
repairable will continue beyond the conclusion of hostilities in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Our priority for equipment is to support marines serving in harm's
way. Therefore, we have drawn additional equipment from the Maritime
Prepositioning Ships and prepositioned stores 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 90 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 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. While additional equipment has been purchased,
long lead times and production rates mean that, although funded, much
of this equipment is still many months from delivery.
Aviation Equipment and Readiness
The operationally demanding and harsh environments of Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa 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 use, our maintenance and support
personnel have sustained a 79 percent aviation mission-capable rate for
deployed marine aircraft over the past 12 months. Maintaining the
readiness of our aviation assets while preparing our aircrew for their
next deployment is and will continue to be an enormous effort and
constant challenge for our marines. To maintain sufficient numbers of
aircraft in deployed squadrons, our nondeployed squadrons have taken
significant cuts in available aircraft and parts as they prepare for
deployment--resulting in a 30 percent decrease in the number of
nondeployed units reporting ``deployment capable'' over the last 5
years. Reset funding has partially alleviated this strain, but
continued funding is needed as we are simply running short of aircraft
on our flight lines due to age, attrition, and wartime losses.
Reset programs have helped us mitigate degradation of our aircraft
materiel readiness through aircraft modifications, proactive
inspections, and additional maintenance actions. These efforts have
successfully bolstered aircraft reliability, sustainability, and
survivability; nevertheless, additional requirements for depot level
maintenance on airframes, engines, weapons, and support equipment will
continue well beyond the conclusion of hostilities.
Prepositioning Programs
Comprised of three Maritime Prepositioning Ships Squadrons (MPSRON)
and other Strategic Reserves, the Marine Corps' prepositioning programs
are a critical part of our ability to respond to current and future
contingency operations and mitigate risk for the Nation. Targeted
withdrawal of equipment from our strategic stocks has been a key
element in supporting combat operations, growth of the Marine Corps,
and other operational priorities; these withdrawals provided necessary
equipment from the existing inventory while industry catches up to our
new requirements in the long-term. Generous support from Congress has
enabled the long-term solution, and as a result, shortfalls within our
strategic programs will be reset as equipment becomes available from
the manufacturer.
Maritime Prepositioning Ships Squadrons
Our MPSRONs will be reset with the most capable equipment possible,
and we have begun loading them with capabilities that support lower
spectrum operations while still maintaining the ability to generate
Marine Expeditionary Brigades capable of conducting major combat
operations. Since 2007's report, all three squadrons have completed the
Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) Maintenance Cycle-8 (MMC-8).
MPSRONs 1 and 3 were reconstituted to 91 percent and 100 percent
respectively. The near-term reduction of MPSRON-1 was required to
outfit new units standing up in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008
as part of our end strength increase. MPSRON-1 will complete MPF
Maintenance Cycle-9 (MMC-9) in June 2008, and we anticipate it will be
loaded with roughly 80 percent of its full equipment set as a result of
our requirement to support end strength increase to 202,000 marines.
MPSRON-2 was loaded to 54 percent of its equipment requirements; much
of MPSRON-2's equipment remains committed to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
With projected deliveries from industry, our intent is to fully reset
and modernize MPSRON-2 and MPSRON-3 when they return for maintenance
beginning in May 2008 and April 2009 respectively.
We are actively working with the Navy and Transportation Command to
incorporate newer, more flexible ship platforms from the existing
Military Sealift Command fleet into our aging legacy Maritime
Prepositioning Force program. As we reset MPF, these changes are
necessary to ensure we incorporate hard fought lessons from recent
combat operations. Two decades of equipment growth and recent armor
initiatives have strained the capability and capacity of our present
fleet--that was designed to lift a naval force developed in the early
1980s.
We plan to incorporate three of Military Sealift Command's 19
large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ships (LMSR) as replacements for
5 of our older leased platforms. The LMSR significantly expands MPF
flexibility and will allow us to reset and optimize MPF to meet current
and emerging requirements.
Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway
The Marine Corps Prepositioning Program--Norway (MCPP-N) was also
used in support of current operations, growth of the Marine Corps, and
resetting other Marine Corps shortfalls with a higher operational
priority. The Marine Corps continues to reset MCPP-N in concert with
our operational priorities while also exploring other locations for
geographic prepositioning that will enable combat and theater security
cooperation operations for forward deployed naval forces.
Depot Maintenance
The Marine Corps has aggressively worked to stabilize the
conditions that affect our depot maintenance. These conditions include:
the uncertainty of the timing of reset, asset availability, timing of
funding, equipment condition, and evolving skill requirements. One area
we focus on is the in-theater identification of equipment and scope of
work to be performed; this effort enables better planning for parts,
manpower resources, funding requirements, and depot capacity. Triage
assessments made in theater and relayed back to the sources of repair
have helped to ensure efficient repair preparation time. These efforts
reduce the repair cycle time, returning the mission capable equipment
to the warfighter as soon as possible--improving materiel readiness.
Depot capacity is elastic; productivity is not constrained by money
or capacity; the limiting factor is asset (carcass) availability. We
increase capacity to support surge requirements through a variety of
means--overtime, additional shifts, and additional personnel.
Performing work on over 260 product lines, our depot workforce
currently has multiple trade skills ranging from laborers to engineers.
Much of the equipment in theater today includes items not previously
repaired by any depot facility--organic or non-organic. As a result,
the existing work force may require additional training. New personnel
and continued supplementation through contractor support may also be
required. We continue to leverage state and local institutions, such as
the technical colleges and universities, which can provide valuable
assistance in training our workforce in skills such as welding,
environmental science, and engineering.
Future challenges to meeting the increasing workload requirements
include leveraging depot capacity, lessening the impact on our labor
force, and ensuring parts are available. Continuing to partner with
other Services and industry, we will enhance execution of reset using
organic and non-organic sources of repair. We will continue to work
with Congress to anticipate the evolving depot maintenance funding
requirements.
Equipment Retrograde Operations from Central Command Area of Operations
During 2006, in a continued effort to support the Commander, United
States Marine Forces, Central Command, Marine Corps Logistics Command
took the lead as the Service Executive Agent for the retrograde of
equipment in theater determined to be excess. In addition to receiving,
preparing, and shipping excess equipment within theater, Marine Corps
Logistics Command (Forward) coordinates strategic lift requirements and
manages the redistribution of principle end items in accordance with
the Commandant of the Marine Corps' sourcing priorities. Since June
2006, over 15,731 principle end items have been processed at the
retrograde lot in Al Taqaddum and approximately 11,799 items have been
shipped back to Blount Island Command for disposition. Once disposition
is received, assets are sent to Marine Corps Logistics Command for
induction into the Master Work schedule, placed In-Stores, used to fill
requisitions, or sent to the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office if
deemed uneconomical to repair. The repair and return of items to In-
Stores will enable us to better address the many demands for equipment.
This, in turn, will keep us moving forward towards our goal of
continued readiness improvement.
Operation Iraqi Freedom has led to a conceptual change in the way
we provide operational-level logistics to the warfighter. Due to
changing operational and mission requirements, Marine Corps Logistics
Command is implementing capabilities extending beyond traditional
boundaries, creating a more mobile and agile organization. The Marine
Corps Logistics Command (Forward) was established to satisfy
operational logistics requirements using competitive, comprehensive,
and integrated solutions obtained from ``the best'' strategic
Department of Defense and commercial providers. While continuing to
execute its strategic-level responsibilities, Marine Corps Logistics
Command has transformed from a garrison-centric organization to one
capable of deploying operational-level logistics solutions to augment
the sustainment requirements of Marine Forces in combat.
iv. modernize for tomorrow to be ``the most ready when the nation is
least ready''
We know we have tough choices ahead of us to meet equipment demands
across the Corps. As we reset, we are making prudent assessments on
when it is more effective to replace aging and worn out equipment with
similar equipment or to buy new equipment. We remain focused and
steadfast on our responsibility to be the Nation's premiere
expeditionary Force-in-Readiness.
Experimentation
Our Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory conducts experiments to
support operating force requirements and combat development. We
continually seek to improve the capabilities of the operating forces by
focusing on the needs of our lower-level ground combat and ground
combat support units engaged in current and potential near-term
contingencies. Some examples of current projects include:
``Combat Hunter,'' a project aimed at enhancing observation and
hunting skills of individual marines operating in a combat environment;
Company Level Intelligence Cell experiment, designed
to provide us with a ``best practices'' model and to
standardize infantry battalion intelligence processes;
Squad Fires experiment, enhancing close air support to
squad-level units;
Combat Conditioning project, examining advances in
physical fitness training to best prepare marines for the
demands of combat; and
Lighten the Load initiative, an effort to decrease the
amount of weight carried by marines in the field.
Enhancing Individual Survivability
The Marine Corps continues to pursue technological advancements in
personal protective equipment--our marines in combat deserve nothing
less. Fully recognizing the limiting factors associated with weight,
fatigue, and movement restriction, we are providing marines the latest
in personal protective equipment--such as the Modular Tactical Vest,
QuadGard, Lightweight Helmet, and Flame Resistant Organizational Gear.
Body Armor
Combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the need
to evolve our personal protective vest system. In February 2007, we
began transitioning to a newly-designed Modular Tactical Vest (MTV).
This vest is close to the same weight as its predecessor, the Outer
Tactical Vest, but it integrates more easily with our other personal
protection systems. It provides greater comfort through incorporation
of state-of-the-art load carriage techniques, which better distributes
a combat load over the torso and onto the hips of the marine. The MTV
also incorporates our combat-proven Enhanced Small Arms Protective
Inserts (E-SAPI) and Side SAPI plates. These plates are provided to
every marine in the Central Command theater of operations. The E-SAPI
provides the best protection available against a wide variety of small
arms threats--to include protection against 7.62mm ammunition. The
initial acquisition objective for the MTV was 60,000 systems, with
deliveries completed in October 2007. We are procuring additional MTVs
during this fiscal year to ensure our marines continue to deploy with
the best body armor system available.
QuadGard
The QuadGard system is designed to provide ballistic protection for
a marine's arms and legs when serving as a turret gunner on convoy
duty. This system, which integrates with other personal ballistic
protection equipment, such as the MTV ESAPI and Lightweight Helmet
(LWH), provides additional protection against ballistic threats--
particularly improvised explosive device fragmentation.
Lightweight Helmet
We are committed to providing the best head protection available to
our warfighters. The LWH weighs less than its predecessor and provides
a high level of protection against fragmentation threats and 9mm
bullets. We now require use of a pad system inside the helmet as
multiple independent studies and tests demonstrated that 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. Since January 2007, all LWHs produced by the
manufacturer are delivered with the approved pad system installed. In
October 2007, we began fielding the Nape Protection Pad (NAPP), which
provides additional ballistic protection to the occipital region of the
head--where critical nervous system components, such as the cerebellum,
brain stem, occipital lobe, and spinal cord are located. The NAPP is
attached to the back of the LWH or the Modular Integrated
Communications Helmet (MICH), which is worn by our reconnaissance
marines. Final delivery of the initial 69,300 NAPPs is scheduled for
April 2008. That said, we continue to challenge industry to build a
lightweight helmet that will stop the 7.62 mm round fired from an AK-
47.
Flame Resistant Organizational Gear
In February 2007, we began fielding Flame Resistant Organizational
Gear (FROG) to all deployed and deploying marines. This lifesaving
ensemble of flame resistant clothing items--gloves, balaclava, long-
sleeved under 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, while adding durability,
comfort, and functionality. We have recently begun fielding flame
resistant fleece pullovers to our marines for use in cooler conditions,
and we are developing flame resistant varieties of cool/cold weather
outer garments and expect to begin fielding these to marines in late
fiscal year 2008. With the mix of body armor, undergarments, and
outerwear, operational commanders can determine what equipment their
marines will employ based on mission requirements and environmental
conditions. Through ongoing development and partnerships with other
Services, we continue to seek the best available flame resistant
protection for our marines.
Sustained funding for the development and procurement of individual
protective equipment has had a direct impact on our ability to reduce
or mitigate combat injuries. Continued congressional support is needed
to ensure that our marines and sailors receive the best equipment
available in the coming years.
Counterimprovised Explosive Devices
Responding to urgent warfighter needs, we are providing the most
capable force protection systems available. We are upgrading our
Counter Remote-controlled IED Electronic Warfare Chameleon systems to
meet rapidly evolving threats while remaining engaged with the Joint
Program Board to develop a joint solution. We are enhancing our ability
to combat the effects of weapons of mass destruction as well as
protecting our marines worldwide by fielding 18 consequence management
sets using the best available commercial off-the-shelf technologies.
These sets complement the capabilities of our Family of Incident
Response Systems and the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force.
Our Family of Explosive Ordnance Disposal Equipment has undergone
significant modernization through enhancement of technician tool kits
and greater counter IED robotics capability and availability.
Marine Aviation Plan
Resetting Marine Aviation means getting more capable and reliable
aircraft into the operational deployment cycle sooner--not merely
repairing and replacing damaged or destroyed aircraft. Daily, your
marines rely on these aircraft to execute a wide array of missions
including casualty evacuation for our wounded and timely close air
support for troops in contact with the enemy. Legacy aircraft
production lines are no longer active--exacerbating the impact of
combat losses and increasing the urgency for the Marine Aviation Plan
to remain fully funded and on schedule.
The 2007 Marine Aviation Plan (AvPlan) provides the way ahead for
Marine Aviation over the next 10 years as it transitions 39 of 71
squadrons from 13 legacy aircraft to 6 new aircraft; it incorporates
individual program changes and synchronizes support of our end strength
growth to 202,000 marines.
Joint Strike Fighter
F-35B Lightning II development is on track with the first flight of
BF-1 Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant scheduled for
2008. The F-35B 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 JSF will act as an
integrated combat system in support of ground forces and will be the
centerpiece of Marine Aviation. The manufacture of the first nineteen
test aircraft is well underway, with assembly times better than planned
and exceptional quality demonstrated in fabrication and assembly. The
first Conventional Take-Off/Landing (CTOL) aircraft flew in December
2006 and accumulated 19 flights prior to a planned technical refresh.
The JSF acquisition strategy, including software development, reflects
a block approach. The Marine Corps remains committed to an all-STOVL
tactical aircraft force--which will enable future MAGTFs to best
fulfill its expeditionary warfighting responsibilities in support of
the Nation and combatant commanders.
MV-22 Osprey
The MV-22 brings revolutionary assault support capability to our
forces in harm's way; they deserve the best assault support aircraft in
the world--without question, the MV-22 is that aircraft. The MV-22 is
replacing the CH-46E aircraft. The CH46E is over 40 years old, with
limited lift and mission capabilities to support the MAGTF. In
September 2005, the V-22 Defense Acquisition Board approved Full Rate
Production. Twenty-nine Block A and 24 Block B aircraft have been
delivered and are based at Marine Corps Air Station New River, NC;
Patuxent River, MD; and Al Asad Air Base, Iraq.
Much like the F-35, the MV-22 program uses a block strategy in its
procurement. Block A aircraft are training aircraft, Block B are
operational aircraft, and Block C aircraft are operational aircraft
with mission enhancements that will be procured in fiscal year 2010 and
delivered in fiscal year 2012. One V-22 Fleet Replacement Training
Squadron, one test squadron, and three tactical VMM squadrons have
stood up. MV-22 Initial Operational Capability was declared on 1 June
2007 with a planned transition of two CH-46E squadrons per year
thereafter.
VMM-263 is deployed to Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, and the significant
capabilities of the Osprey have already been proven in combat. A brief
examination of the daily tasking of the MV-22 squadron in Iraq tells a
compelling story: a flight of MV-22s are doing in 6 hours what would
have taken 12 hours in CH-46s. In addition, the aircraft easily ranges
the entire area of operations and flies a majority of the time at
altitudes beyond the range of our enemy's weapons. The Marine Corps
asked for an aircraft that could take us farther, faster, and safer;
and Congress answered.
KC-130J
KC-130Js have been continuously deployed in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom since February 2005--providing state-of-the-art, multi-
mission, tactical aerial refueling, and fixed-wing assault support. The
KC-130J is the workhorse of the MAGTF; its theater logistical support
reduces the requirement for resupply via ground, limiting the exposure
of our convoys to IEDs and other attacks.
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 requires an accelerated
procurement of the KC-130J. In addition, the Marine Corps will replace
its 28 Reserve component KC-130T aircraft with KC-130Js, simplifying
the force to 1 type/model/series. The Marine Corps is contracted to
procure a total of 46 aircraft by the end of fiscal year 2013; 29 new
aircraft have been delivered and 4 KC-130J aircraft requested in the
fiscal year 2008 budget.
H-1 Upgrade
The H-1 Upgrade Program (UH-1Y/AH-1Z) resolves existing operational
UH-1N power margin and AH-1W aircrew workload issues--while
significantly enhancing the tactical capability, operational
effectiveness, and sustainability of our attack and utility helicopter
fleet. The Corps' Vietnam-era UH-1N Hueys are reaching the end of their
useful life. Due to airframe and engine fatigue, Hueys routinely take
off at their maximum gross weight with no margin for error. Rapidly
fielding the UH-1Y remains a Marine Corps aviation priority, with the
first deployment of UH-1Ys to Operation Iraqi Freedom scheduled for the
spring 2009.
Due to significant operational demands and aircraft attrition in
the existing attack and utility helicopter fleet, the Marine Corps
adopted a ``build new'' strategy for the UH-1Y in fiscal year 2006.
Similarly, the Marine Corps began investing in Non-Recurring
Engineering (NRE) in fiscal year 2007 for the production of a limited
number of AH-1Z ``build new'' aircraft; these AH-1Zs will augment those
existing AH-1Ws that will be remanufactured. This combined ``build
new'' and remanufacture strategy will enable the Marine Corps to
rapidly increase the number of AH-1s available, support the Marine
Corps' growth to 202,000 marines, and alleviate inventory shortfalls
caused by aircraft attrition. Ten production aircraft have been
delivered. Operation and Evaluation (OPEVAL) Phase II commenced in
February 2008, and as expected, showcased the strengths of the upgraded
aircraft. Full rate production of the H-1 Upgrade (and the contract
award of Lot 5 aircraft) is scheduled to take place during the fourth
quarter fiscal year 2008.
CH-53K
In operation since 1981, the CH-53E is becoming increasingly
expensive to operate and faces reliability and obsolescence issues. Its
replacement, the CH-53K, will be capable of externally transporting
27,000 lbs to a range of 110 nautical miles, more than doubling the
current CH-53E lift capability. Maintainability and reliability
enhancements of the CH-53K will significantly decrease recurring
operating costs and will radically improve aircraft efficiency and
operational effectiveness over the current CH-53E. The program passed
Milestone B (System Development and Demonstration (SDD) initiation) in
December 2005. The SDD Contract was awarded to Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation in April 2006. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is
scheduled for fiscal year 2015, and is defined as a detachment of four
aircraft, ready to deploy.
Unmanned Aerial Systems
The Marine Corps is taking aggressive action to modernize and
improve organic UAS capabilities. The Marine Corps' UAS are organized
into three echelons, appropriate to the level of commander they
support. Tier III UAS serve at the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF)
level. Tier II UAS support Regimental Combat Team and Marine
Expeditionary Unit operations, and Tier I UAS support battalion and
below operations. At the Tier III level, we have simultaneously
transitioned Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadrons (VMU) to the RQ-7B
Shadow; started reorganizing the squadrons' force structure to support
detachment-based flexibility (operating three systems versus one for
each squadron); and initiated the stand up of a third Active component
VMU squadron.
With the significant support of the Army, the Marine Corps has
completed the transition to the RQ-7B Shadow in less than 9 months. The
transition to the Shadow provides a mature and modern--yet basic and
readily available--Tier III platform upon which to baseline Marine VMU
reorganization. A detachment-based concept of operations for the VMU
will give Marine Expeditionary Force commanders flexibility to task-
organize based on mission requirements. The addition of a third VMU
squadron is critical to sustaining current operations by decreasing our
current operational deployment-todwell ratio--currently at 1:1--to a
sustainable 1:2 ratio. This rapid transition and reorganization, begun
in January 2007, will be complete by the fourth quarter fiscal year
2009, significantly improving organic Marine Corps UAS capability while
increasing joint interoperability and commonality.
The Marine Corps is using an ISR Services contract to provide Scan
Eagle systems to Multinational Forces-West, Iraq to fill the Tier II
void until future fielding of the Tier II/Small Tactical UAS (STUAS), a
combined Marine Corps and Navy program beginning in fiscal year 2008
with planned fielding in 2011. At the Tier I level, the Marine Corps is
transitioning from the Dragon Eye to the joint Raven-B program, also
common with the U.S. Army.
When fully fielded, the Corps' Unmanned Aerial Systems will be
networked through a robust and interoperable command and control system
that provides commanders an enhanced capability applicable across the
spectrum of military operations.
Ground Mobility
The Army and Marine Corps are leading the Services in developing
tactical wheeled vehicle requirements for the joint force. Our efforts
will provide the joint force an appropriate balance of survivability,
mobility, payload, networking, transportability, and sustainability.
The Army/Marine Corps Board has proven a valuable forum for
coordination of development and fielding strategies; production of
armoring kits and uparmored HMMWVs; and response to requests for Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. The Ground Mobility Suite
includes:
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
The Marine Corps provides the Nation's joint forces with a unique
and flexible forcible entry capability from the sea. The Expeditionary
Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is specifically suited to maneuver operations
conducted from the sea and sustained operations in the world's littoral
regions. Its inherent capabilities provide utility across the spectrum
of conflict. As the Corps' largest ground combat system acquisition
program, the EFV is the sole sea-based, surface-oriented vehicle that
enables projection of combat power from a seabase to an objective. It
will replace the aging Assault Amphibious Vehicle--in service since
1972. Complementary to our modernized fleet of tactical vehicles, the
EFV's amphibious mobility, day and night lethality, enhanced force
protection capabilities, and robust communications will substantially
improve joint force capabilities. Its over-the-horizon capability will
enable amphibious ships to increase their standoff distance from the
shore--protecting them from enemy anti-access weapons.
The Marine Corps recently conducted a demanding operational
assessment of the EFV. It successfully demonstrated the 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 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 assessment, along with 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.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
The Army/Marine Corps Board has been the focal point for
development of joint requirements for a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
(JLTV)--which will provide protected, sustained, networked, and
expeditionary mobility in the light tactical vehicle weight class.
Throughout 2007, Army and Marine Corps combat and materiel developers
coordinated with the Joint Staff, defining requirements and acquisition
planning for the replacement for the uparmored HMMWV. In December, the
Defense Acquisition Board approved JLTV entry into the acquisition
process at Milestone A, designating the Army as lead Service and
initiating competitive prototyping during the technology development
phase. Prototypes will be evaluated to demonstrate industry's ability
to balance survivability, mobility, payload, network enabling,
transportability, and sustainability. The program is on track for a
Milestone B in early 2010.
Marine Personnel Carrier
The Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) is an expeditionary armored
personnel carrier--ideal for irregular warfare--yet effective across
the full range of military operations. Increasing armor-protected
mobility for infantry battalion task forces, the MPC program balances
vehicle performance, protection, and payload attributes. Through 2007,
we completed both joint staffing of an Initial Capabilities Document
and, a draft concept of employment. Additionally, the Analysis of
Alternatives final report was published in December 2007. The program
is on track for a Milestone B decision in the second quarter of fiscal
year 2010 and an Initial Operational Capability in the 2015 timeframe.
Internally Transported Vehicle
The Internally Transported Vehicle (ITV) is a family of vehicles
that will provide deployed Marine Air Ground Task Forces with ground
vehicles that are transportable inside the MV-22 and CV-22 tilt-rotor
aircraft, as well as CH-53 and MH-47 aircraft. There are three variants
of the ITV, the Light Strike, the Prime Mover-Weapon, and the Prime
Mover-Trailer. Both prime mover variants are components of the
Expeditionary Fire Support System designed to support the M327 120mm
mortar. In conjunction with testing of our Expeditionary Fire Support
System, we conducted an operational assessment of the ITV Light Strike
variant during which it met all key performance parameters. We expect
to begin fielding this variant the Light Strike Variant of the ITV in
June 2008.
Vehicle Armoring
Our goal is to provide the best level of available protection to
100 percent of in-theater vehicles that go ``outside the wire.'' Our
tactical wheeled vehicle strategy pursues this goal through the
coordination of product improvement, technology insertion, and new
procurement in partnership with industry. The Marine Corps, working
with the other Services, is fielding armored vehicles such as: the MRAP
vehicle, the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement Armor System, the
Logistics Vehicle System (LVS) Marine Armor Kit, and the Uparmored
HMMWV.
Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) Armor System (MAS)
MAS provides an integrated, armor enclosed, climate-controlled cab
compartment and an armored troop carrier for our MTVR variants. These
vehicles are also being upgraded with an improved blast protection
package consisting of blast attenuating seats, five-point restraint
harnesses, and improved belly and fender-well blast deflectors. Basic
MAS has been installed in all of the Marine Corps' MTVRs in the Central
Command's theater of operation. Additionally, we are installing blast
upgrade, fuel tank fire protection kits, and 300 AMP alternators;
target completion for in-theater vehicles is fourth quarter fiscal year
2008.
Logistics Vehicle System Marine Armor Kit II
The LVS Marine Armor Kit (MAK) II provides blast, improvised
explosive device, and small arms protection. It has a completely
redesigned cab assembly that consists of a new frame with armor
attachment points and integrated 360-degree protection. The new cab
will also have an air conditioning system that cools from 134 degrees
Fahrenheit to 89 degrees Fahrenheit in 20 minutes. Additional
protection includes overhead and underbody armor using high, hard
steel, rolled homogenous armor, and 2.75" ballistic windows. The
suspension system has been upgraded to accommodate the extra weight of
the vehicle. We estimate the LVS MAK II armoring effort will complete
fielding by February 2009.
M1114 Highly-Mobile Multi-Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)-Upgrade--
Fragmentation Kit 2 and Kit 5
Fragmentation Kit 2 enhances ballistic protection in the front
driver and assistant driver wheel-well of HMMWVs. Fragmentation Kit 5
reduces injuries from improvised explosive devices as well as armor
debris and fragmentation. Installation of both fragmentation kits was
completed in fiscal year 2007. We are continuing to evaluate the U.S.
Army's objective kit development and work with the Army and Office of
Naval Research to assess new protection-level capabilities and share
information. The Marine Corps has adopted a strategy of a 60 percent
fully uparmored HMMWV fleet. All new Expanded Capacity Vehicles will
have the Integrated Armor Package. Of those, 60 percent will be fully
uparmored to include the appropriate ``B'' kit and Fragmentation kits
during production. The Marine Corps will continue to work with the Army
to pursue the development of true bolt-on/bolt-off ``B'' kits and
fragmentation kits to apply as needed to post-production vehicles.
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles
MRAP vehicles have a V-shaped armored hull and protect against the
three primary kill mechanisms of mines and improvised explosive devices
(IED)--fragmentation, blast overpressure, and acceleration. These
vehicles provide the best currently-available protection against IEDs.
Experience in theater shows that a marine is four to five times less
likely to be killed or injured in a MRAP vehicle than in an uparmored
HMMWV--which is why Secretary Gates made the MRAP program the number
one acquisition priority for the Defense Department. MRAP vehicles come
in three categories: Category I designed for use in urban environments
and carries by up to six personnel; Category II for convoy escort,
troop transport, and ambulance evacuation, which transports up to ten
personnel; and Category III for route clearance/explosive ordnance
disposal vehicles.
The total Department of Defense requirement for MRAP vehicles is
15,374--of which 3,700 are allocated for the Marine Corps. However, the
Marine Corps requirement has been revalidated to 2,225, pending Joint
Requirements Oversight Council approval. The Navy is the Executive
Agent for the program and the Commander, Marine Corps Systems Command
is the Joint Program Executive Officer. As an example of our adaptation
to evolving threats, the Joint MRAP Vehicle Program Office has recently
selected qualified producers of a new MRAP II vehicle for the Marine
Corps and other forces. Vehicles procured through this second
solicitation will meet enhanced survivability and performance
capability required by field commanders.
The Marine Corps is very pleased with the overwhelming support of
Congress on the MRAP program, both financially and programmatically. We
ask that Congress continue their support for these lifesaving vehicles
and support us as we transition to the sustainment of these vehicles in
future years.
Marine Air Ground Task Force Fires
In 2007, we initiated a study titled ``The Major Combat Operations
Analysis for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2024.'' This study scrutinized the
current organic fire support of the MAGTF to determine the adequacy,
integration, and modernization requirements for ground, aviation, and
naval surface fires. The study concluded that the MAGTF/Amphibious Task
Force was unable to adequately address moving and armored targets 24/7
and in all weather conditions. This deficiency is especially acute
during the Joint Forcible Entry Operation phase of combat operations.
The study also reinforced the critical importance of both the Joint
Strike Fighter and AH1Z in minimizing the fires gap. With this
information, we then developed a set of alternatives for filling these
gaps--using either MAGTF reinforcing or joint fires. We also performed
a supplemental historical study using Operation Iraqi Freedom data to
examine MAGTF Fires in the full spectrum of warfare. These studies
reconfirmed the requirement for a mix of air, naval surface, and
ground-based fires as well as the development of the Triad of Ground
Indirect Fires.
Our Triad of Ground Indirect Fires provides for complementary,
discriminating, and nondiscriminating fires that facilitate maneuver
during combat operations. The Triad requires a medium-caliber cannon
artillery capability; an extended range, ground-based rocket
capability; and a mortar capability with greater lethality than current
models and greater tactical mobility than current artillery systems.
The concept validates the capabilities provided by the M777 lightweight
155mm towed howitzer, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, and
the Expeditionary Fire Support System, a 120mm rifled towed mortar.
M777 Lightweight Howitzer
The new M777 lightweight howitzer replaces our 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. Through design innovation, navigation,
positioning aides, and digital fire control, the M777 offers
significant improvements in lethality, survivability, mobility, and
durability over the M198 howitzer. The Marine Corps began fielding the
first of 511 new howitzers to the operating forces in April 2005 and
expects to complete fielding in fiscal year 2011.
High Mobility Artillery Rocket System
High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (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 46
HIMARS--18 to the Active component, 18 to the Reserve component, 4 to
the supporting establishment, and 6 to the War Reserve Material
Readiness--Forward. When paired with Guided Multiple Launch Rocket
System rockets, HIMARS will provide a highly responsive, precision fire
capability to our forces. We will reach Initial Operational Capability
this August and expect to be at Full Operational Capability by fiscal
year 2010.
Expeditionary Fire Support System
The Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS), a towed 120mm mortar,
will be the principal indirect fire support system for heli- and
tiltrotor-borne forces executing ship to objective maneuver as part of
a Marine Air Ground Task Force. When paired with an Internally
Transportable Vehicle, EFSS can be transported aboard MV-22 and CH-53E
aircraft. EFSS-equipped units will have immediately responsive, organic
indirect fires at ranges beyond current infantry battalion mortars.
Initial operational capability is planned during fiscal year 2008, and
full operational capability is planned for fiscal year 2010.
Infantry Weapons
Based on combat experience and numerous studies, we are developing
infantry weapons systems with the following goals: increased
effectiveness, lighter weight, improved modularity, and integration
with other infantry equipment. The Marine Corps and Army are co-leading
joint service capabilities analysis for future developments.
Individual Weapons
The M16A4 is our current service rifle and makes up the majority of
our assigned individual weapons. It is supplemented by the M4 Carbine,
which is assigned to marines based on billet and mission requirements.
We are participating in several Army tests which will evaluate the
capabilities and limitations of our small arms inventory. In
conjunction with the Army and Air Force, we will use these results to
determine priorities for a future service rifle with focus on
modularity, ergonomics, balance, and lethality. We also have executed a
two-pronged strategy for a larger caliber pistol: supporting the Air
Force's effort to analyze and develop joint capabilities documents for
a new pistol and examining the Army's recent consideration of personal
defense weapons.
Multi-Purpose Weapons
The Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) is an
aging, heavy weapon that is nearing the end of its service life. We are
seeking ways to reduce weight, increase reliability, and improve target
identification as well as develop a ``fire from enclosure'' capability
that will enable marines to fire the weapon from within an enclosed
space.
Scout Sniper Capability
We are conducting a holistic assessment of our Scout Sniper
capability to identify shortfalls and develop recommended solutions--
concurrently integrating the doctrine, training, weapons, equipment,
and identified tasks with a marine sniper's professional development
and career.
Non-lethal Weapons Technology
The complexities of the modern battlespace often place our service
men and women in challenging situations where sometimes, lethal force
is not the preferred response. In these environments, our warfighters
need options for a graduated escalation of force. As the Executive
Agent for the Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program, we see
the need for long-range, directed-energy systems. Marines and soldiers
in Iraq are already using non-lethal directed energy weapons; green
laser warning devices have reduced the requirement to use lethal force
at checkpoints against wayward, but otherwise innocent, Iraqi
civilians. We continue to pursue joint research and development of
promising non-lethal weapon technologies, such as the millimeter wave
Active Denial System. We thank the committee for its support of these
vital capabilities for modern warfare.
Counter-Sniper Technology
We are leveraging the work of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, our sister Services, the Marine Corps Intelligence
Activity, and the National Ground Intelligence Center in an effort to
increase our ability to counter enemy snipers. We are examining
different obscurant technologies as well as various infrared detection/
location sense and warn capabilities. We are experimenting with
advanced equipment and improved tactics, techniques, and procedures.
The ability to detect enemy optics will provide our marines warning of
impending sniper or improvised explosive device attacks and the ability
to avoid or engage the sniper before he can fire. Ongoing joint and
interagency cooperation, coupled with industry collaboration, will
shape our future experiments.
Infantry Battalion Enhancement Period Program (IBEPP)
We are fielding additional equipment to infantry battalions to
better enable marines to fight and win on the distributed and non-
linear battlefield. This equipment encompasses communications, optics,
weapons, and vehicles, at a cost of approximately $19 million per
battalion. Key elements of the IBEPP include a formal squad leader
course for every rifle battalion squad leader, a tactical small unit
leaders' course for prospective fire team leaders, and a ``Train the
Trainer'' mobile training team to teach junior tactical leaders the
skills required to more effectively train their own marines.
Command and Control (C2) Harmonization
The Marine Corps' Command and Control Harmonization Strategy
articulates our goal of delivering an end-to-end, fully-integrated,
cross-functional capability to include forward-deployed and reach-back
functions. We envision seamless support to marines in garrison and in
combat--taking the best of emerging capabilities to build a single
solution that includes the Common Aviation Command and Control System
(CAC2S), Tactical Communications Modernization (TCM) program, Very
Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT), and training.
The CAC2S fuses data from sensors, weapon systems, and command and
control systems into an integrated display, assisting commanders in
controlling organic, joint, and coalition efforts while operating as a
joint task force. Delivered in a common, modular, and scalable design,
CAC2S reduces the current systems into one hardware solution. The TCM
and VSAT programs fuse data on enemy forces into the Common Operating
Picture and increase our ability to track friendly forces. Lastly, our
C2 Harmonization Strategy increases capability to train our staffs
through Marine Air Ground Task Force Integrated System Training
Centers.
Information Operations
The ability to influence an adversary through information
operations has been a critical capability our current operations and
will be of even more importance as we continue to engage in security
cooperation efforts around the globe. To better support our Information
Operations (IO), we are standing up the Marine Corps Information
Operations Center at Quantico, VA--our primary organization to
integrate and deliver IO effects throughout the Marine Corps.
Marine Corps Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Enterprise
We are increasing the quality of our Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities through the use of an enterprise
approach known as the Marine Corps ISR Enterprise (MCISR-E)--resulting
in a fully-integrated architecture compliant with joint standards for
data interoperability. MCISR-E will provide networked combat
information and intelligence down to the squad level across the range
of military operations. To ensure marines have access to these new
capabilities, our MAGTF Command and Control systems feed combat
operation centers with information from wide field of view persistent
surveillance systems such as Angel Fire, traditional ISR systems such
as our family of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), and non-traditional
collection assets such as Ground Based Operational Surveillance System
(GBOSS). Intelligence sections down to the company level are equipped
with ISR fusion systems as well as applications such as MarineLink that
enable rapid discovery, data mining, analysis, and most importantly
incorporation of Intelligence into tactical planning for operations and
intelligence reporting down to squad level and up to higher
headquarters.
Marine Corps Operational Logistics
Operating Force Sustainment Initiatives
We have aggressively moved forward on several forward-deployed
initiatives that have improved our support to our marines in combat.
Our Marine Corps Logistics Command is working with our Marine
Expeditionary Forces on extending heavy intermediate maintenance
support within the continental United States. Maintenance Center
contact teams at Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton are extending the
service life of equipment through corrosion control and maintenance
programs that enhance predeployment readiness.
Improving Combat Readiness Through Innovation
To assure optimum use of the resources provided by Congress and the
American taxpayers, we are making innovations in how we equip, sustain,
house, and move our warfighters. We are aggressively applying the
principles of continuous process improvement to these enabling business
processes across the Corps. In just the past year, we have cut costs
and repair cycle time at both aviation and ground maintenance depots,
revamped and speeded up the urgent universal needs statements process,
and instituted regional contracting for materiel and services that is
proving more cost effective. Such improvements are expected to increase
as training and experience proliferate.
Urgent Universal Needs Statement Process
The Urgent Universal Needs Statement (UUNS) process enables
deployed commanders to request equipment based on their recent
experience. Designed to procure equipment more expediently than if
submitted in the regular budgeting process, the Marine Corps' UUNS
process uses a secure, Web-based system that provides full stakeholder
visibility from submission through resolution. Through continuous
process improvement, we have reduced our average processing time by
58.8 days. Our goal is responsive support to commanders in the field by
providing a rational, disciplined, and time-sensitive process that
fulfills their validated urgent requirements in the fastest, most
logical way. We continue to review the system for opportunities to
increase efficiency and timeliness. For example, as a result of a
February 2006 Lean Six Sigma review, several improvements were
implemented including standardization, on-line tracking, and
streamlined approval. Typically, UUNS are funded by reprogramming funds
from approved programs or through congressional supplemental funding.
They are funded with regard for current law, their effects on
established programs of record, or other initiatives in the combat
capability development process.
Information Technology Enablers/Global Combat Support System--Marine
Corps
Global Combat Support System--Marine Corps continues to make
strides toward delivering a modernized information technology system
that will enhance logistics support to the warfighter. As the primary
information technology enabler for the Marine Corps' Logistics
Modernization efforts, the system's primary design focus is to enable
the warfighter to operate while deployed and provide reach back
capability from the battlefield. At the core is modern, commercial off-
the-shelf enterprise resource planning software that will replace our
aging legacy systems. The Global Combat Support System--Marine Corps
Block 1 focuses on providing the operating forces with an integrated
supply/maintenance capability and enhanced logistics-chain-management
planning tools. Field User Evaluations and Initial Operational Test and
Evaluations are scheduled for 1st quarter fiscal year 2009, followed by
fielding of the system and Initial Operating Capability during fiscal
year 2009. Future blocks will focus on enhancing capabilities in the
areas of warehousing, distribution, logistics planning, decision
support, depot maintenance, and integration with emerging technologies
to improve asset visibility.
Secure Internet Protocol Routing Network
The Secure Internet Protocol Routing Network (SIPRNET) is our
primary warfighting command and control network. The asymmetric nature
of current attacks combined with future threats to our networks demand
a greater reliance on the SIPRNET to ensure the security of Marine
Corps warfighting and business operations. The Marine Corps is
aggressively upgrading our existing SIPRNET capabilities and an
expansion of our SIPRNET in the future will be necessary to meet
operational demands. The resources required for this expansion will
enable wider use of the SIPRNET across the Marine Corps as we
transition more warfighting and business operations into a highly
secure and trusted network.
Infrastructure Energy Considerations
The purchase of electricity, natural gas, petroleum fuels, and
potable water to operate our facilities is a significant expense.
Through proactive Facilities Energy and Water Management and
Transportation Programs to reduce consumption, we are achieving
substantial cost avoidance and environmental benefits including
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Our program
provides the direction, actions, and metrics necessary for commands to:
Reduce rate of energy use in existing facilities;
Improve facility energy efficiency of new construction
and renovations;
Expand use of renewable resources;
Reduce water usage rates on our installations;
Improve security and reliability of energy and water
systems; and
Decrease petroleum use through increased efficiency
and alternative fuel use.
Marine Corps conservation efforts have been substantial, but
installation energy and water requirements continue to increase as we
increase our end strength and adjust to rising energy prices.
v. provide our nation a naval force fully prepared for employment as a
magtf across the spectrum of conflict
The enduring value of naval expeditionary forces in protecting our
homeland, preventing crises, and winning our Nation's wars is a key
theme of the recently signed maritime strategy entitled ``A Cooperative
Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,'' the Naval Operations Concept, and
the Marine Corps Operating Concepts for a Changing Security
Environment. These documents acknowledge the uncertainty of the
strategic environment and that winning the battle for influence--and
thus preventing wars--is as important as our Nation winning wars.
Influenced by a variety of geographic, diplomatic, and geographic
factors, our country's access to strategic basing is in decline. Our
strategies address the requirement to maintain a robust forcible entry
capability: the ability to maneuver from the sea, gain and maintain
access anywhere in the littorals as well as transition to operations
ashore and sustain the force from the seabase. They provide a template
for Maritime Service capability and capacity and underscore our Marine
Corps-Navy warfighting interdependence.
These concepts and strategies also incorporate hard-fought lessons
from our current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Combat casualties
have in a very real sense become a center of gravity for America--no
matter what the cause or conflict. Therefore, ``increased risk'' and
``slower response times'' must always be calculated in terms of their
real costs--loss of life and materiel on the battlefield and then,
potentially, the loss of support of the American people.
Seapower is a distinct asymmetric advantage of the United States.
For marines, that asymmetric advantage includes Joint Seabasing, which
allows us to maximize forward presence and engagement while ``stepping
lightly'' on local sensitivities, avoiding the unintended political,
social, and economic disruptions that often result from a large
American presence ashore. It allows us to conduct a broad range of
operations in areas where access is challenged, without operational
commanders being forced to immediately secure ports and airfields.
Given diplomatic, geographic, and infrastructure constraints, Seabasing
is absolutely critical to overcoming area denial and anti-access
weapons in uncertain or openly hostile situations. The combination of
capabilities that allows us to influence events ashore from over the
horizon--amphibious warfare ships, innovative Maritime Prepositioning
Force (Future) ships, Joint High Speed Vessels, surface connectors, MV-
22s, and EFVs--play a key role in surmounting access challenges.
Seabasing is not exclusive to the Navy and Marine Corps--it will be
a national capability. In fact, we view Joint Seabasing as a national
strategic imperative. Just as the amphibious innovations championed by
the Navy-Marine Corps team during the 1920s and 1930s were employed by
all U.S. and Allied forces in every theater during World War II, we
believe that the Seabasing initiatives currently underway will expand
to become joint and interagency capabilities. Our control of the sea
allows us to use it as a vast maneuver space--365 days a year.
Seabasing allows us to project influence and expeditionary power in the
face of access challenges, a distinct asymmetric advantage. These
capabilities allow maritime forces to support our partners and to deter
and defeat adversaries in a complex and uncertain future. Today,
another generation of Naval planners continues to envision how our
amphibious capabilities can evolve into more fully sea-based operations
and better meet the Combatant Commanders' varied and competing
requirements.
Amphibious Ship Requirements
The maritime strategy advocates credible combat power as a
deterrent to future conflict. The Marine Corps supports this capability
through the flexibility and combat power of the Marine Air Ground Task
Force embarked on amphibious warfare ships. By far the most complex of
our congressionally-mandated missions, amphibious forcible entry
requires long-term resourcing and a high-level of proficiency. It is
not a capability that we can create in the wake of a threat.
The characteristics of amphibious ships (their command and control
suites, flight decks, well decks, air and surface connectors, medical
facilities, messing and berthing capacity, and survivability) merged
with the general-purpose nature of embarked marines, make them multi-
mission platforms--unbeatable in operations ranging from humanitarian
assistance to amphibious assault. These forces have brought hope and
assistance to peoples ravaged by tsunamis, earthquakes, and cyclones--
even hurricanes in our own country. They have provided a powerful
combat force from the sea as evidenced by the opening days of Operation
Enduring Freedom when marines provided the first conventional forces
ashore in Afghanistan. An equally powerful force assaulted from
amphibious ships up the Al Faw peninsula in early weeks of Operation
Iraqi Freedom. In spite of the proliferation of anti-access
technologies among state and non-state actors, Navy-Marine Corps
amphibious capabilities have answered our Nation's ``911 call'' over 85
times since the end of the Cold War. Many international navies have
recognized the value of amphibious warfare ships--as evidenced by the
global renaissance in amphibious ship construction.
Based on strategic guidance, in the last several years we have
accepted risk in our Nation's forcible entry capacity and reduced
amphibious lift from 3.0 Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault
echelons to 2.0 MEB assault echelons. In the budgetary arena, the value
of amphibious ships is too often assessed exclusively in terms of
forcible entry--discounting their demonstrated usefulness across the
range of operations and the clear imperative for marines embarked
aboard amphibious ships to meet Phase 0 demands. The ability to
transition between those two strategic goalposts, and to respond to
every mission-tasking in between, will rely on a strong Navy-Marine
Corps Team and the amphibious ships that cement our bond. The Navy and
Marine Corps have worked diligently to determine the minimum number of
amphibious ships necessary to satisfy the Nation's needs--and look
forward to working with the committee to support the Chief of Naval
Operation's shipbuilding plans.
The Marine Corps' contribution to the Nation's forcible entry
requirement is a single, simultaneously-employed two Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault capability--as part of a seabased
Marine Expeditionary Force. Although not a part of the Marine
Expeditionary Force Assault Echelon, a third reinforcing MEB is
required and will be provided via Maritime Prepositioning Force
(Future) capabilities. Each MEB assault echelon requires seventeen
amphibious warfare ships--resulting in an overall ship requirement for
34 amphibious warfare ships. However, given current fiscal constraints,
the Navy and Marine Corps have agreed to assume greater operational
risk by limiting the assault echelon of each MEB by using only 15 ships
per MEB--in other words, a Battle Force that provides 30 operationally
available amphibious warfare ships. In that 30-ship Battle Force, 10
aviation-capable big deck ships (LHA/LHD/LHA(R)) and 10 LPD-17 class
ships are required to accommodate the MEB's aviation combat element.
In order to meet a 30-ship availability rate--based on a Chief of
Naval Operations-approved maintenance factor of 10 percent--a minimum
of 11 ships of each of the current types of amphibious ships are
required--for a total of 33 ships. The Navy has concurred with this
requirement for 33 amphibious warfare ships, which provide the
``backbone'' of our maritime capability--giving us the ability to meet
the demands of harsh environments across the spectrum of conflict.
Amphibious Assault Ship (Replacement) (LHA(R))
The legacy Tarawa class amphibious assault ships reach the end of
their service life during 2011-2015. The eighth Wasp-class LHD (multi-
purpose amphibious assault ship) is under construction and will replace
one Tarawa-class ship during fiscal year 2008. To meet future
warfighting requirements and fully capitalize on the capabilities of
the MV-22 and Joint Strike Fighter, two LHA(R)-class ships with
enhanced aviation capabilities will replace the remaining LHA class
ships. These ships will provide enhanced hangar and maintenance spaces
to support aviation maintenance and increased jet fuel storage and
aviation ordnance magazines. We are investigating the feasibility of
incorporating the reduced island concept and well-deck capabilities in
future, general-purpose assault ship construction.
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. It is imperative that 11 of these ships be built
to meet the minimum of 10 necessary for the 2.0 MEB assault echelon
amphibious lift requirement.
The Navy took delivery of the first LPD-17 in the summer of 2005
and operational evaluation is scheduled for spring 2008. The LPD-17
class replaces four classes of older ships--LKA, LST, LSD-36, LPD-4--
and will have a 40-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 better 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 and the Nation.
The Maritime Prepositioning Force
Capable of supporting the rapid deployment of three Marine
Expeditionary Brigades (MEB), the Maritime Prepositioning Force is an
important element of our expeditionary warfighting capability. MPF is a
proven capability and has been used as a force deployment option in
selected contingencies, to close forces on accelerated timelines for
major combat operation, and in combination with amphibious forces to
rapidly and simultaneously react to crises in more than one theater.
The next and necessary evolution of this program is incorporation
of the Maritime Prepositioning Force-Future (MPF(F)) Squadron into the
existing MPF Program. MPF(F) is a key enabler for 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 improved capabilities such as at-sea arrival and
assembly, selective offload of specific mission sets, and long-term,
sea-based sustainment. From the sea base, the squadron will be capable
of prepositioning a single MEB's critical equipment and sustainment for
delivery--without the need for established infrastructure ashore.
While the MPF(F) is not suitable for forcible entry operations, it
is critical for the rapid build up and sustainment of additional combat
forces once our entry has been achieved by our assault echelon--
launched from amphibious assault ships. The MPF(F), along with two
legacy MPF squadrons, will give the Marine Corps the capacity to
quickly generate three MEBs in support of multiple combatant
commanders. The MPF(F) squadron composition decision was made in May
2005. That squadron is designed to consist of three aviation-capable
big-deck ships, three large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ships, three
T-AKE supply ships, three Mobile Landing Platforms, and two dense-
packed container ships. All of these will be crewed by civilian
mariners and, as stated earlier, are not designed to conduct forcible
entry operations. The program is currently in the technology
development phase of acquisition, with a Milestone B decision planned
in fiscal year 2008.
Mobile Landing Platform
The Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) is perhaps the most flexible
platform in the MPF(F) squadron. Designed to be the ``pier in the
ocean,'' the MLP is an interface platform for other surface lift ships
and vessels. Instead of ships and lighters going to a terminal on
shore, they could transfer vehicles and equipment to and from the MLP.
The ship is being designed to interface with MPF(F) Large Medium-Speed
Roll-on/Roll-off ships through sea state four and accommodate Landing
Craft Air Cushion operations in sea state three at a minimum.
Additionally other service platforms could leverage the ship as an
interface. In concert with the Navy, the MLP capabilities development
document was delivered to the Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel in
January 2007.
Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ship (T-AKE)
The T-AKE is a selectively off-loadable, afloat warehouse ship,
which is designed to carry dry, frozen, and chilled cargo; ammunition;
and limited cargo fuel. Key holds are reconfigurable for additional
flexibility. It has a day/night capable flight deck. These ships can
support the dry cargo and compatible ammo requirements of joint forces
and are the same ship class as the Combat Logistics Force T-AKE ships.
Large Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) Ship
The LMSRs were designed to accommodate the Department of Defense's
largest vehicles--such as the Abrams Tanks, Rough Terrain Cargo
Handler, and tractor trailers; this capacity is being leveraged to
support Marine Corps vehicles and equipment. These ships, modified for
MPF(F), will be very large, afloat equipment staging areas with
additional capabilities including vehicle maintenance areas, berthing,
ammunition breakout areas, two aviation operating spots, underway
replenishment equipment, MLP interface, and a 113-ton crane capable of
lifting vehicles or shipping containers. Importantly, they will also
reduce strategic airlift requirements associated with our fly-in
echelon.
Ship-to-Shore Mobility
Historically, Marine Corps amphibious power projection has included
a deliberate buildup of combat power ashore; only after establishment
of a beachhead could the Marine Air Ground Task Force begin to focus
its combat power on the joint force's operational objective. Advances
in mobility, fires, and sustainment capabilities will greatly enhance
operations from over the horizon--by both air and surface means--with
forces moving rapidly to operational objectives deep inland without
stopping to seize, defend, and build up beachheads or landing zones.
The ability to project power inland from a mobile sea base has utility
across the spectrum of conflict--from humanitarian assistance to major
combat operations. The EFV, MV-22 Osprey, and CH-53K heavy lift
helicopter are critical to achieving necessary capabilities for future
expeditionary operations.
High-Speed Connectors
High-speed connectors will facilitate sustained seabased operations
by expediting force closure and allowing the necessary sustainment for
success in the littorals. Coupled with strategic airlift and sealift
assets, the Joint High Speed Vessel and Joint Maritime Assault
Connector provide an intra-theater capability, which enables rapid
closure of Marine forces and sustainment ashore. 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.
vi. taking care of our marines and our families
Our most precious asset is the individual marine. Our marines and
families have been steadfast and faithful in their service to our
country, and we have an equally enduring obligation to them. As such,
we are committed to putting our family programs on a wartime footing--
our marines and families deserve no less.
Putting Family Readiness Programs on a Wartime Footing
Last year, we directed a rigorous assessment of our family programs
and have aggressively moved forward to improve them at every level. We
continue our assessments--targeting younger marines and their families
to ensure that we are fully addressing their needs. We request that
Congress continue to support these initiatives so that we can advance
these reforms to meet the evolving requirements of our warfighters and
their families.
Our Marine Corps Family Team Building Program and unit Family
Readiness Programs, the centerpiece to our family support capability,
was based on a peacetime model and 18-month deployment cycles. It was
also largely supported on the backs of our dedicated volunteers; our
volunteers have been performing magnificently while shouldering the
lion's share of this program--but it is time to dedicate sufficient
resources in light of the demands of our wartime operations.
We have recently initiated a sustained funding increase to
implement Marine Corps family readiness reforms in fiscal year 2008.
These reforms include:
Formalizing the role and relationship of process
owners to ensure accountability for family readiness;
Expanding programs to support the extended family of a
Marine (spouse, child, and parents);
Establishing primary duty billets for Family Readiness
Officers at regiment, group, battalion, and squadron levels;
Improving the quality of life at remote and isolated
installations;
Increasing Marine Corps Family Team Building
installation personnel;
Refocusing and applying technological improvements to
our communication network between commanders and families;
Dedicating appropriate baseline funding to command
level Family Readiness Programs; and
Developing a standardized, high-quality volunteer
management and recognition program.
The Marine Corps continues its proud heritage of ``taking care of
its own'' and ensuring family programs sustain our families and our
marines for the Long War.
Casualty Assistance
Your marines proudly assume the dangerous, but necessary, work of
serving our Nation. Some marines have paid the ultimate price, and we
continue to honor them as heroes for their immense contributions to our
country. Our casualty assistance program continues to evolve to ensure
the families of our fallen marines are always treated with the utmost
compassion, dignity, and honor.
Our trained Casualty Assistance Calls Officers provide the families
of our fallen marines assistance to facilitate their transition through
the stages of grief. Last year, congressional hearings and inquiries
into casualty next-of-kin notification processes revealed deficiencies
in three key and interrelated casualty processes: command casualty
reporting, command casualty inquiry and investigation, and next-of-kin
notification. These process failures were unacceptable. Instantaneous
with discovery of the process failures, we ordered an investigation by
the Inspector General of the Marine Corps and directed remedial action
to include issuing new guidance to commanders--reemphasizing
investigation and reporting requirements and the importance of tight
links between these two systems to properly serve marines and their
families. We will continue to monitor our processes, making every
effort to preclude any future errors and to ensure marines and families
receive timely and accurate information relating to their marine's
death or injury.
Wounded Warrior Regiment
In April 2007, the Wounded Warrior Regiment was activated to
achieve unity of command and effort in order to develop a comprehensive
and integrated approach to Wounded Warrior care. The establishment of
the Regiment reflects our deep commitment to the welfare of our
wounded, ill, and injured. The mission of the Regiment is to provide
and facilitate assistance to wounded, ill, and injured marines, sailors
attached to or in support of Marine units, and their family members,
throughout all phases of recovery. The Regiment provides non-medical
case management, benefit information and assistance, and transition
support. We use ``a single process'' that supports Active Duty,
Reserve, and separated personnel and is all inclusive for resources,
referrals, and information.
There are two Wounded Warrior Battalions headquartered at Camp
Lejeune, NC, and Camp Pendleton, CA. The Battalions include liaison
teams at major military medical treatment facilities, Department of
Veterans Affairs Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers and Marine Corps
Base Naval Hospitals. The Battalions work closely with our warfighting
units to ensure our wounded, ill and injured are cared for and continue
to maintain the proud tradition that ``Marines take care of their
own.''
The Regiment is constantly assessing how to improve the services it
provides to our wounded, ill, and injured. Major initiatives of the
Regiment include a Job Transition Cell manned by marines and
representatives of the Departments of Labor and Veteran Affairs. The
Regiment has also established a Wounded Warrior Call Center for 24/7
support. The Call Center both receives incoming calls from marines and
family members who have questions, and makes outreach calls to the
almost 9,000 wounded marines who have left active service. A Charitable
Organization Cell was created to facilitate linking additional wounded
warrior needs with charitable organizations that can provide the needed
support. Additionally, The Regiment has also strengthened its liaison
presence at the Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office. These
are just some of the initiatives that reflect your Corps' enduring
commitment to the well-being of our marines and sailors suffering the
physical and emotional effects of their sacrifices for our great
Nation.
We are at the beginning of a sustained commitment to care and
support our wounded, ill, and injured. As our Wounded Warrior Program
matures, additional requirements will become evident. Your continued
support of new legislation is essential to ensure our Wounded Warriors
have the resources and opportunities for full and independent lives.
Thank you for your personal and legislative support on behalf of
our wounded warriors. Your personal visits to them in the hospital
wards where they recover and the bases where they live are sincerely
appreciated by them and their families. Your new Wounded Warrior Hiring
Initiative to employ wounded warriors in the House and Senate
demonstrates your commitment and support of their future well-being. We
are grateful to this Congress for the many wounded warrior initiatives
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This
landmark legislation will significantly improve the quality of their
lives and demonstrates the enduring gratitude of this Nation for their
personal sacrifices. I am hopeful that future initiatives will continue
to build upon your great efforts and further benefit the brave men and
women, along with their families, who bear the burden of defending this
great country.
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
With the frequent use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and
improved protective measures that reduce mortality rates, more marines
are exposed to possible traumatic brain injuries. As with other poorly
understood injuries, there is sometimes a reluctance by individual
marines to seek medical attention at the time of the injury. Education
is the best way to reduce this stigma, and it is to be the most
effective treatment for those suffering a mild injury. TBI awareness
and education is part of pre-deployment and routine training. All
marines are being screened for TBI exposure during the post-deployment
phase and those identified as injured receive comprehensive evaluation
and treatment. A pilot program for baseline neurocognitive testing is
being implemented to improve identification of TBI and maintain
individual and unit readiness in the field. The Marine Corps continues
to work closely with DOD's Center of Excellence for Psychological
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury to continue to advance our
understanding of TBI and improve the care of all marines.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
The Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Marine Corps Training
and Education Command, Naval Health Research Center, and others are
studying ways to identify risk and protective factors for Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 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 for
those who are stress-injured. Better screening and referral of at-risk
marines are underway via pre- and post-deployment standard health
assessments that specifically screen for mental health problems. The
Department of Veterans Affairs has established comprehensive guidelines
for managing post-traumatic stress, which are available to all
Services.
The Marine Corps is grateful for the effort Congress has put into
making TBI, PTSD, and other-combat-related mental illness issues a top
priority. We will continue to do the same so that we can further
improve our knowledge and treatment of these disorders.
Combat and Operational Stress Control (COSC)
Marine Corps commanders are fully engaged in promoting the
psychological health of our marines, sailors, and family members. Our
commanders bear responsibility for leading and training tough,
resilient marines and sailors, and for maintaining strong, cohesive
units. Unit commanders have the greatest potential for detecting stress
occurrences and assessing impact on warfighters and family members. Our
leaders establish an environment where it is okay to ask for help and
that combat stress is as deserving of the same respect and care as any
physical wound of war. With the Navy's medical community, we are
expanding our program of embedding mental health professionals in
operational units--the Operational Stress Control and Readiness (OSCAR)
program--to directly support all elements of the Marine Air-Ground Task
Force. We also continue our collaboration with sister Services, the
Department of Veterans Affairs' National Center for Post-traumatic
Stress Disorder, and external agencies to determine best practices to
better support marines and their families.
Family Member Pervasive Developmental Disorders
The effectiveness of marines and sailors during deployment is
dependent upon the adequacy of support provided to family members at
home. Children of servicemembers with special needs, to include
pervasive developmental disorders, have additional medical,
educational, and social needs that are challenging to meet even when
both parents are available. The TRICARE Enhanced Care Health Option has
not been able to provide sufficient support. To address this issue, the
Marine Corps is working with the Department of Defense Office of Family
Policy Work Group on examining options to expand its Educational and
Developmental Intervention Services (EDIS), a program that delivers
Early Intervention Services to eligible infants and toddlers in
domestic and overseas areas as well as through Medically Related
Service programs in Department of Defense schools overseas.
Exceptional Family Member Program (Respite Care)
Parental stress can be heightened for families that are not only
impacted by the current operational tempo but are also caring for a
child with special needs. To focus on this need, we offer our active
duty families enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program up to
40 hours of free respite care per month for each exceptional family
member. We seek to provide a ``continuum of care'' for our exceptional
family members. In this capacity, we are using our assignment process,
working with TRICARE and the Department of the Navy Bureau of Medicine
and Surgery to expand access and availability to care, and providing
family support programs to ease relocations and ensure quality care
transitions.
Water Contamination at Camp Lejeune
Past water contamination at Camp Lejeune has been and continues to
be a very important issue for the Marine Corps. Our goal is, using good
science, determine whether exposure to the contaminated water at Camp
Lejeune resulted in any adverse health effects for our marines, their
families, and our civilian workers.
The Marine Corps continues to support the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in their health study, which is
estimated to be completed during 2009. With the help of Congress, the
highly respected National Academy of Sciences is now helping us develop
a way ahead on this difficult issue.
The Marine Corps continues to make progress notifying former
residents and workers. We have established a call center and
notification registry where the public can provide contact information
so that we can keep them apprised of the completion of these health
studies.
vii. 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 September 11, and southern
Asia in the wake of the catastrophic tsunami of 2004--to name a few.
These strategic surprises demonstrate the broad range of possibilities
for which the Marine Corps must be prepared.
The United States faces a complex mix of states who sponsor
terrorism, regional and rising peer competitors, failing states that
undermine regional stability, and a variety of violent non-state
actors--religious extremists, insurgents, paramilitary forces, pirates,
and other criminals--all serving to destabilize legitimate governments
and undermine security and stability of the greater global community.
We see this global security context as a persistent condition for the
foreseeable future.
Our Nation and its international partners are engaged in a global
struggle for influence at the same time our access to many areas is
acutely challenged--diplomatically, militarily, and geographically. In
the past, the United States has maintained large forces on a
significant number of permanent bases beyond our shores. Today,
however, we have far fewer installations overseas. When conflict is
imminent or crises occur, which may require land-based forces, we must
conduct extensive diplomatic negotiations to acquire basing rights.
Because of local and regional political, social, or economic pressures,
even countries friendly to the United States decline to host or place
conditional restrictions on basing U.S. forces. Furthermore,
proliferation of anti-access technology among state and non-state
actors further diminishes access opportunities.
Our national interests increasingly require us to operate in
remote, developing regions of the world where infrastructure is either
insufficient or rendered useless by natural disasters. The growing
trend of violent, transnational extremism is especially prevalent in
many of these remote areas. In addition to ethnic and religious
intolerance, many developing regions are troubled with economic
challenges and infectious diseases. These problems are especially
severe in the densely populated urban centers common to the world's
littorals, resulting in discontented populations ripe for exploitation
by extremist ideologues and terrorist networks. We estimate that by the
2035 timeframe, more than 75 percent of the world's population will
live within just 120 miles of the ocean; alternative energy sources
will not be mature, so industrial and, increasingly, developing nations
will depend on the free flow of oil and natural gas. Fresh water will
be as equally important as petroleum products; during the 20th century,
while the global population increased 300 percent, the demand for water
increased 600 percent. Demographics and the aging of the population in
industrial countries, accompanied by a youth bulge in developing
countries, will literally change the face of the world as we know it.
The U.S. technological advantage, economic power, and military might
still exceed that of other nations, but will not be nearly as dominant.
Given these strategic conditions, the requirement for maritime
forces to project U.S. power and influence has increased--and will
continue to increase. With its inherent advantages as a seabased and
expeditionary force, the Marine Corps can quickly reach key areas of
the globe in spite of challenges to U.S. access. The Marine Corps and
its naval partners will expand the application of seapower across an
even wider range of operations to promote greater global security,
stability, and trust--key objectives for winning the Long War. Our
seabased posture will allow us to continue to conduct ``Phase 0''
operations with a variety of allies and partners around the world to
ease sources of discontent and deter conflict. We must increase our
capacity for these operations without forfeiting our warfighting
prowess in the event of a major regional conflict. As a forward-
deployed force, we are able to achieve familiarity with various
environments, as well as behavioral patterns of regional actors--
contributing to our significant advantage in speed and flexibility.
Recently combat-tested in the Middle East and historically engaged
in the Pacific, the Marine Corps will seek to further enhance its
operational capabilities in the Pacific theater. Some areas like Africa
offer unique challenges and opportunities for significant U.S.
engagement. The shear breadth and depth of that great continent present
their own challenges, but given the operational flexibility afforded by
Seabasing and the extended reach of the MV-22 and KC-130J, the future
bodes well for the ability of dispersed units of marines--with
interagency partners--to extend our partnerships within the continent
of Africa.
Security Cooperation MAGTF
The linchpin of future marine efforts to support the engagement
requirements of combatant commanders to build partnership capacity will
be the Security Cooperation Marine Air Ground Task Force. Similar to a
Marine Expeditionary Unit but regionally-focused and task organized for
security cooperation, Security Cooperation MAGTFs will provide training
and assistance to partner nations--shaping the environment and
deterring irregular adversaries.
The units comprising the Security Cooperation MAGTF are general
purpose forces, which will maintain a foundation of excellence in
combined arms and the full range of military operations. Additional
training in culture, language, and foreign internal defense will
further prepare these units for the unique tasks needed to train
foreign militaries. Able to aggregate and disaggregate based on mission
requirements, elements of the Security Cooperation MAGTFs will be
capable of operating for sustained periods and will help prepare the
militaries of partner nations to disrupt irregular adversaries and
reduce the requirement for U.S. forces to be committed to these
regions.
Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI)/Guam
Our recent force posture agreement reached under the auspices of
the Defense Policy Review Initiative with Japan is facilitating an
opportunity to more effectively employ Marine Corps forces while
mitigating the effects of encroachment around United States facilities
in Japan. The most significant DPRI action is completion of the Futenma
Replacement Facility on Okinawa. Its completion is a prerequisite for
realignment of Marine units north of Kadena Air Force Base on Okinawa,
shifting KC-130s from Futenma to Iwakuni, Japan, and movement of
approximately 8,000 marines and their family members from Okinawa,
Japan, to Guam. The Government of Japan is prepared to bear much of the
cost associated with the planned changes, but there are still
significant remaining military construction and other infrastructure
needs that require United States financial support. For the past 2
years, the Marine Corps has worked with numerous stakeholders to shape
the eventual basing of forces onto Guam. The Department of Navy-led
Joint Guam Program Office is leading the detailed facility-level
planning effort to support the force buildup on Guam. The Marine Corps
is working with Joint Guam Program Office, the Secretary of the Navy,
and Commander, United States Pacific Command to ensure plans meet
operational requirements.
Law of the Sea Convention
To be able to maneuver from the seas in a timely and reliable
manner, and in concert with the U.S. Navy, we support joining the Law
of the Sea Convention. Joining the Convention will best preserve the
navigation and overflight rights that we need to reliably maneuver and
project power from the sea.
The Future of Training and Education
With Marine forces so heavily engaged in counterinsurgency
operations, we will have to take extraordinary steps to retain the
ability to serve as the Nation's shock troops in major combat
operations. Continued congressional support of our training and
education programs will enable 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 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.
Marine Corps University (MCU)
We have made substantial improvements in our Officer and Enlisted
Professional Military Education (PME) programs and have significant
improvements planned for the future. Marine Corps War College was the
first senior Service college to be certified as Joint PME II and will
soon undergo accreditation as part of the process for joint education
accreditation by the Joint Staff. The Command and Staff resident and
non-resident programs are scheduled for Joint PME I reaccreditation in
September 2008. We have integrated irregular warfare instruction
throughout all levels of PME; at the same time, balance between
irregular and conventional warfare has been maintained so as not to
lose sight of our essential core competencies, including amphibious
operations. Additionally, MCU has led the way for integration of
culture and language by continually refining their curricula to provide
proper balance among PME, culture, and language.
Last year we conducted a comprehensive assessment of the health of
PME. The assessment examined six areas: students, curriculum,
educational programs, staff, infrastructure, and policy. We are working
diligently to improve our information technology and infrastructure by
developing a facility master plan to accommodate needed growth. We must
develop an aggressive plan and commit resources for additional faculty,
facilities, and resources. The assessment was informative--we have
world-class students, curricula, and faculty as evidenced by marines'
performance on today's battlefields. With continued Congressional
support, we can build our information technology and facility structure
to match.
Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned
Our Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned applies lessons from
operational experiences as well as those of the Joint Staff, other
Services, and Joint Forces Command to guide efforts for ``fine tuning''
and transforming our force. This rapid, continuous process ensures the
latest enemy and friendly tactics, techniques, and procedures are used
in training and are part of the decisionmaking for institutional
changes. In 2007, as result of these lessons learned, the Marine Corps
implemented changes in predeployment training in such areas as
detention operations; transition teams; interagency coordination of
stability, support, transition, and reconstruction operations;
irregular warfare; and the role of forensics in counterinsurgency
operations.
Center for Irregular Warfare
In 2007, we established the Center for Irregular Warfare as the
primary Marine Corps agency for identifying, coordinating, and
implementing irregular warfare capability initiatives. The Center
reaches out through the Center for Advanced Operational Culture
Learning (CAOCL) and Security Cooperation Education and Training Center
(SCETC) to other military and civilian agencies. Last year, the CAOCL
expanded beyond pre-deployment unit training by offering operational
culture, regional studies, and limited language courses for officer
professional military education programs. Thus far, approximately 2,100
new lieutenants have been assigned regions for career long-term study
through the regional learning concept, which will be expanded this year
to include sergeants, staff sergeants, and captains. Both officer and
enlisted marines will receive operational culture education throughout
their careers. We plan to have Language Learning Resource Centers at
the eight largest Marine Corps bases and stations to provide local, on-
call, operational language training. Congressional support, to include
recent supplemental funding, has been invaluable.
Since early 2006, our SCETC formalized our military advisor
training process and trained over thirty transition teams fiscal year
2007. In fiscal year 2008, the SCETC is scheduled to train over 100
teams (over 2,000 marine advisors) as well as stand up a Marine Corps
Training Advisory Group to manage the global sourcing of future
transition and security cooperation teams.
Foreign Area Officers
The Marine Corps has begun an expansion of its Foreign Area Officer
(FAO) program in response to the wide-spread demand for language and
cultural expertise for worldwide service with the Defense Attache
System and combined, joint, and Service headquarters. As a result, the
training of Marine FAOs will more than double in the near term. In
addition to our traditional emphasis on Arabic, Russian, and Chinese,
FAOs selected this year will learn more than a dozen different foreign
languages, including Pashto, Hindi, Thai, French, and Indonesian.
Training Marine Air Ground Task Forces
Operations in support of the Long War have significantly increased
our training requirements. To meet deployment requirements and remain
skilled in the full spectrum of operations, 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 limited
time for training was the establishment of a standardized and well-
defined Predeployment Training Program. Subsequently, we have
instituted two additional training efforts: the Marine Combat
Operations Training Group and the Infantry Battalion Enhancement Period
Program.
Marine Corps Tactics and Operations Group (MCTOG)
We recently established the MCTOG to provide standardized training
and instructor qualifications for ground combat elements, similar to
our exceptionally successful Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics
Instructor Course in Yuma, AZ. The MCTOG is developing and implementing
a Ground Combat Element Operations and Tactics Training Program to
provide advanced training in MAGTF operations, combined arms training,
and unit training management and readiness at the battalion and
regimental levels. We will improve unit preparation and performance by:
Providing focused, advanced instruction for key
battalion and regimental staff personnel, and
By assisting with the identification and vetting
training requirements and deficiencies for our ground combat
elements.
Located at Twentynine Palms MAGTF Training Center, the MCTOG will
reach an Initial Operating Capability by spring 2008 and a Full
Operating Capability by spring 2009.
Marine Aviation Training Systems Program (ATS)
Marine Aviation, through Aviation Training Systems (ATS), is
pursuing the development of fully integrated training systems at the
post-accession aviation officer and enlisted level, to greatly enhance
operational readiness, improved safety through greater standardization,
and to significantly reduce the life-cycle cost of maintaining and
sustaining aircraft. ATS will plan, execute, and manage Marine Aviation
training to achieve individual and unit combat readiness through
standardized training across all aviation core competencies.
Twentynine Palms Land Expansion
The Marine Corps currently lacks a comprehensive training
capability to exercise all elements of a MAGTF in an environment that
replicates operational conditions with our current equipment--as our
new weapons systems have greatly increased ranges over legacy systems.
As a result, we are conducting planning studies for expansion of our
range complex at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in
Twentynine Palms, CA. Implementing this action will involve acquiring
land and seeking assignment of airspace by the Federal Aviation
Administration in support of large-scale MAGTF live fire and maneuver
training. This will give us the maneuver space to simultaneously train
three to four battalions in the range complex and train with our
current equipment. Our proposed complex will further facilitate the use
of the Western Range Training Complex and lead to the capability for
future large-scale MAGTF, Coalition, and Joint National Training Center
training.
Modernization of Training Ranges
In 2001, we activated a Range and Training Area Management
Division, and in 2004, we began a comprehensive investment program to
sustain, upgrade, and modernize our training infrastructure. This
modernization effort provides tools for better planning and execution
of live training. The four principles of our program are:
Preserve and enhance our live-fire combined arms
training ranges. The full development of our doctrine and the
integrated employment of air and ground weapons will continue
to require access to the volume of land and air space available
at these larger installations.
Recapture the unit-training capabilities of the
Nation's two premier littoral training areas, Camp Lejeune and
Camp Pendleton. The transition of expeditionary combat power
from sea to shore remains among the most challenging of
military tasks, and we must reorient and update our training
capabilities.
Provide timely and objective feedback to marines who
are training. Proficiency with individual weapons and in
combined-arms requires that we provide venues that have the air
and land space to allow realistic employment and the
instrumentation and targetry to provide objective, actionable
feedback.
Ensure our complexes are capable of supporting joint
forces. Common range infrastructure and systems architecture to
support the joint national training capability are requirements
of our modernization program.
The range modernization program is a program of record
and has successfully programmed the resources to continue
operating and maintaining the many investments made with
supplemental and congressional-add funds.
Core Values and Ethics Training
As part of our ethos, we continually seek ways to improve ethical
decisionmaking at all levels. In 2007, we implemented the following
initiatives to strengthen our Core Values training:
Tripled the amount of time Drill Instructor and
recruits conduct ``foot locker talks'' on values;
Institutionalizing habits of thought for all marines
operating in counterinsurgencies, the message of the importance
of ethical conduct in battle, and how to be an ethical warrior
is being strengthened and re-emphasized at all levels of the
Marine Corps;
Published pocket-sized Law of War, Rules of
Engagement, and Escalation of Force guides;
Increased instruction at our Commander's Course on
command climate and the commander's role in cultivating
battlefield ethics, accountability, and responsibility; and
Educated junior marines on the ``strategic corporal''
and the positive or negative influence they can have; and
Reinvigorated the values component of our Marine Corps
Martial Arts Program, which teaches 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.''
viii. conclusion
The Marine Corps continues to create a multi-capable force for our
Nation--not only for the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
but also for subsequent campaigns of the Long War. We are committed to
ensuring we remain where our country needs us, when she needs us, and
to prevail over whatever challenges we face. Your continued support has
been critical to our readiness for today and adaptation for tomorrow. I
promise you that the Corps understands the value of each dollar
provided and will continue to provide maximum return for every dollar
spent.
Perhaps most importantly to keep in mind as we develop our force
for the future, everything we read about the future indicates that
well-trained, well-led human beings with a capacity to absorb
information and rapidly react to their environment have a tremendous
asymmetric advantage over an adversary. Ladies and gentlemen, that
advantage goes to us. Our young marines are courageous, willing to make
sacrifices and, as evidenced by our progress in Al-Anbar, capable of
operating in complex environments. Quiet in their duty yet determined
in their approach, they are telling us loud and clear that wherever
there is a job to be done, they will shoulder that mission with
enthusiasm. On behalf of your marines, I extend great appreciation for
your support thus far and thank you in advance for your ongoing efforts
to support our brave service men and women in harm's way.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, General.
Let's try an 8-minute round.
Secretary, I made reference to these huge cost overruns
that have dogged our acquisition programs. Are you making
systemic changes to try to overcome those?
Secretary Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Two specific areas
that I would highlight, one of which has to do with the overall
processes that we go through within the Department to establish
a program, and in particular to ensure that all the
requirements are properly defined and completed prior to the
initiation of advanced development activities.
We're also going through a very significant activity to
assure that we have the right work force to be able to both
manage and oversee the acquisition activities themselves. This
includes everything from the numbers to the appropriate
training of the individuals that are put into the specific
roles.
Chairman Levin. Is there ever any accountability for the
failure to meet these cost estimates?
Secretary Winter. The accountability is imposed both within
the Navy team itself as well as with the contractor community.
One of the things that we try on the contractor side is to
provide appropriate incentives that give the contractor
financial inputs should they fail to meet the appropriate
financial and schedule targets.
Similarly, on the military side, in terms of the
acquisition community, this is a major factor that we use in
the evaluation of people relative to their future assignments
and future careers.
Chairman Levin. Admiral, I made reference to your Navy
personnel who are serving not in their regular billets.
Instead, they're being used as IAs. Do we have some way of
assessing the impact of that on readiness or in other areas?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, Senator, we do. We have been
assigning our sailors and IAs for a couple of years now and, as
someone who in a previous assignment was responsible for the
direct management of that, we have created a structure and
oversight to properly pair the individual with the mission to
be accomplished when they go forward, and at the same time as
we're doing that we look at what effect that individual will
have on the readiness of the sourcing command.
What I have found is that the process that we have in
place, the way that we identify, allows us to put the
appropriate capability forward while not diminishing the
readiness of our Fleet.
Chairman Levin. Admiral, you made reference to the recent
use of a modified missile defense interceptor, Standard Missile
3, along with a modified version of the Aegis BMD system, to
shoot down that failed satellite. Can you confirm that the
modifications that were made to the interceptor missile and the
Aegis weapons system were unique, one-time modifications
exclusively for this one mission, and that the Aegis BMD system
could not perform its required missile defense mission with
those one-time modifications?
Admiral Roughead. Those were one-time modifications,
Senator, that were done on a finite number of missiles. The
missiles that were not used in this mission will be
reconfigured back to the anti-ballistic missile configuration.
Chairman Levin. In terms of the Aegis BMD system, can you
confirm that that system which was deployed does not have the
capability to shoot down satellites, with the one exception of
that unique mission?
Admiral Roughead. I can confirm that, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Secretary and Admiral, in your written
statements you made reference to the importance of United
States approval and accession to the Law of the Sea Convention
in order to carry out our maritime strategy. We've held a
hearing on that convention. The Foreign Relations Committee has
voted it out of committee. It's on the calendar.
Can you just briefly indicate here publicly that you do
support that convention?
Secretary Winter. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm supportive of
that. I think it's important that we have a seat at the table
as part of that convention and have an opportunity to engage
with the other members, signatories to that convention, as the
convention evolves over the years to come.
Chairman Levin. Admiral, do you join that?
Admiral Roughead. I do, sir. I can attest from my command
positions in the Atlantic and Pacific that by not being a party
to that treaty, it actually inhibited the activities that we
could pursue with other navies.
Chairman Levin. Is the administration committed at the
highest levels to pursuing Senate approval of the ratification
of the Law of the Sea Convention in this session of Congress?
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Winter. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Admiral, do you know?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. General, let me ask you about the issue
which was referred to at some length in this morning's
Washington Post, which has had other references as well, and
that's the question of Anbar Province, its success in turning
against the extremists which you made reference to, and for
which everybody is obviously pleased and grateful.
The movement, which is called in various places and times
the Sunni Awakening, or Concerned Local Citizens, or Sons of
Iraq, is, according to a number of reports, including this
morning's paper, fraying somewhat and could collapse because
too few of their members are being offered positions in the
Iraqi security forces, there are limited opportunities for
other jobs, they are being targeted by al Qaeda, they are
distrusted by too much of the Shia-dominated government, and
they have been complaining of insufficient support by the
United States.
In the mean time, that provincial powers law which calls
for provincial elections to be held by October 1 and was seen
by the Sunni Arab community as a way to gain political power,
has been vetoed by the Shia member of the presidency council,
as we read yesterday or the day before. I just would like to
ask you this question because you and your troops have played
such a key role in Anbar and the success that has taken place
there.
Are you concerned that those Sunni Arabs may once again
take up arms against the coalition, become insurgents again,
which of course would then threaten to unravel many of the
gains which have been achieved during the surge?
General Conway. Sir, I'm not concerned that that could
happen in the near term, but we are concerned about some of the
things you cite and about some of the things which you read in
the article this morning. There have been significant security
gains and there are, even as we speak, the tribal frictions now
as they elbow for power at the provincial level, but also as
they endeavor to plug in at the national level.
We're conscious of those things. We have people dedicated
to working those things with the central government in Baghdad,
to try to ensure that they understand the value of
incorporating Sunnis into the government if we are to see one
Iraq stay together in the future.
So we monitor those things. We try to mitigate those things
through discussion. We talk of the value of synergy, of all of
the tribes and all of the political parties coming together as
they plug into Baghdad. But we're not concerned that there is
any near-term danger of a return to the levels of violence that
we have seen.
Chairman Levin. Is it fair to say that unless those
problems are addressed that there could be a significant
problem in the longer term?
General Conway. Sir, I think that's fair. We have always
talked about the three legs of the stool: the security, the
economics, and the political. We can, in our current role of
providing security and doing some nation-building in the
province, help most with the security and the economics. We are
less able to be involved in the political aspect of things,
although we engage where we can.
We certainly are pushing to keep the provincial elections
October 1, because we think that will be a significant
advancement on behalf of the Sunni tribes out west and an
opportunity for them to again further engage with the central
government.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Warner?
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, let's return to the shipbuilding budget, the
out-year objective of 313 ships. Clearly, in your position you
have first drawn on an extensive background prior to coming to
the Navy Secretariat of managing major programs for the very
top levels of our defense structure, TRW and Northrop and
others. How confident are you that in the out-years you can
reach, or perhaps I should say a successor to you could reach,
the 313 level? What steps are you putting in place to ensure
that that takes place in the out-years?
Secretary Winter. Senator, I think that as we take a look
out in time our understanding obviously is much better in the
current years, in the near years. I'm confident that we have a
viable program for 2009 and for the immediate years around
that. As we go out further in time there are a number of
uncertainties associated with everything from the cost of
production to the overall requirements that have yet to be
defined for many of the future systems, programs like the Ohio-
class replacement, programs like CG(X), which is still in the
process of going through its early definition phases.
I am hopeful that we will still be able to obtain a 313-
ship target in a timely manner, but that is going to require a
significant effort on the part both of the Navy and industry to
work together, to make significant changes to the acquisition
process, including in particular stabilizing requirements, and
having, if you will, a limit on our appetite for those
requirements as we go through program definition.
Furthermore, significant effort is going to be required, I
believe, to modernize our facilities for the construction of
ships and the combat systems that go on them. That investment
is going to require, I believe, a concerted effort on the part
of both the Navy and industry.
Senator Warner. You're going to put in place a series of
benchmarks that have to be made by you and your successors, and
in what year do you hope to obtain, what fiscal year, the level
of 313 ships?
Secretary Winter. We've laid out the program right now into
the 2020----
Admiral Roughead. 2019 is when they cross.
Senator Warner. 2019 is the year?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Is that predicated on some significant top
line readjustment in the allocation of resources by the
Secretary of Defense between the Navy, the Army, and the Air
Force?
Secretary Winter. Sir, that has a number of assumptions in
it. It does assume an average expenditure of about $15.8
billion a year in 2007 dollars to be able to accomplish that.
That is more than what we're spending right now, but hopefully
it is an amount that is achievable within the current
allocation process.
There are aspects that I would like to note are not
included in that estimate. It does not include the costs
associated with nuclear power for future surface combatants and
it does not include the cost estimates associated with Ohio-
class replacement.
Senator Warner. It's a challenge, but I think it's
imperative that we meet that challenge in view of the fact that
other nations now recognize the importance of having
significant maritime capabilities in their military forces.
General, I'm going to follow onto the line of questions by
the chairman with regard to Afghanistan. I suppose that theater
concerns this Senator the most of all the challenges that face
us today. The marines are heading in in significant numbers,
the thought being perhaps the success that the marines had in
al-Anbar can be used as a blueprint to try and achieve greater
success in Afghanistan.
Would you address that concept and your own professional
judgment as to whether or not there is a transferability of
that strategy in al-Anbar which has been successful, for what
in my judgment is a continuing serious, in some ways
deteriorating, situation in Afghanistan, with the ever
strengthening resurgence of the Taliban?
General Conway. Sir, I don't think there's a direct
transfer because the missions will be slightly different. That
those marines will take in lessons that come right from our
Small Wars Manual and the decades of dealing with Third World
countries, if you will, I think will be extremely valuable. But
whereas in al-Anbar we owned ground and had responsibility for
all of the villages and all of the cities, neither the
battalion that's going in nor the Marine Expeditionary Unit
(MEU) will be assigned primary responsibility for ground. The
MEU we believe will be used as a response task force,
immediately commanded by the Commander of International
Security Assistance Force, valuable we think particularly
during a spring offensive if we see one, valuable if we decide
to launch our own spring offensive against Taliban locations.
The battalion coming off the West Coast will be primarily
involved with training police and the army, and their utility
will be at the various police stations throughout their region
of assignment, in terms of securing the area to a degree that
these people can operate with the populace.
Senator Warner. So the first battalion would be in the
nature of a September 11 force, to go anywhere within
Afghanistan to confront high level insurgents?
General Conway. I think that's fair, sir.
Senator Warner. That's interesting. The second primarily
for the training of the Afghan forces?
General Conway. That's correct, sir.
Senator Warner. Now, I mentioned the very interesting piece
that I saw last night. You're readjusting your order for the
new MRAP, is that correct?
General Conway. No, sir. If you're talking about the
protective vest, the individual armor----
Senator Warner. Let's go vest and vehicle.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Whichever one you want first.
General Conway. Sir, we did adjust our requirement for
MRAP. We initially asked for 3,700 vehicles and the thought
process was a one-for-one replacement of our uparmored Humvees
with the MRAPs. The uparmored Humvees were simply not standing
up to underbody explosions to the degree that we had hoped
would be the case, and the MRAP had proven itself over time
with the ability to do that.
What we have discovered as those MRAPs have started to
arrive in theater in large numbers is that, particularly out
west, they are not able to cross some of the bridges that
aren't that well built.
Senator Warner. Because of the weight?
General Conway. Yes, sir, exactly. They are heavy vehicles,
48,000 pounds with the heaviest of the lot.
They also don't maneuver as well off road. So what we've
found is that those patrols need to be a combination of MRAPs
and uparmored Humvees in order to be most successful and to
accomplish the mission. So we have reduced our buy to something
more on the order of about 2,300 vehicles, and saving we think
in the process about $1.7 billion for the Government.
Senator Warner. Now, what about the utility of that vehicle
with your forces in Afghanistan?
General Conway. Sir, we think there will be some utility.
When I was there, I looked at, in fact, the arrival of the
first 36 vehicles. We think there will be a total of about 38,
something less than 40. It is not as applicable in large
portions of the Afghan terrain even as it is in Iraq, because
of the mountainous nature. But there are roadways there, there
are some desert plains there, where we do think it will have
value, and we fully intend to use it with our engineers, our
route clearance people, and our Explosive Ordinance Disposal
personnel clearing Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
Senator Warner. Let's conclude my time with the vest
situation. That's been a very controversial subject here in
Congress and certainly in the minds of the public. Where are we
in your judgment on the amount of protective armor for the
average marine, and are you going to make an adjustment once
again in the type of vest that you think is best suited for the
combat situations?
General Conway. Sir, as a former marine I think you know
that there is always a tradeoff between weight and protection
and the mobility of the individual marine, and we continue with
that dynamic even today. We think that the vests that we have
protect our people exceedingly well.
What we are hearing now from the marines in the Fleet and
the marines in Iraq and Afghanistan is they don't like this
most recent vest because it is three or four pounds heavier
than the vest that it replaced. It takes, depending on how you
put it on, two people to put on the vest. It has a quick
release element that the old vest did not have, but when a
marine straps in his rifle that quick release capacity is
diminished or disappears.
I wore it myself on my visit to the theater over
Thanksgiving last year and, frankly, I have a big head and big
ears and it's painful putting it on and taking it off, and many
marines have experienced that same thing.
Senator Warner. Then where do we go from here? Are we going
to go back to the previous vest and produce more of that?
General Conway. Sir, what I have done is told my commander
at Quantico who handles such things to simply stop purchase on
the remaining 24,000 vests. We need to go back and investigate.
There were over 100 marines who field tested the vests for us
back in 2006 and declared it ``good to go,'' if you will. But
we're not getting that same report from the marines in theater
who now wear it on a daily basis in combat.
So I think we need to reassess at this point. I assure you,
sir, there is no loss of protection either way, with either the
old vest or the new vest. It's just a question whether or not
we have made an advancement in this.
Senator Warner. Are you working with the Army? Are you
sharing that experience?
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Are they experiencing the same problem with
this vest?
General Conway. Sir, I don't know that. I'm just back from
the theater and my guys at Quantico are reinvigorating the
discussion.
Senator Warner. It seems to me that answer is important to
achieve. There should be some parallelism between because the
missions are comparable.
General Conway. It's my belief, sir, that the Army has not
invested in what we call the OTV, which is this latest variant,
that they're still wearing the vest that we were stepping away
from. We thought that this new vest that ostensibly carried the
weight better on the hips and gave us slightly more protection
was again a step up. I am not absolutely certain of that today.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning again. General Conway, according to the recent
press reports an internal Marine Corps study found that the
general in command of our Marine Forces in western Iraq sent an
urgent request 3 years ago this month for over 1,000 MRAPs, but
the urgent request was apparently lost in the bureaucracy and
never made it to the senior levels of the Marine Corps. As we
know, it took the Secretary of Defense's intervention in 2007
to fix the broken bureaucracy and get a sufficient number of
the MRAPs to our forces in Iraq.
Secretary Gates said last June: ``The way I put it to
everyone is that you have to look outside the normal
bureaucratic way of doing things and so does industry, because
lives are at stake. For every month we delay, scores of young
Americans are going to die.''
The recent Marine Corps study itself states that: ``If mass
procurement and fielding of MRAPs had begun in 2005 in response
to the known threats, as the Marine Corps is doing today,
hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented.''
The Marine Corps now has questioned the press report,
saying that that study was not an official Marine Corps study
and that its conclusions are the investigators' own. Recently,
General Magnus, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps,
stated: ``I don't think the study stands up to the facts about
what we did, about what the industry was capable of doing, and
why we did what we did. I just don't think it's accurate.''
A Naval Audit Service report last September, however,
supported the Marine Corps study and its accusations of
inefficiency when it concluded that the Marine Corps had not
established adequate oversight for the urgent needs of its
forces.
Two days ago, the Marine Corps finally began to acknowledge
the seriousness of the study's conclusion and asked the
Pentagon's Inspector General (IG) to investigate the
allegations. It seems, however, that the Marine Corps is still
focused on downplaying the issue of getting the MRAPs to Iraq
and missing the bigger issue, which is the Marine Corps
bureaucracy.
The Naval Audit stated: ``As the study concluded, MRAP is
just one current example of how a loss of time had direct and
measurable consequences on the battlefield. Marine Corps combat
development organizations are not optimized to provide
responsive, flexible, relevant solutions to commanders in the
field.''
The Naval Audit report last September agreed, stating that
``the Marine Corps bureaucracy was broken and the ability to
accomplish the mission could be undermined and the delivery of
the equipment delayed.''
So could you tell us about how you explain the differences
between the Marine Corps statements that dismiss the MRAP
study's conclusion and the Naval Audit report that the Marine
Corps bureaucracy is broken?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I'd be happy to. Sir, first of
all, I would not characterize the series of events just as you
describe. First of all, we asked the marine, former marine, now
a GS-15, who works for us to write a letter to his boss to
explain his concerns that we had read about in the media or had
been advised about from Senators on the Hill.
Senator Kennedy. This was done when?
General Conway. It's been done recently, sir. I think
within the past several weeks.
But going back to the issue of the MRAP request, sir, in
February 2005, if were Major General Dennis Hejlik sitting in
this chair, who was the officer who signed off on the request,
he would tell you that he was asking for uparmored Humvees, M-
1114s. We had a few at that time, but we had very few. He felt
like that was the armor of choice and the vehicle that we
needed for all of our marines when he signed off on the
request. He had little knowledge of what an MRAP was at that
point.
That's the second point I would make to you, sir, is that
at that point there were probably half a dozen of the actual
MRAP vehicles, the Cougars with the V-shaped bottom, in the
theater. We were having maintenance issues with some of those
vehicles.
At that point, sir--and this is the third point--only about
10 percent of the attacks that we were seeing, and in most
months less than that, were underbody explosions. What General
Hejlik was concerned about were the side of the road explosions
that were destroying our vehicles and killing marines.
So to say that we knew at that time that a vehicle that had
far from proven itself, against a threat that was by no means
the major threat, was what we needed to buy is, I think in some
regards, some excellent 20-20 hindsight.
Senator Kennedy. The point that is made is the fact that
the Naval Audit Report Number One recommends that by April 30
you promulgate a Marine Corps order defining the roles,
responsibilities, and desired outcomes of urgent need process.
So obviously they made a finding and a judgment that the
process and procedure at the current time was not working well,
at least according to this naval report.
Now, where do you stand with promulgating that, this order?
General Conway. Sir, we have put something out on that in
the wake of that report, and I will be the first to acknowledge
that no bureaucratic process is without means of improvement.
The Secretary works hard with us, with Lean Six Sigma----
Senator Kennedy. I don't understand. You put something out?
Explain that to me. I don't understand what's putting something
out? This says promulgate. Their recommendation is by the 30th
you promulgate a Marine Corps order defining the roles,
responsibilities, desired outcome for the process, which is the
urgent need process.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Has that been done yet?
General Conway. Yes, sir, it has been done.
Senator Kennedy. It has been done?
General Conway. I would add further, sir, that we have
asked for, in the wake of this issue coming to light once
again, we have asked for a Department of Defense (DOD) IG
investigation, because we think when the facts are fully known
that they will----
Senator Kennedy. When was that done?
General Conway. Within the last 10 days, while I was on the
trip to Iraq.
So that all the facts can be brought to bear, and we think
that the conclusion will be that well-intended men, very much
concerned about the welfare of the marines, made prudent
decisions at the time to bring forward the best capability we
could to protect our people in combat.
Senator Kennedy. If you look at the whole process, it
appears that it took the Secretary of Defense's intervention in
2007 to get the order. This is what Secretary Gates himself
said: ``The way I put it to everyone is you have to look
outside the bureaucratic way of doing things, and so does
industry. Lives are at stake.''
The audit makes that recommendation for the marines to
date. I understand what you've said now is that you issued the
response to the Naval Audit Report Number One.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. That has been done.
General Conway. Sir, if I could, with all due respect to
Secretary Gates, when I became the Commandant in November 2006,
at that point our commanders were advocating that we replace
our uparmored Humvees with the MRAP vehicle. That became my
theme then for purchase of those vehicles.
If I could offer another quote, it was when I had said that
by that point in time that we had had 300 underbody attacks
against the MRAP and had not lost a single marine or sailor,
the Secretary was impressed with that quality of the vehicle
and then made it his number one priority in the DOD.
Senator Kennedy. My time is up. I'm interested in the
process of the request that was made and how the Marine Corps
bureaucracy responded to that urgent request. I think you've
answered the question with regards to the desirability of that
particular system and alternative systems. But that doesn't get
away from the underlying point about whether the system is
functioning and working when these urgent requests come up
which are necessary.
I'll look forward to looking through the report.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Admiral Roughead, there's been a lot of discussion about
the cost of the DDG-1000 and some House Members are quoted in
Defense Daily today as going so far as to suggest the diversion
of funds from the budget in order to buy other kinds of ships.
What is often overlooked in the discussion of the DDG-1000 are
three factors: first, that the requirements are actually for 8
to 12 DDG-1000s rather than the 7 that are in the long-term
plan; second, the technological advancements that have been
incorporated into the ship, that will give the Navy much-needed
capabilities; and third, the cost savings that will result when
you look at the life-cycle cost from the much smaller crew size
for the DDG-1000. If memory serves me correctly, I believe that
the DDG-51 requires 338 sailors and we're looking at a crew
size of only 142 sailors for the DDG-1000.
Could you comment, please, on the capabilities issue, the
requirements, and the cost?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, Senator, I will. The DDG-1000
introduces more new technology that will inform our future Navy
combatants than any other ship class that we've ever fielded.
The new technologies that we have put into that, the most
significant one I believe is what you mentioned, reducing the
crew size. Our ships of the future must have smaller crews.
With respect to some of the press reporting that I have
read about using the DDG-1000 to perhaps be used, the resources
for that to be used for other ship classes, I'm very concerned
that we do not disrupt our combatant lines. Right now we are
developing a new Fleet of ships. If you look across it from
submarines to combatants to amphibious ships, we are
introducing all new classes. The Virginia-class is coming on
line. It's a great submarine. The prices are coming down. We're
doing the right thing there.
The Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD)-17. Even though we had
some growing pains when that ship came out, we're now in the
process of getting into the flow of that ship, and in fact on
Saturday I'm going down to participate in the christening of
New York, our most recent LPD-17. The T-AKEs, that line is
moving well.
The areas where I am most concerned about are in our
combatant lines: the DDG-1000, our new destroyer, and where we
will take that ship to bridge to the new cruiser that we're
beginning to work on now, but also the LCS.
I believe with the stability that we have in submarines,
amphibious ships, and auxiliary ships, we really need to allow
our combatant build programs to take root, grow, stabilize, and
move us into the future. So I very much want to do as much as
we can to get the stability in our combatant lines for the
future.
Senator Collins. That's also very important in terms of the
transition from the DDG-51 line to the DDG-1000. We do need to
make sure that that is managed very appropriately in order to
avoid a gap in the work at the yards, which could cause the
loss of skilled workers. Once you lose that capability, it's
gone forever; and I know that you and Secretary Winter share my
concern in that regard.
I want to associate myself also with the concerns expressed
by Senator Warner about the need to stay on course for the 313-
ship fleet, which you have appropriately described as the
floor, the minimum that we need. Part of the strategy for
achieving that goal is modernizing in order to extend the life
of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class of destroyers.
First of all, how important is that modernization plan to
achieving the 313-ship fleet?
Admiral Roughead. That is very important to our 313-ship
fleet, and it's also very important to the relevant
capabilities that we're going to need in the future. DDGs are
great ships. I speak from experience, having put one in
commission myself as a commanding officer. But also, it was a
DDG that was the backup ship for the Lake Erie when they shot
down the satellite, again attesting to the versatility of the
ship and the capability of that ship.
It will be important for us to conduct that modernization,
to upgrade the capability and extend the life of those ships,
so that we don't have to take them out before they're due.
Senator Collins. I want to encourage you to examine both
the cost and schedule advantages of doing that modernization at
the building yard rather than the home port. I think there's
significant evidence that suggests there would be considerable
cost savings to the Navy as well as efficiencies in doing that,
and I look forward to working further with you and Secretary
Winter.
Finally, let me just thank you, Admiral Roughead, for
coming to Maine to visit Bath Iron Works and to visit the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. I know you were
impressed with what you saw and I very much appreciated your
including Maine as you've been getting out across the country
to visit naval installations and yards.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for
taking time from your schedule to be with me during that visit.
It really was good to get out and see the quality of work
that's being done, the commitment not just of the leadership in
the yards, but, as in all cases, it's the individual on the
line that's actually doing the hard work that makes a
difference, and that was apparent during my time up there.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, gentlemen, for your testimony and for your service.
General Conway, I think that the two exchanges that you had
with Senator Warner and Senator Kennedy over the MRAP and the
uparmored Humvee were very important. Perhaps we in Congress
have something to learn from them. I think we have been so
concerned not only about the vest that you talked about with
Senator Warner, but about the exposure of our personnel to the
impact of the IEDs, the bombs, that we rushed with a lot of
good intentions to authorize and appropriate at a very high
level for the provision of the MRAPs. I'm hearing you say
something really very, in some ways, tough, but very practical
and reasonable, which is that in the experience of the marines
the MRAPs are not right for all the missions we're asking you
to perform and, in fact, may not protect against some of the
other kinds of vulnerabilities. I think 10 percent was what you
said was the percentage of attacks from underneath, and
obviously the uparmored Humvees also protect from attack from
the side.
So I admire you for cutting back on your initial request
for the MRAPs because it may be as I hear you that really we
may have overdone it in real and practical terms, not only in
terms of your performance of the mission, but protecting the
safety of our personnel, and that what's needed ideally is a
mix of vehicles, the MRAP, the uparmored Humvee, and maybe
something else. I don't know the extent to which the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle that is being worked on now may fill a
role there.
So I just wanted to thank you for what you've said and what
you've done, and I think maybe there's a lesson in it for all
of us.
I don't know whether you want to respond to that briefly.
General Conway. Sir, I would only say that I look on the
evolution of the MRAP creation and testing and purchase as one
of the real success stories that has come out of what's
happened. It took Congress, it took the DOD, it took the
industry to provide the vehicles in the rapid state that they
did. Sir, we have still yet to lose a marine in an MRAP to an
underbody. It is an amazing vehicle against that niche kind of
capability, and I think I can speak on behalf of my Army
brothers and say that they're equally satisfied.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Conway. But you are exactly correct in that it's
not a vehicle for all places and all times. Sir, as I look at
the particular culture of our Corps, we're light, we're
expeditionary, we're fast-moving and hard-hitting. Although an
MRAP still may be in our future in another battlefield, it
doesn't transport well.
Senator Lieberman. Yes, it doesn't transport well if it's
too heavy; I agree with you. I'm certainly not questioning the
MRAP program. I think it's had great utility, and I appreciate
your saying that we turned it around quickly.
But your point is well taken. If it doesn't travel well, if
it's too heavy to go over some bridges, if it doesn't operate
well off road, and if it doesn't protect against some of the
other threats to our troops, then I think what we're looking
for is a mix of vehicles to allow you and the Army to carry out
the missions we've asked you to carry out with maximum
protection of our troops.
General Conway. I think that's exactly right, Senator.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that very much, and I think
it's something we have to take into consideration.
I want to go back to the size of the Fleet, the goal of 313
ships total. What are we at right now, just as a matter of
record? How large is the Fleet?
Admiral Roughead. 279 today, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Right. So in the most direct sense, does
that mean, since we're at 279 and our goal has been to be at
313 ships in our Navy, that we are vulnerable, we're in some
danger? Are you unable to carry out some of the missions,
Admiral, that the country is asking you to carry out?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, I would put it into two
different categories. One is that in combat operations I would
say that the size of the Fleet today puts us at moderate risk,
and by ``moderate risk,'' there would be likely success, but it
may require longer time, it may require more resources, and it
could require some changes in the plans that we would normally
use to go after a particular problem.
But I also believe that in the world that we live in today
and the strategy that I believe that we as a Navy and a Marine
Corps and even a Coast Guard must pursue, that we have to be
out and about. The types of operations, the importance of
maritime security on our prosperity and the way that the goods
and resources flow around the world, that numbers become a
capability in themselves, and we have to be there to assure the
sea lanes that supply our country and that allow us to export
our goods; and also to be able to have the types of ships and
the balance in our Fleet for the various missions that we
perform.
The one area that I am most concerned about today is the
area close to shore, the littoral areas, the green water.
That's what the LCS is about. The other ship classes that we
have are complementing current capabilities and are upgrading
those current capabilities. The LCS is about an area that we
are, quite frankly, deficient in.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate the directness of the
answer. Moderate risk is, I think, ideally more risk than any
of us should want you and our country to face, so that it does
make the point, though that the absolute dollars in the
requested DOD budget are large, in my opinion they're not
enough and we remain at a percentage of the Gross Domestic
Product, that is spending on defense, which is historically
low, considering that we are at war, an active war, and we're
facing the rise of other great powers--Russia, China--who we
obviously hope we'd never get into hostilities with, but are
putting a lot of money into military acquisitions, including
ships for their fleet.
Let me ask you about the LCS, just to remind us what the
numbers are. Of the 313 goal, how many are intended to be in
the LCS category?
Admiral Roughead. Our objective, Senator, is 55.
Senator Lieberman. So that's a pretty significant number.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Just for the record, you've cut back
because of the problems in acquisition and development on what
you're going to ask for this year, right, for the LCS?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Senator Lieberman. Just remind us again of what the
reduction there is?
Admiral Roughead. We reduced our intention this year by
four LCSs and that is the adjustment in this year's current
budget proposal.
Senator Lieberman. So do you worry that the increasing cost
of the ship will make it impossible for us to attain the 55
number goal for the LCS that is part of that 313?
Admiral Roughead. Getting control of the cost and indeed
bringing the cost of the ship down is a very high priority, and
that's what we're working on with the Secretary's leadership,
and the decisiveness in cancelling the LCSs three and four was
not an easy decision, but I believe it was in the best
interests of the program.
I look forward to being able to take the 2008 ship and the
two LCSs that we have in 2009 and being able to put together an
acquisition strategy that allows us to move forward, that
allows us to acquire those ships, so that we can get them out,
get them operating, because I do believe they are going to be
workhorses of the future for us.
Senator Lieberman. I agree. So at this moment you would
hold to the 55 LCS goal that's part of the 313?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, my objective remains 55 LCSs.
Senator Lieberman. The 313 remains not only your goal, but
a goal that you think will meet our defense needs, our national
security needs?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, and I would say that it is the
minimum number of ships that we will need for the future.
Senator Lieberman. It's very important to say that, right.
Thank you. My time is up. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Admiral, General, welcome. I'm always
impressed at the tremendous ability and resilience of our men
and women in uniform, and the Navy and Marine Corps certainly
are great examples of that. Although in South Dakota we don't
have a lot of shoreline, coastline, or beaches, I still have a
great interest in making sure that our sailors and marines are
well-equipped and well-trained.
Secretary Winter, in your prepared testimony you discuss
the recent readiness and training challenges that the Navy
faces with a Ninth Circuit Court decision regarding the Navy's
use of active sonar off the coast of California to train strike
groups before deploying. From what I understand from your
prepared statement, the Navy is still subject to an injunction
on the use of this sonar issued by the court, despite the
President granting an emergency exemption.
As the ranking member of the Readiness and Management
Support Subcommittee, I'm concerned about the effect that this
injunction may be having on predeployment training. What effect
is this injunction having on your current ability to conduct
predeployment training, particularly as it relates to
countering these modern super-quiet diesel electric submarines?
Secretary Winter. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
Right now the orders that we've received from the court impose
several additional conditions on our use of sonar for training
and exercise activities in the southern California operating
area which we believe would have a significant deleterious
effect on the efficacy of those training activities. They
basically increase the requirement for shutdown of the sonar
when a marine mammal is seen from what has been our practice of
200 yards to a 2,000-meter requirement, which is over a factor
of 10 increase in the area that we have to shut down under such
circumstances.
Similarly, there are certain water column conditions,
what's known as surface ducting conditions, under which we
would be required to reduce the sonar power by 75 percent
whether or not a marine mammal was present.
Those types of constraints we believe would significantly
affect our ability to conduct the type of training activities
that are crucial to preparing our Fleet prior to deployment.
Senator Thune. Admiral Roughead, I have a question in
relation to the encounter by the Navy with five Iranian
speedboats that occurred last month in the Strait of Hormuz.
According to a January 12, 2008, article in the New York Times,
a 2002 war game indicated that small, agile speedboats could
swarm a naval convoy and inflict devastating damage on our
warships.
To the extent that you can discuss this in an open setting,
what is the Navy doing to prepare to meet this type of threat?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, as you would understand, I won't
get into the particular procedures that our ships and crews
use. But first off, I'd like to just mention the competence and
the training of our crews and the commanding officers are what
I believe kept that situation under control.
As part of our training for our crews as they prepare to
deploy, we present them with scenarios that are very similar to
that which would be encountered around the Straits of Hormuz
and other littoral areas such as that. We employ simulators as
well, again to just be able to take them through a variety of
responses. But as we operate in environments like that we
employ all dimensions of our naval power, not just the
capabilities that we have on our ships, but also our airplanes,
those that are embarked on the destroyers and other combatants,
but also the aircraft of our air wing. So it's a total
capability that we bring in. Our awareness, our situational
awareness, adds to our understanding of what is developing.
But again, I come back to the fact that it really is the
training, the competence, and the discipline of the young men
and women who are operating our ships at sea that make all the
difference.
Senator Thune. I absolutely would agree with that with
regard to the incident in January. I guess the question is with
regard to the simulation and how that played out when you gamed
it out, do you have a concern about our flexibility and ability
to react to that type of a threat, which seems to be where our
adversaries in that region are headed?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, I have confidence in our sailors
and our commanding officers, but I am concerned about the type
of behavior that is allowed to be taking place. When the
leadership of Iran lauds the crew that captured the Royal Navy
sailors, I think that that just engenders an attitude in the
Revolutionary Guard units that has the potential to escalate,
elevate, and perhaps make behavior like this more routine.
Senator Thune. Secretary Winter, the Navy recently rolled
out a new maritime strategy. Could you highlight the major
points of that strategy and where you think we have the big
gaps in our ability to execute it?
Secretary Winter. I think the new maritime strategy really
represents a long-term commitment on the part of the Navy to
partnership building, to maritime security as a common
objective of all maritime nations, and also recognizes the
importance of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief as
mechanisms to assist our ability to develop the relationships
with other nations, other navies, and be able to represent our
country around the world.
It also continues, if you will, all the current aspects of
dissuasion, deterrence, and supremacy at sea that have been a
hallmark of our Navy ever since.
Senator Thune. Admiral Roughead, there has been a lot
written about the development of the Chinese and Indian navies,
as well as other emerging threats. How would you characterize
the submarine threat that other countries pose and how ready is
the United States to deal with it?
Admiral Roughead. The proliferation of submarines globally
is occurring at a very, very rapid pace, and it's more than
just numbers. The sophistication and the technical advancements
that are being made in quieting submarines, making them harder
to find, creating air-independent propulsion systems that allow
submarines to remain under water for very long periods of time,
add to the challenges of anti-submarine warfare and get to the
point that the Secretary was making about the need to be able
to train against those types of threats.
In the days of the Soviet Navy, we looked for their
submarines by listening passively and we could detect where
they were and get a position on them. In the case of these very
sophisticated, smaller, advanced diesel submarines, active
sonar is how we find them, active sonar is how we localize
them, and active sonar is enabling how we will kill them. We
must be able to train realistically.
We can do that while being good stewards of the
environment. In fact, the United States Navy has invested in
marine mammal research, more than any other organization in the
world. We can do both and our record speaks to that.
Senator Thune. Mr. Secretary, do you have any indication of
if and when that injunction by the court might be lifted with
regard to the training exercises?
Secretary Winter. Sir, we had oral arguments yesterday in
California. We expect to get a ruling by the Ninth Circuit
Court some time next week, and we'll have to go from there. I
do expect, however, to see continuing challenges on a wide
variety of fronts associated with our use of sonar techniques.
Senator Thune. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for your public
service to our country. I get to visit with you, Mr. Secretary
and Admiral, probably more than you would want me to visit with
you, and I thank you for the continuing saga with regard to
making Mayport nuclear, and we're awaiting the Environment
Impact Statement (EIS) so thank you very much.
In a couple of minutes I'm going to be visiting with our
Commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and, as I have
discussed with both of you, the recommendations that are coming
up to you, Mr. Secretary, from the Admiral about the
reactivation of the Fourth Fleet. You may want to share your
thoughts with the committee about that, and then specifically
I'd like to ask if you will make the request for the
appropriate funding in order to make the necessary improvements
at Mayport for the Fourth Fleet that would support Admiral
James E. Starvidis, USN, as we project our American presence
throughout the Western Hemisphere.
Admiral Roughead. Senator, I've been out in the fleet for
the last few years, and as I've looked at the world we're going
to operate in and I look at the strategy that I believe is
right for our time, it became apparent to me that we had to
make some adjustments in our command and control structure, and
from that came the Fourth Fleet recommendation that I've made.
It will better align Admiral Stavridis's naval activities
and operations with the way that we're doing them in other
parts of the world, very similar to Fifth Fleet and Sixth
Fleet. So I believe the time has come to reactivate that and it
will provide for much more effective operations and more
cooperative activity, particularly in the SOUTHCOM area of
operations.
I would say, however, that the Fourth Fleet is a command
structure and, similar to the Sixth Fleet in Europe and the
Fifth Fleet in the Middle East, they will be receiving forces
from other naval commands and operating them in the SOUTHCOM
area of operations. So with regard to any improvements in
Mayport, those are more driven by the EIS that I'm pleased
we're going to have out here soon for public comment and
decision in January 2009, and also the outcome of what I've
asked my staff to do, and that is to look at what is the right
strategic laydown and where should we have our Navy forces
positioned in the United States.
Senator Bill Nelson. So that EIS is not only going to be
for nuclear-capable, but it's also going to be for whatever
additional activities you would have with the Fourth Fleet?
Admiral Roughead. What the EIS is looking at are a range of
force package options for Mayport. There are 13 options that
we're going to look at and range everywhere from combatants to
carriers, and that will be a very informative document for us.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Secretary, what's this in the
chain of command? Is it coming from the Admiral up to you and
then it goes to Secretary Gates? Is that what happens?
Secretary Winter. Yes, sir. I've taken a preliminary brief
on it. I've asked a number of questions, particularly with
regard to exactly how we will evolve this structure. As the CNO
commented, this is principally a command and control element.
This is a staff group that we're talking about. Most of that
staff currently resides at Mayport. Is that the right place in
the long term to support the SOUTHCOM down in Miami? How do we
want to work all of that? All has to be determined yet.
Once we go through that process, then we will go and take
it forward to the Secretary of Defense.
Senator Bill Nelson. Is that interrelated with the EIS or
is that a command decision about where you locate the support
group?
Secretary Winter. I do not view this as having any material
impact on the EIS or vice versa.
Senator Bill Nelson. I see. Well then, I must have been
mistaken. I thought that the recommendation coming up was that
the Fourth Fleet would be headquartered at Mayport.
Admiral Roughead. Senator, the Fourth Fleet is a
headquarters, much like our Sixth Fleet is in Europe and our
Fifth Fleet is in Bahrain. It is a headquarters organization
that in the case of Fourth Fleet will be the merging of Naval
Forces South and the Fourth Fleet into the headquarters
element.
Senator Bill Nelson. I thought that recommendation that was
going up was to be at Mayport. Is that the recommendation that
has to go up through the civilian leadership?
Admiral Roughead. The recommendation, sir, is to take the
Navy Southern Command (NAVSOUTH) staff and redesignate them as
NAVSOUTH and Fourth Fleet, and that they currently reside in
Mayport. My recommendation is that that redesignation occur,
but that as we look at force laydown, where command and control
structure will be in the future, I believe we should be looking
at what is the best way for us to position and operate our
Navy, and that will all be part of the look that I'm doing.
Senator Bill Nelson. So long term, that's a decision still
to be made in your recommendation?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. I think that we should be
taking a good look at the overall force posture and positioning
and where is the best place to put our forces.
Senator Bill Nelson. All right. Admiral, let me ask you
about the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), which was going
on the submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The first version
of the RRW was something of a rebuild of the existing W-76
nuclear warhead. But now the question is, is there a slow-up on
the RRW? So what's the impact on the rebuild of the W-76?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, if I could take that question
for the record, I'd like to do that and get back to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The current halt in the Reliable Replacement Weapon program
resulting from the removal of Department of Energy funding in the
fiscal year 2008 Appropriations process does not affect the Navy's
program to refurbish existing W-76 warheads. The Navy's plan to extend
the service life of W-76 warheads will ensure their safety and
reliability through calendar year 2042.
Senator Bill Nelson. Okay. We have that issue in front of
our Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which we're going to have to
answer that.
I would also want to ask you if you would take for the
record the question of the Standard Missile 3 inventory, as
well as the Standard Missile 3 Block 1B over the Block 1A.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
The current inventory of SM-3 Missiles is 25; 9 SM-3 Block I
variants and 16 SM-3 Block IA variants. A total of 75 SM-3 Block IA
variants will be produced in the program of record. In fiscal year
2010, production of the SM-3 Block IB variant will begin, with the
first Flight Test Mission in fiscal year 2011. There are a total of 72
SM-3 Block IB variants in the program of record through fiscal year
2013.
Senator Bill Nelson. It's going to have a considerable
improvement and we need your advice as we get into this.
Speaking of the Standard Missile, congratulations to you.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. You hit the bull's eye and you did a
service, and I think it's appropriate for somebody like me to
say that, even though people jump to conclusions, the fact is
you had a schoolbus-sized defense satellite that was tumbling
out of control, along with a 1,000-pound tank of hydrazine that
could survive reentry, and the fact that you hit it and busted
it into all thousands of pieces will cause--number one, the
orbit to degrade a lot quicker; number two, much more
manageable and therefore less likely that pieces survive the
searing heat of reentry; and number three, you busted open the
tank, so the likelihood of a tank filled with hydrazine--which
did happen, by the way. The small hydrazine tank survived the
reentry in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia all
the way to the Earth's surface. So for that third reason, you
are to be congratulated in improving the safety of the
conditions. Thank you.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you very much.
Admiral Roughead. I couldn't be more proud of our sailors
and our civilian engineers that put all that together. Thank
you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson. Senator Nelson's
comments and congratulations I'm sure reflects the feelings of
all of us.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you very much, sir.
Chairman Levin. Senator Martinez, an uninterrupted turn
from the chairman today.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can work as a
team when need be. I thank you.
I want to add my word of congratulations. I really think it
was a remarkable thing. From time to time there are things that
happen that completely capture our imagination and that one is
an amazing feat. So, well done!
Admiral Roughead, we have talked about the expanding Navy
and the need for a 313-ship Navy, which as you know I fully
support. One of the things that has been mentioned along those
lines is the possibility that the Navy should be an all-nuclear
surface fleet, and I wonder if you can articulate for us your
thoughts on that issue.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. Nuclear power offers
advantages. Nuclear power is also a more expensive initial cost
as we build ships that have nuclear propulsion. I believe that
as we look at the ships of the future we should look at varying
types of ways to propel and to power those ships, and nuclear
power is one of those things that we should look at.
That said, for all ships to be nuclear my great concern is
that it would become a question of affordability, and we have
to look at that. We have to look at more than just the fuel
cost. We have to look at how much it will cost us to maintain
those ships, how much it will cost us to manage those ships,
because I believe that as nuclear power has a resurgence in the
civilian commercial applications that many of those companies
know where the best operators and where the best engineers are,
and that's in the United States Navy.
Senator Martinez. So your concern is cost, which when
compared to the cost of fuel alone does not tell you the whole
cost, which has to do with the increased maintenance, and also
you think that you could have simply a manpower issue in terms
of competing with the private sector for increased demand for
nuclear?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. We have to look at the whole
dimension of it and then make the best decisions that we
possibly can.
Senator Martinez. So you want the flexibility, in other
words to increase our Navy with whatever power station you
think is the most suitable at a given point in time?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Senator Martinez. Mr. Secretary, good to see you again.
Secretary Winter. Good to see you, sir.
Senator Martinez. We've talked about the LCS and how
important it is. I really would like to get an update from you
on that program. Where are we, what steps have you taken to
correct the deficiencies? The Admiral and I have discussed the
need for us to get this one right as we look to getting that
313-ship Navy. So bring us up to speed on where we are on the
procurement, on the ship models, and that kind of thing?
Secretary Winter. Yes, sir. At this point in time we are
focusing on really two aspects, one of which is the two ship
hulls that are being constructed right now, one in Marinette
under the Lockheed prime contract and the other down in Alabama
under the General Dynamics contract. Both of those ships are
coming along. We are right now conducting somewhat limited
power train tests up at Marinette with the LCS-1. We're
somewhat limited because of the ice buildup at this time of
year in the lake there, and we are fully expecting to be able
to initiate the full range of sea trials once we get past the
ice season there, most likely in the April time period.
With the LCS-2, which is down in Alabama, we're in the
process of completing the construction there to the point that
we can get it into the water later this spring. That is still
our current forecast there and we fully expect to be able to
conduct at least the initial range of sea trials with her later
this year.
Senator Martinez. What timeframe of the year? This summer,
perhaps?
Secretary Winter. Probably in the summertime, yes, sir.
At the same time, we have proceeded very well on the
mission modules. We've already taken delivery of the first of
the mine warfare modules. That has been delivered. We also are
fully expecting to have the first of the surface warfare and
the anti-submarine warfare modules delivered this year. All of
that gives us a good basis for conducting the full range of
mission tests that we'd like to be able to do with both of
these vessels.
At the same time, we're preparing to start a round of
acquisition which would enable us to acquire three additional
vessels under a fixed price incentive type contract. Those
three vessels would include the one that was previously
approved for fiscal year 2008 and the two that we're requesting
in the year of current interest, fiscal year 2009.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, sir.
General Conway, we've discussed this morning here the
increased presence in Afghanistan with 3,200 marines. I'm not
sure if it was asked, but if not I'd like to be sure that I'm
clear. My concern is that from reports that I hear of an
increasingly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan from the
security standpoint, that this type of force increase may not
be sufficient and that perhaps additional forces may be needed
in Afghanistan in the near future.
Aside from the great concern that I have about the lack of
participation in real fighting from our North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) partners, can you tell us where you see the
Afghanistan force needs going in the near term and the far
term?
General Conway. Sir, I think your analysis is probably
correct. When we visit there, people are generally pretty
satisfied with what they see happening in Regional Command
East, which is up against the Pakistani border and is in the
northeastern portion of Afghanistan. They are less comfortable
with conditions in the south. The drug fields still operate
relatively freely there. There are what they call rat lines in
from what some would consider safe haven across an
international border. Taliban actually control some ground and
some would say it's the heart of the Taliban. You have families
there who have sons fighting as a part of the Taliban.
So I think Regional Command South is still very much an
unclear picture at this point, and whether or not enough troops
have now been committed, both coalition force troops, who in
some cases are doing very good work, and now marines in
addition to the soldiers that have been there, will be
sufficient I think is uncertain at this point, sir.
Senator Martinez. I know the Secretary of Defense has been
traveling a lot recently and has made his case to our NATO
partners. But can you tell us anything about the level of
cooperation that you might anticipate in what is a NATO mission
from other NATO countries in terms of participating in the
actual difficult work that is necessary there?
General Conway. Sir, I cannot talk about any increased
participation. What we do know is that the Canadians publicly
are asking for additional troops. They think that there is a
need for additional troops, especially if our marines pull out
in October, which is planned at this point. The British we see
are there. They have a replacement scheduled, a rotation that
will replace the people that are there now with a parachute
brigade, for all intents and purposes.
So we think that the resolve is still readily evident on
the coalition forces that are there now for at least the rest
of this calendar year. Again, sir, I would not want to
presuppose beyond that.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, General.
My time is up, but let me associate myself with Senator
Nelson's comments as they relate to the situation in Mayport
and our great desire to continue to see a very vibrant naval
presence there going into the future. We've discussed it ad
nauseam. I'm sure you know my points on that, but I did want to
associate myself with the Senator's comments. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Martinez.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen. Admiral Roughead, the Navy has the
requirement to start detailed design for the next class of
ballistic missile submarine. In fact, we have to start doing
that pretty soon since I think 2019 is the target date to begin
construction. When are you going to start that research and
development (R&D) design program in the budget, this year's
budget?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. We have to start looking at
that, and we are beginning to move forward with initiatives to
work a design process, as well as work cooperatively with the
U.K. Government, which has a more urgent need than we do. So we
are moving forward in that regard.
Senator Reed. One of the problems I think is not in terms
of just the delivery of the submarine in the future; it's the
maintenance of the R&D force, which is fragile. If we don't
keep investing, these are skilled individuals who will leave
and go off by necessity. That is, I presume, a concern that you
have and that will motivate your actions.
Admiral Roughead. Very much so, yes, sir.
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary, can you describe the
acquisition strategy for the rest of the ships in the DDG-1000
program?
Secretary Winter. Yes, sir. At this point in time we have
not definitized the acquisition strategy for the rest of the
ships. We will be developing that this year and going through
the normal approval process on that.
Senator Reed. When do you anticipate informing Congress
about the results of the analysis of alternatives and design
decisions for the CG(X?)
Secretary Winter. Sir, we're still in the process of going
through that right now. I will say that, based on the
preliminary reviews I've had, we still have a ways to go on
that, and I will be hard-pressed to give you a definitive date
at this point in time.
Senator Reed. Is it your intention to leverage the
investment in existing hulls by re-using DDG-1000 hulls in your
planning? Is that one option at least? I know you can't reach a
definitive judgment. Is that an option?
Secretary Winter. Sir, one of our principal objectives, is
to maximize reuse of everything from hull forms to individual
componentry on all of our ships, and to the extent that we can
use improvements and new technology that is being developed in
other programs, we will endeavor to do so.
It is at this point in time, sir, though, just one of a
series of options.
Senator Reed. Yes. With respect to the DDG-1000 hull and
the construction of the CG(X), can you do that with nuclear
propulsion, as required by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008?
Secretary Winter. That is one aspect that we're looking at.
We do believe that we can accommodate a reactor plant in that
particular hull form, but that is something that still needs to
be fully developed.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
General Conway and Admiral Roughead, in general do you
think we are putting enough money into the R&D to support both
shipboard operations and expeditionary forces? Commandant, you
first, and then the Admiral.
General Conway. Yes, sir, I do. We have a very active
warfighting lab that works with the Navy research labs. We
reach out to commercial and educational institutions with our
research. So I think that we are, sir.
Admiral Roughead. I agree with that, Senator. Just
coincidentally, this week I directed the president of our Naval
War College to reinstitute the Title 10 war game so that we
can, at an operational level, begin to look at some of the
concepts that are important to General Conway and me,
particularly in the area of sea basing, because I really value
the intellectual capital that we have in Newport.
Senator Reed. Rhode Island?
Admiral Roughead. In Newport, RI, absolutely, yes, sir.
That adds to not just the R&D, but really the operational
perspectives that must be brought to bear.
Senator Reed. Let me raise a final question. That is, I
understand that the Navy is essentially allocating 50
accessions from their Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) or
Naval Academy programs to the Marine Corps this year. Is there
any plan going forward or contemporaneously to make up for
that?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, one of the things that we are
requesting this year is to grow the size of the Naval Academy
by 100 midshipmen. It will be done over a period of 4 years.
That really is in support of the Marine Corps requirement and
I'd seek your favorable consideration.
Senator Reed. As long as they're coming out for the archery
team that's fine. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Let's see. Senator Wicker, I believe, is
next.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, let's talk about LPDs. Mr. Secretary, the
purpose of the LPD is to load, transport, and unload marines,
as well as their assault equipment, such as helicopters and
other vehicles, for amphibious warfare missions. I notice,
Admiral Roughead, that the LPD is number two on the Navy's
unfunded priority list and, General Conway, it's the Marines'
number one unfunded priority. I'd like to see that moved up,
moved up a little.
I know that we have competition between the needs and our
ability to finance them. But I am concerned about our ability
to provide continuous global posture, as outlined in the naval
strategy, without additional investments in these large-deck
platforms.
If you couple the fact that the fiscal year 2009 budget
outlines a 5-year shipbuilding plan and relies heavily on three
new platforms, which brings a large degree of risk to an
already complicated production strategy, with the growing
Marine Corps, which I support and which most people support, it
seems to me that additional LPDs are going to be necessary.
As I understand it, there are nine of these ships that have
been authorized and appropriated in last year's act. $50
million in advance procurement was appropriated for the tenth
ship, but it is not funded in the budget request. I'll ask each
of you to comment on this. How many ESGs does the Marine Corps
have a validated requirement for? As a matter of fact, somebody
tell us for the record, what comprises an ESG?
Admiral Roughead. The ESG, Senator, is comprised of----
Senator Wicker. One strike group.
Admiral Roughead. One strike group. One strike group will
have a large-deck amphibious ship. It will have surface
combatants capable of firing Tomahawk missiles, and on occasion
we will couple a submarine with that strike group.
Senator Wicker. But an LPD is an integral part of this ESG,
is that correct?
Admiral Roughead. That is correct.
Senator Wicker. So isn't it a fact that we have a
requirement, a validated requirement, for 11 of these strike
groups?
Admiral Roughead. General Conway's requirement is for 11
LPDs as part of an 11-11-11 mix. I concur with the requirement
that he has set forth. With regard to the prioritization with
the LPD on my unfunded priority list, it is number two. Number
one on my list are the P-3 airplanes that we have experienced
cracking in the wings, and I've had to ground 39 of them in the
last couple of months. The P-3s are our premier anti-submarine
warfare airplane, so they're important to us in that mission.
They're also being used very extensively in Iraq because of
their intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability
that they have, and for that reason I have put the P-3s as my
number one priority.
Senator Wicker. Number one unfunded priority.
Admiral Roughead. Unfunded priority.
Senator Wicker. How are we going to meet these requirements
without the number one and number two requirement, and for you,
General Conway, for your number one unfunded priority? How are
we going to meet the requirement of 11 strike groups without
those?
General Conway. Sir, first of all, we are short. But let me
couch perhaps the same conversation just a shade differently.
We see that a minimum two brigade across-the-shore requirement
is how we arrive at the numbers of ships that we need. You're
certainly correct in that the ESGs are afloat, they serve a
very valuable purpose, but 9 or 11 ESGs do not make an
amphibious assault force.
So we have analyzed what our two brigades look like, the
amount and the numbers of ships that it would need to carry
those brigades, and at this point we are a little short. Now,
as Admiral Roughead mentioned, we've had some tremendous
discussions with the Navy. We have come to agreement on the
numbers of ships, 33 to make 30 operational ships, in order to
give our Nation that very necessary capability. The Navy has
looked at a way to extend some older ships that gives us that
30 number for some period on through the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP), the 5-year defense plan.
Our only concern with it, however, is that we have already,
through previous agreement, previous CNOs and previous
Commandants, agreed on the 30 ships. That still represents
about a 20 percent shortfall that those brigade footprints
would require. If we go with the old ships instead of newer
ships, that shortfall becomes about 29 percent, and we think
there's a risk inherent with that that just concerns us greatly
with the ability to provide that kind of capability to the
Nation. Ergo, it being our number one unfunded priority.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. I would suggest you
have the gist of my question. We put the $50 million in for
advanced procurement for the 10th ship last year and I would
just hope that this Government somehow could find the ways and
means to go ahead with the 10th ship in short order.
Now, General Conway, let me shift in the time I have
remaining and follow up on Senator Martinez's question about
Afghanistan. Regional Command South is troubling, as I
understand your testimony to be. This is what I understand also
from some of my colleagues who recently returned from
Afghanistan.
I think it's important that we paint a correct picture
about what's going on there in Afghanistan. I think the
testimony was that the Canadians are asking for additional
troops. I suppose you mean they're asking our NATO allies for
additional troops?
General Conway. I think that's a fair statement, sir. They
are saying that there is a need for 1,000 additional troops and
6 additional helicopters.
Senator Wicker. That's what the Canadians are saying. Do
you agree with that? Is there a need for more than that 1,000
to get the job done?
General Conway. Sir, I think it remains to be seen. We're
in a period at this point of lesser amounts of activity. Those
3,400 marines are not on deck yet. I do think that a battalion
of marines----
Senator Wicker. I'm sorry. We're in a period of lesser
activity?
General Conway. Yes, sir, because it's winter there and
there are heavy snows. The Taliban are historically less active
during these months.
But I think springtime will be another story. I was going
to say, sir, that a battalion of marines in Afghanistan we feel
as the Joint Staff is probably going to have more effect than a
battalion in Iraq because of the nature of the threat and the
numbers that we face. Sir, we don't know yet what the outcome
of those 3,400 marines are going to be in the south. But the
Canadians, who command RC South, would like to see a
continuation of that kind of force structure on through beyond
this calendar year and that's what they're asking for, to
whatever nation that can help them to carry on the fight.
Senator Wicker. Those would be NATO nations.
The staff has just handed me a nice little card and I know
that my time is drawing to a close. But I would just observe,
this is a crucial moment for NATO and I would say this publicly
to anyone that's listening to the sound of my voice. Our entry
into Afghanistan was not controversial, as Iraq was later on.
It followed September 11. The world was with us, and NATO all
agreed to hold hands and do this together.
I would simply suggest that there are a lot of people
observing the situation that are wondering if everyone in NATO
understands what the agreement was and what the alliance is
about.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to commend
my colleague? I agree with your comment with regard to NATO. We
should not forget that background.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. I think there's probably a consensus on
this committee as to what you just said, Senator Wicker. We've
spoken out on that issue, as has the Secretary of Defense, and
your comments, I think, are right on target about the
obligations of NATO that have not been met.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, Secretary Winter, Admiral Roughead, and General
Conway, aloha and welcome to this hearing on the Navy's
National Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2009.
Also I want to thank all of you for your service to our
country, and also thank all of those you command for their
service to our country. We really appreciate all of that.
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, my question has to
do with Guam. Decisions have been made already to send 8,000
marines to Guam by 2014. This move coincides with the overall
buildup of U.S. military facilities on Guam as it becomes a key
strategic location in the Pacific. Your 2009 budget request
includes $34 million to continue planning and development for
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities, which
requires an EIS.
I understand that DOD is making steady progress with their
EISs. Other agencies such as the Department of the Interior do
not have the funding necessary to complete their own EIS
requirements for Guam. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead,
if these other agencies are unable to find the funding
necessary to complete their EIS requirements, my question is
what impact will this have on the proposed time line?
Secretary Winter. Sir, first of all, thank you for the
question. I would note that we have gone a long way over the
last several months in terms of developing the interagency
coordination necessary to bring in the other Departments. In
particular, Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has been a major player
in terms of bringing the Department of the Interior into this
act as part of their responsibilities for insular affairs and
having explicit responsibility for Guam.
I believe that the ongoing activities that are needed to
support both the overall EIS development and the master plan
development have all been identified. We are hopeful that they
will be funded in a timely manner. I know that there's been a
lot of effort going towards that direction. I cannot give you
an explicit statement of what would occur if any specific
component were unable to support the activity, but I can give
you the assurance that we are working with all the other
agencies in a very direct manner, and should any specific issue
come up of that nature we would be more than pleased to inform
you of that.
Senator Akaka. Admiral?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, there's nothing I can add to the
Secretary's statement.
Senator Akaka. I would then say that should other agencies
not provide this information there may be a reconsideration of
the time line.
Secretary Winter. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka. Admiral Roughead, the Pacific is likely to
increase in relevance for U.S. national security and for the
U.S. Navy. As China becomes a greater economic and military
power and as operations against radical extremism continue in
places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, this certainly is a huge
concern. Personally, I just want to say I would tell you that
Admiral Timothy J. Keating, USN, has made some great moves and
has been able at least to converse with the Chinese
authorities.
Given the importance of the U.S. Navy power projection in
the Pacific and the shifting of 8,000 marines to Guam from the
Third Marine Expeditionary Force, is there consideration,
Admiral, for basing the new U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford at Pearl
Harbor, given its strategic geographical advantages?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, in recent years we've realigned
our carrier force, put most of it in the Pacific. The same with
our submarines. As we look to the future and the delivery of
the Gerald Ford, which will be an aircraft carrier of great
capability, we will factor that capability into the force
structure and basing plans for the future.
Senator Akaka. General Conway, in your statement you
mention the importance of maintaining proficiency in the most
enduring and traditional of Marine Corps missions, and that's
the amphibious forcible entry. I'm concerned about the current
operational stretch on the Corps and their readiness to conduct
these types of operations that are so different from the
missions our marines perform with such courage today, and many
of course on the ground.
Given the increased Taliban activity in Afghanistan and the
U.S. response to send an additional 3,200 marines to that
country, what is the biggest challenge facing the Marine Corps'
ability to prepare for high intensity amphibious operations
over the next years, so that we don't find ourselves in a
situation where we've underresourced you or neglected the core
competency of the marines?
General Conway. Sir, our biggest challenge is to be able to
create sufficient dwell time for our marines and sailors so
that we can get back to some of those training venues that give
us such a multi-capable capacity to do the Nation's work. When
we're home now, we're home for 7 months and, quite frankly,
some of that is used in leave time at the front and at the
beginning, but the rest of it is devoted towards
counterinsurgency training. As a result of that, we are not
doing amphibious training or exercises. We are not doing
combined arms live fire maneuver, which would be the extension
of an amphibious operation once you're ashore. We are not doing
mountain or jungle training except by exception.
So your concern is my concern, sir. We traditionally have
had a cadre of very experienced officers and senior staff NCOs
who understood amphibious operations. I'm afraid we're losing
that capacity and we've been away from it now for 5, maybe 6
years. I don't know that you get it back in 5 or 6 years. I
think there is an additional time requirement out there to
develop and provide experience levels to those kinds of
marines.
Senator Akaka. Let me ask my final question to the
Secretary. The strategic importance of Guam in the Pacific has
led to increased investment in Navy and Air Force base
facilities and equipment as more U.S. military capabilities are
being transferred there. In an effort to make the best use of
limited resources, part of the Base Realignment and Closure
2005 recommendation was to realign Anderson Air Force Base by
relocating the installation management functions into a joint
basing effort led by the Navy. How is this realignment
proceeding and what are your recommendations for the
development of future military capability on Guam?
Secretary Winter. Senator, I would observe that the
cooperation that I have seen on Guam between both Navy and Air
Force senior personnel is probably as good as anyplace else in
the Services. I think that they are evolving that concept very
well. We are doing an integrated planning activity as we
develop the master plan, which incorporates not only Navy and
Air Force activities, but also Marine Corps requirements
associated with Anderson and the related areas.
I think that as we evolve over the next several years there
is all the possibility of making this perhaps one of the best
cases for integrated joint basing.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. I thank you all for your
responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Winter, you and Admiral Roughead, I think, have
been very articulate and firm in your affirmation of the Navy's
plan to make sure we have 55 LCSs as a part of the 313-ship
Navy, and it's just a critical component of our defense
capability. It's a new high-speed ship that would utilize less
sailors and have more capability and be able to go into areas
that we've never been before effectively and could have
multiple capabilities, and maybe even as years go by we see
even greater capabilities for that ship and we might even need
more.
But I was really taken aback last year when the
subcommittee zeroed out funding for that. I can't complain. I
believe persons in your position have to stand up and make sure
costs come in on line. But we've now cancelled ships from both
competitors. I guess I'm asking you and Admiral Roughead if you
realize that it's going to take perhaps some extra effort to
make sure that our members of the Senate and House are aware
that, even though you're being vigorous and aggressive on costs
and have delayed production and done some things, that you
remain committed to this program.
Would you share your thoughts, Secretary Winter?
Secretary Winter. Thank you very much, Senator. I would
like to underscore your comment there relative to the critical
importance of LCS. I would note that, as opposed to many other
of our shipbuilding activities, where we are modernizing and
replacing older vessels of similar types, that this represents
truly a new capability and a capability that we have no
alternative mechanism of providing at this point in time.
It is not just a matter of the speed, as you pointed out,
but also the flexibility of the mission, the shallow draft and
the appropriateness specifically for an evolving and
increasingly important domain that we have to be prepared to
fight in, the littoral.
With regard to the specifics of the acquisition program
that we've been engaged in, one of my objectives has been to
ensure that we're able to acquire these vessels in a cost-
effective manner and a timely manner. One of the things that
became fairly evident last year was that we were proceeding at
a rate which was in advance, if you will, of our knowledge and
understanding of the vessels. The specific actions that I took
were with the objective of being able to put the program into a
more studied and appropriate development process.
I think we now have very good focus on both the individual
vessels as well as the mission modules. We are proceeding at a
good pace into the development and trials of both of those, and
I fully expect that we will come out of this with an
exceptionally good product and a capability that will provide
excellent service for our Navy for many years to come.
Senator Sessions. Your strong action that you took does not
reflect any doubt of the ultimate ability of the ships being
considered to meet the goals and requirements of the Navy?
Secretary Winter. No, sir. If anything, I think we're going
to wind up with two very good alternatives here, and exactly
how we sort through that perhaps abundance of riches and
options is something that we will have to deal with in the
future. But I'm very comfortable that we have two very good,
viable designs, either one of which has good prospects for
fully meeting our objectives in the littoral.
Senator Sessions. Admiral Roughead, would you likewise
affirm that, even though the Navy has put its foot down on some
cost and other issues, that that in no way reflects a lack of
confidence in the capability of these vessels and the need that
the Navy has for it to be a part of the Fleet?
Admiral Roughead. Absolutely, Senator. I believe that we
have had to fill this gap that we have and the LCS does that
for quite some time. I have visited both variants on two
occasions in the last 8 months. My visits to that ship only
increased my commitment to the program, and I believe that the
decision that was made with regard to LCS-3 and LCS-4 reflects
a commitment to the program and the need to get the costs under
control so that we could have the program.
Senator Sessions. We know part of the cost problem was Navy
additional requirements, and that all is not the contractor's
fault when the buyer wants to add more and more capabilities. I
think in the future, would you not agree that we could do
better in making sure Congress has a fair picture of the actual
costs of a product when you recommend it?
Secretary Winter. Most definitely, sir. One of the changes
that we put in place over this past year is a formal set of
gate reviews that mandate that explicit discussion, so that we
have a definitive set of requirements, not just the top level,
but a complete set of requirements, in a timely manner and are
willing to commit to stability in those requirements during the
course of acquisition.
Senator Sessions. I would just note, I know the Navy since
I guess the beginning has favored the Law of the Sea Treaty,
the LOST Treaty we call it. I'm not here to argue all of that,
but I would just say to you I have a broader responsibility.
This is an organization that gives us, I think for the most
part, just one vote out of 100-and-something nations. It
creates the possibility of an international taxing body on
American corporations and businesses. It deals with many things
that affect the seas. We even had lawsuits over nuclear power
plants, trying to block plants on land because somebody argues
that it might be a part of the sea. It creates international
courts that we are bound to follow. We have perhaps enough
courts already in our country.
Someone could argue that this or that action might impact
the environment of the sea, and we could have an international
body blocking something that our environmental agency has
approved in the United States.
Also I would suggest that a hostile group over some
political, international, military issue who was unhappy with
the United States could at times generate enough votes to
create rules that might block the military from doing things
that we've historically been able to do.
So I just want to say that I have some doubts about the
treaty and I think we need to look at it carefully. That's why
probably it hasn't been passed yet. It also has sovereignty
issues that are not minor. We need to think those through.
General Conway, I was honored to visit you and interact. I
don't know whether you've had the opportunity to talk about it,
but I remember the briefing we had in, I believe, 2006--
Senators Warner and Levin were there--that was so troubling, by
the Marines about some of the difficult things in al-Anbar with
the al Qaeda group. Within months, it seems, Major General
Walter E. Gaskin, Sr., USMC, and his team had begun to
negotiate with very local leaders, not regional leaders, not
Baghdad leaders, but local leaders, tribal leaders, city
mayors, and agreements were reached, and all of a sudden
persons who had been helping the al Qaeda were now helping us.
It really has been the model of this dramatic reduction in
violence by 60 to 70 percent, we've seen in Iraq.
Would you agree with that, that that was a key part of the
change that's happened in Iraq? Would you say to us that
legislation that would direct that you could only use force
against al Qaeda would be impractical in the battlefield, as
has been proposed? I don't think we're going to vote on that
now. Maybe it's pulled down. But we had legislation up in the
last few days that would have said you have to identify one
group or another and you can only attack this group and not
another.
Any comments you would have?
General Conway. Sir, the last question first: I would not
want to put restrictions on the battlefield commanders or, more
importantly, those NCOs that have to make split of the moment
decisions that result in lives being lost or saved.
With regard to your earlier observation, I think that's
right. I would say that General Gaskin and his folks, the
marines and soldiers and sailors there, did a wonderful job
during that rotation. But they had the same theme during that
period as we had from 2004. So I credit all those rotations
that were through those cities and that surrounding countryside
with maintaining the presence, maintaining their patience,
their discipline, and trying to work with the Sunni sheiks to
show that that we were not their worst enemy, but the al Qaeda
was.
I think when the al Qaeda finally overplayed their hand
through the murder and the intimidation, wanting to intermarry
and so forth, the sheiks finally decided collectively they had
had it up to here. When they came to us to say, ``We will turn
on them and slaughter them with your assistance'' we were only
too happy to say, ``We think that's the right thing to do.''
That's when you saw the Province turn. It was a west to east
movement, but it has continued east on now to Baghdad and
places north and south of Baghdad, and I see that as very
positive.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Sessions.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I would like to say--it was mentioned earlier--this
is Senator Warner's last Department of the Navy posture
hearing, at least as a sitting Senator, and I want to express
all of the appreciation I can muster for the years of service
that the senior Senator from Virginia has given our country,
first as a marine, then in the Defense Department, and finally
here in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I was a 25-year-old marine my last year in
the Marine Corps on then Under Secretary and Secretary of the
Navy Warner's staff, and am pleased to have an association with
him since that time. I think it can fairly be said that there
is no one wearing the uniform of the United States military
today whose military life and well-being has not been affected
by the dedication of the senior Senator from Virginia. So we
will look forward to working with you in many other capacities.
Senator Warner. I deeply am humbled by the comments that
you make, my good friend. I thank you.
Senator Webb. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb, also. I tried in a
very inadequate way to express those sentiments earlier today,
and I appreciate your comments.
Senator Webb. I certainly wouldn't want to take away from
what the chairman said.
Admiral Roughead, I have said many different times, you're
familiar that I not only support the growth of the Navy to 313
ships; I think we need to work really hard to figure out what
the best number can be. It may be higher than that. I
personally believe it should be higher than that. We have major
strategic concerns around the world that I think have been in
some ways atrophied because of the focus that this country has
had to have in recent years on the situations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and there is no substitute for a tangible presence
of the United States Navy in times of crisis when we have
strategic concerns around the world.
You hear how the members feel about that. Everybody seems
to want ships homeported and everybody seems to want to build
ships, so let's see what we can do to work together to get
efficient shipbuilding programs and to streamline the process
so that we can have the best strategic defense of our country.
General, I would like to follow on a bit from what Senator
Akaka began talking about this shift in our assets in the
Pacific, the situation particularly from Okinawa to Guam. But I
would like to hear more of your perspectives on that. I've been
involved in it at one level or another for a very long time.
One question that came up that I hope you can give us some
further light on for the committee here is this aviation
facility on Okinawa that was scheduled to be built offshore on
the far northern part of the island. I can recall when I was
visiting Okinawa a few years ago as a journalist there was a
good bit of support, at least from what I could tell, for
moving it. Then there was something about a lawsuit that
originated in the United States that would interrupt the
construction of this facility. Can you help us out on that?
General Conway. Sir, if I can, I will talk briefly about
the facility and then ask the Secretary if he'd like to
comment, because it is very legal and he and his lawyers have
been discussing it in detail.
The facility is called the Futenma Replacement Facility. It
would be built offshore, you're correct, sir, off Camp Schwab
in a coral area there, to replace the one we have at Futenma,
move it from a less populated area to an area offshore. We're
asking for a similar type of facility that would take aboard
both our helicopters and our C-130s for intertheater lift.
It has been seeing recent problems with the finding of the
Ninth Circuit, and I'd ask the Secretary to take over from
here.
Secretary Winter. Yes, sir. Senator, I appreciate the
question. What has transpired here is that a group of
individuals, principally from Japan but with a small group of
plaintiffs from the United States as well, have argued that the
National Historical Preservation Act applies in this
circumstance, that, notwithstanding the fact that the
Government of Japan is responsible for the actual construction
activity and that the Government of Japan is undergoing their
equivalent of a NEPA process with their style of EISs, that it
is incumbent upon us to deal with the dugong, which is a
manatee type of animal which has been designated by the
Government of Japan as a cultural treasure, and it is therefore
argued that the Okinawan dugong is subject to protective
measures under the National Historic Preservation Act, which is
one of the few acts which does constrain activities outside the
United States.
Senator Webb. Would you say this is going to interrupt the
construction of the facility?
Secretary Winter. It has the potential, sir, of disrupting
the activities. It constrains our ability to provide the final
approvals on the process, and I am concerned about in
particular the schedule impact. Notwithstanding what we believe
is a good likelihood of success in the final adjudication of
this, the time period that it's going to take is going to be
significant.
We are currently evaluating our options to be able to
continue in parallel, at risk if you will, in particular given
the fact that the government of Japan has the principal
responsibilities here.
Senator Webb. Thank you. We'll look forward to working with
you to help resolve that, I hope.
The final disposition, General, of the assets, what would
that look like, between Guam and Okinawa, Japan?
Admiral Roughead. Sir, what we'd like to see is about
10,000 on Okinawa, about 8,000 on Guam. We're proposing that as
a part of the initial agreement that we also be able to
distribute some of our forces to Hawaii. In the end what we
would like to do is effect a brigading, if you will, of those
locations in the Pacific, with the primary headquarters on
Guam, but with the air wing and CSS headquarters located
elsewhere, so as to be able to respond to some need in the
future by the combatant commander.
Senator Webb. It's absolutely essential for us to keep
forces in that region, not only for that region, but for
maneuverability throughout that part of the world.
General Conway. I wholeheartedly agree, sir.
Senator Webb. Have you looked at Babelthaup?
General Conway. Sir, not as a basing.
Senator Webb. Great training area.
General Conway. But our commander in the Pacific is
developing what he optimistically calls a ``Twentynine Palms of
the Pacific,'' and he is looking at the Palaus, the Marshalls,
opportunities to train and perhaps even put a station, if you
will, on some other nations, where we would visit and bring the
camp to life and then put it in a cooldown status when we
leave.
We think that there are going to have to be additional
training opportunities because Guam is simply not that large
and probably the best you're going to be able to do on-island
is company size.
Chairman Levin. Would you help us with ``Babelthaup,''
please?
Senator Webb. Mr. Chairman, we ought to have a discussion
about this. The first book that I wrote when I was 27 years old
postulated that we should realign our military bases in the
Pacific with a very heavy axis on Guam and Tinian. During those
discussions actually General Lou Walt had gone out into the
areas where the Marine Corps had operated in World War II. In
the Palau Island group there's an island called Babelthaup,
which is very difficult to spell. But he had recommended that
as a training area.
Chairman Levin. The reason I ask was to help our reporter.
I also must confess ignorance. I had never heard the term
before.
Senator Webb. We'll get back to you for the record on that.
I think there's a t-h-a-u-p on the end of it.
Chairman Levin. That will give us another reason to go back
and read your book, though. [Laughter.]
Senator Webb. I can summarize it for you very quickly.
[Laughter.]
Admiral, you mentioned something here about the Naval
Academy increasing in size in order to resource the growth in
the Marine Corps? Am I hearing you correctly?
Admiral Roughead. That's right, Senator. We would like to
take the Naval Academy brigade strength from 4,300 to 4,400,
because of the increased number of officers that are being
commissioned into the Marine Corps in support of the growth.
Senator Webb. What percentage of the Naval Academy now goes
into the Marine Corps?
Admiral Roughead. We're not set on a percentage. I think if
you were to run the percents it's almost 30-plus percent a year
that are now going into the Marine Corps.
Senator Webb. That's incredible. When I look back, when we
had a 4,100 Midshipman Brigade and the Marine Corps was 190,000
going into Vietnam, I think they had about a 6\3/4\ percent
were going into the Marine Corps. Then the Marine Corps went
from 190,000 to 304,000 during Vietnam and they went up to 10
percent. When it was at 200,000 when I was in the Pentagon, I
don't think it was much higher than 10 percent.
Admiral Roughead. It was about 16 percent when I was the
Commandant there.
Senator Webb. What you're really seeing is the impact of a
reduction in the size of the Navy, I think, with those
percentages going over.
These people don't go through regular Marine Corps Officer
Candidate School (OCS), do they General?
General Conway. They do not, sir, any longer. They do go to
Quantico if interested in a Marine Corps option for a 3-week
period after their third year.
Senator Webb. Mr. Secretary, when it grew above 10 percent
when I was Secretary of the Navy, I mandated that those Naval
Academy midshipmen who wanted to go in the Marine Corps should
go through the bulldog program the same as the ROTC midshipmen,
and I think at the time it was done because we were looking at
the class standing of Naval Academy midshipmen in basic school
and it had gone way down.
We don't ever worry about the people at the top. They're
always going to do well, the people who are really motivated.
But when you have that high a percentage, I would be curious as
to see what the spread looks like. You want to make sure that
everybody's motivated. The Marine Corps has a different
perspective than a lot of different areas.
General Conway. I can talk to that myself, sir, if you
would like. When I was commanding officer at the basic school I
did a like study and, as you might imagine, our Marine Enlisted
Commissioning Program was absolutely producing the best
students, Naval ROTC and Platoon Leader Class a distant second.
At that point Academy was about the same as OCS, and that was
troubling to us.
We started a series of engagements, and I can tell you,
sir, it's quantum better today. Their performance today is akin
to their intelligence levels and the 4 years of experience
they've gained at the Academy.
Admiral Roughead. Senator, I'd say it turned around when I
was the Commandant at the Naval Academy. [Laughter.]
Admiral Roughead. But I would also say that, in addition to
supporting the Marine Corps growth, the Naval Academy remains
one of the primary institutions where we get our technical base
from. So that's why the growth is important. It can't be zero
sum and that's why we need the growth.
Senator Webb. Having had an engineering degree shoved down
my throat during 4 years at the Naval Academy, I know what you
mean about technical requirements. But I'd kind of be curious
to see those numbers, actually.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say that no one has been more of a gentleman
and more of a class act in terms of a Senator since I arrived
here than Senator Warner. It's a wonderful time when we can get
past all that party label stuff and acknowledge this. It's what
makes this place good for our democracy. So I certainly echo
the warm sentiments that Senator Webb had.
Senator Warner. I thank my colleague.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
I note in your testimony, Admiral, that you're concerned
about the tactical aircraft inventory shortfall. The older F-
18s are being used, as you well know, far beyond their original
design. I know your inventory is really challenged by the
delays in the JSF, and we're talking about now, depending on
who you talk to and depending on whether we want to be very
optimistic or whether we want to be overly realistic, somewhere
between 2-, 3-, and 6-year delays.
The Carrier Air Wing 7, it's my understanding, is missing
all of its tactical aircraft at this point and is playing kind
of a shell game to cover its mission responsibilities. I think
your inventory models predict at best a 70-aircraft shortfall
during this transition to JSF.
My question is, would you comment on your plans in fiscal
year 2009 and beyond to fix the shortfall? Do we need to
strongly consider a new multi-year procurement of F-18s to fill
in the gap in terms of these carrier deck shortfalls,
particularly in light of our mission in that regard and the
national security concerns?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, thank you very much for the
question. The JSF is going to be a capability that will add
greatly to our Navy capability in the future. That said, as I
look at how we are using our strike fighter aircraft, we're
using them at quite a rate. In fact, we have a study underway
currently to see if we can stretch out the life of the Hornets
that are in service today.
As I look at our future air wing--and your number is very
close to ours. We're saying it's 69. We believe in the 2016
timeframe that we will have a dip. We have to look at what are
the mitigators for that. I do not believe we can stretch the
Hornets any more than we're seeking to do right now.
But as we go into preparation of our fiscal year 2010
budget this is something that is foremost in my mind, because
our ability to project power around the world is a function of
our carriers and a function of our air wings, and we have to
make sure that we have the capabilities that we need.
Senator McCaskill. I'm encouraged that you're looking at
that, and I certainly--obviously, I think we have a lot to be
proud of in the F-18. It's under budget and on time and it has
been a great aircraft for its purpose. Frankly, having a few
more of them around during this transition period of time I
think is not something that we should shy away from,
particularly realizing the gap that's coming.
Admiral Roughead. It's a great airplane and I'm pleased
we've been able to transition it into an electronic attack
variant that I think will be very valuable to us as well.
Senator McCaskill. It's terrific.
Also, the only other question I had today for you--and
frankly, any of you can speak to this. I know that Senator
Kennedy talked about the MRAP problems in terms of the
availability. I'm concerned about the whistleblower, Franz
Gayl. I would like some reassurance from you that Mr. Gayl is
not going to face any adverse employment decisions or actions
because of his whistleblowing in regard to the study that was
done, that has now come out in part of the public discourse.
General Conway. Ma'am, he works for the Marine Corps. I
have purposely stayed at arm's length from that discussion. I
have never met Mr. Gayl or Major Gayl.
There is, I will say, I guess, an investigation underway to
determine whether or not he has complied with the guidance that
was given to him by his boss. We are making every overture to
ensure that we don't violate any aspects of his whistleblower
status. But if it's determined that Mr. Gayl has done something
other than what his leadership and his bosses have instructed
him to do, then that outcome will have to be determined, as to
what happens to Mr. Gayl.
Senator McCaskill. I know that General Magnus recently
referred this to the DOD IG, which I think is an appropriate
move. I know how hard it is internally to be careful in this
regard, and I know that there are some whistleblowers who have
not followed direct instructions and who have gotten out in
ways that maybe they shouldn't have.
But the impact that dealing negatively with whistleblowers
has on the entire operation is something that we really need to
avoid. Whistleblowers are so important to accountability,
regardless of whether we're talking about a bureaucratic agency
that's dealing with the taxpayers or whether we're talking
about the military. I just want to make sure that I didn't
leave this hearing without expressing to you how strongly I
feel and how closely I'll be watching to make sure that any
whistleblower, and this whistleblower in particular, is treated
with respect and deference and under the letter of the law in
terms of any potential adverse consequences because of what he
did.
I just think it's tremendously important and I just didn't
want to leave the hearing without expressing that in very
strong terms.
General Conway. I do appreciate that and I can assure you
from my leadership position he will be treated in accordance
with the law.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator McCaskill.
Admiral, I think you made reference to the number of P-3s
that are grounded.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. As 39?
Admiral Roughead. 39 is what we've grounded.
Chairman Levin. What's the total number of P-3s we have? Is
that a third? What percentage of the total is that?
Admiral Roughead. That's about a third of what we have
operational.
Chairman Levin. You can get us the precise number for the
record, just to get some idea of that.
Admiral Roughead. I will get back to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
There are currently 157 P-3C aircraft in the inventory. The 39 Red
Striped aircraft comprise approximately 25 percent of the total force.
Chairman Levin. By the way, we'll just have a brief second
round for those who want to ask some additional questions.
On the MRAPs, General, your decision on the MRAPs, which is
totally understandable, you explained it very well as to the
various missions and what vehicles you need for which missions.
When you purchase less or fewer MRAPs than expected, does the
Army need the ones that you did not buy, do you know, and does
that speed up delivery to the Army of their requirement because
you're not going to be using all of the ones you originally
planned on? Does that have any impact positively on the Army?
General Conway. Sir, potentially, in that there would have
been a distribution over time of those that were built that was
depending upon the needs of the units in theater. Frankly, a
part of our determination to recommend reduction of our buy was
that we were not seeing the contacts in the west that the Army
was still having, Baghdad, Diyalah, and up towards Mosul.
So the answer I think is probably yes. That said, when we
considered the reduction we looked at the impact that it would
have on industry. We didn't want them to have bought up steel
and transmissions and tires for a vehicle that we would
suddenly say that we didn't need. There was no impact there.
Chairman Levin. That would be a second question. But as far
as the Army, you're not sure whether or not that brings them
quicker to their requirement?
General Conway. I think it's fair to say that it will, sir,
because all those built on this last buy, which I think was
December of this last year, will be Army. There will be no
Marine vehicles in there.
Chairman Levin. I'd like to talk to you about your troop
levels. General, as I understand it in CENTCOM now, in Iraq and
Afghanistan, you now have eight battalions; is that correct?
General Conway. Sir, today as we speak we have eight
battalions, that is correct.
Chairman Levin. It's your intention to increase that to 10
by March or in March? Is that your general plan?
General Conway. Sir, it gets complicated, but our committed
battalions will be 10 in March, because you will have the eight
in Iraq and two more battalions, of course with the MEU
headquarters and the support elements, going into Afghanistan.
So from March through May the commitment will be 10 battalions.
Chairman Levin. Then in May you're going to be bringing
back two battalions as I understand it?
General Conway. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Levin. Then you'll be staying with eight through
October?
General Conway. That is correct, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Now, is it your plan to draw down below
eight in October? Is that your current plan?
General Conway. Sir, the conditions under which the
Secretary of Defense approved the request for forces was such
that the deployments to Afghanistan represent 7-month
deployments, which is our norm, for both the MEU and the
battalion. So ostensibly those forces will be coming out in
October of this year.
Chairman Levin. Is it fair to say then that is what the
current plan is, but it could be changed?
General Conway. Mr. Chairman, that's exactly right.
Chairman Levin. Now, on that Law of the Sea Convention that
we made reference to--and I'm delighted to hear the
administration is going to strongly support the ratification of
that convention. It's my understanding that the Foreign
Relations Committee voted that out again this Congress, and I'm
wondering whether any of you or either of you may have
testified before the committee, or was that your predecessors?
Admiral Roughead. I did not testify. I believe Admiral
Mullen testified, and I know Admiral Vernon E. Clark, USN
(Ret.) did as well.
Chairman Levin. He testified, okay.
Senator Warner. Very strongly, if I might say, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. That's great.
I'm urging again that this convention be brought to the
floor. I just think it's long overdue. It has great value in
terms of the Navy, the way in which we can have orderly
processes at sea working with other nations. My dear colleague,
Senator Warner, was the person who actually signed the treaty,
I believe on behalf of the country.
Senator Warner. When I was Secretary of the Navy, I was the
delegate for the Secretary of Defense to the Law of the Sea
Conference in Geneva. It was about 36 years ago that I
performed that service. It was someone different than the
Incidents at Sea.
But I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up this
question of this treaty. It's important for the United States
of America if we're going to continue to lead as the major
maritime power, and we now have before us today the current
team that's in charge of the Navy and they give unqualified
support to this treaty. So thank you for bringing it up.
Chairman Levin. I thank you. There's a wonderful picture of
Senator Warner, if you have a chance to see it, when he was
just a couple years younger, when he was, on behalf of the
United States of America, initialing or signing fully that
agreement. It's a wonderful bit of naval history, an important
part to security, stability on the seas. It's a great history
and I hope that we're able to confirm this while Senator
Warner's still in the United States Senate.
But a number of the benefits of the Law of the Sea
Convention which have been cited were: the right of unimpeded
transit passage through straits that are used for international
navigation; a framework for challenging excessive claims of
other states over coastal waters; and the right to conduct
military activities in exclusive economic zones.
Admiral, I believe you have said that the convention
provides a stable, predictable, and recognized legal regime
that we need to conduct our operations today and in the future.
Admiral Roughead. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. So I wanted to get all that in the record
because I will be asking the Majority Leader to bring that
convention to the floor.
The only other question I think I have is about the EFV.
General, let me just ask you about the funding for that
vehicle. This is really the missing piece in your over-the-
horizon assault goal. It's been in development, this vehicle,
since the early 1990s. There was a cost breach of the Nunn-
McCurdy which occurred last year. That resulted in a delay. But
there's a funding shortfall, as I understand it; is that
correct, or is that not a funding issue at the moment?
General Conway. Sir, I think at this point it's a
developmental issue more than it is a funding issue. We have
reduced our requirements by half in order to have just those
vehicles that we sense that we have to need. We accept fully
the reason why the Navy would not want to close closer than 25
miles to an unfriendly shore. So you're precisely right, we
have to find some way to bridge that distance and do it
quickly.
I'd ask the Secretary, sir, if he would have any comments
about the funding or the development.
Chairman Levin. Maybe you could comment on it. Mr.
Secretary, is there a funding issue or is that a different
problem?
Secretary Winter. No, sir, I believe the issue here that
you're referring to is a developmental one, where we went
through the test and evaluation activities last year. While the
vehicle was able to perform the vast majority of its
objectives, the reliability was far from what we were looking
for. So we went and took the program and said we needed to do a
design for reliability and maintainability, with the hopes of
being able to come up with a configuration that would reflect
those types of improvements, give us the ability to maintain
this critical asset on board ship, and have the availability
and reliability that we expect out of a vehicle of this type,
and make all of those changes before we went into production.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
General Conway. Sir, if I could add one thing. We've talked
some about the growth of other navies. I am going to China the
end of next month. I'm invited to go out and ride aboard one of
their new amphibious ships and then to be taken ashore in their
equivalent of the EFV, that will ride well above the wave
height at something exceeding 25 miles an hour.
Chairman Levin. That's great. I think, by the way, these
military-to-military contacts are valuable for all kinds of
reasons, and that's a perfect example of it.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
every now and then we should acknowledge the support that we
get from our staffs. I wanted to thank a member of your staff,
Fletcher Cork, for recognizing when the hearing started the
temperature in this room was 64 degrees, and we have now got it
up to 70.
Chairman Levin. The conversation has not been heated at
all. [Laughter.]
Senator Warner. It's just the foresight of a very able
staff member.
Chairman Levin. New technology in operation here.
Senator Warner. It's your staff.
Chairman Levin. We want to thank you for recognizing my
staff.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. They've done some other important things as
well. Not recently. [Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Notice all the laughter emanated on your
side. [Laughter.]
I want to talk a little bit about the family structure,
which is so important to each and every one of those
servicemembers, be it male or female, that's proud to wear the
uniform. Admiral, I understand that you recently requested the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to hold a tank session of the
senior military leadership to address military health care
costs and DOD medical issues. I hope that that will come to
pass.
We're fortunate in DOD to have the services of a man by the
name of Dr. Alfred S. Casales, M.D. You're familiar with him?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, I know him.
Senator Warner. Extraordinary achievement in the private
sector as a cardiac surgeon, and he's heading up the team. He
will undoubtedly be integral to this study.
But tell us what you hope to achieve from bringing this up
with your fellow members in the tank. Then, General, I'd like
to invite you to address the same question. Because we have
tried to improve health care. This committee has taken the
leadership over many years. We did TRICARE for Life
legislation. We had the very serious problem of, I just call it
the Walter Reed syndrome, which awakened all of us to the need
for further study. Now I think you're carrying it to another
level.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. My motivation in recommending
to the Chairman that the Chiefs talk about health care really
stems from a couple of things. One is that as we look at what
our people value, what our sailors and their families value,
the surveys always point that health care is at the very top of
the list.
It is also true that the costs of health care are
significant and that they are squeezing and putting pressure on
budgets in ways that were not envisioned years ago.
But most importantly, when you combine these things, and as
we make adjustments in how we deliver care, whether it's
privatized or direct care, I believe that the Chiefs must have
a discussion as to what the nature of our operational health
care will be, and in the case of the Navy and the Marine Corps
we're an expeditionary force, we're a deployed force. So as we
make changes to health care systems and how we budget for that,
what effect does that have on the operational dimension?
I believe that it's the Chiefs that must have that
discussion. We can talk about the business plans and other
things in other fora. But we collectively as Services, and as
we become more joint in the providing of health care, I think
it's time that we have this discussion. It's not aimed at any
particular area.
Senator Warner. I strongly commend you for that initiative.
Would you like to add your perspective?
General Conway. Sir, there's two or three points I'd like
to offer. One, we with Navy medicine, I think, are doing a very
good job with our wounded warriors. That includes PTSD and TBI,
although we continue to, I think, do some discovery learning in
terms of techniques. There is no lack of effort to provide the
best possible medical care.
The Navy has a forward-deployed footprint. The Admiral
mentioned that they're expeditionary. They are. They're forward
with us with teams sorting out these things really now in both
theaters, and that's as it should be. What happens as an
indirect result of that, and I'm attempting to manage it
through discussions with the families and so forth, is that
there is a shortfall in some of the hospitals and clinics. Our
people wait a little longer, but they still get great treatment
when they get in, and we're helping our families to understand
that.
One area that I find, though, that I think we need to place
increasing attention and increasing concern are for those
Exceptional Family Member Programs. We have stories out there
of a first sergeant living in his mother-in-law's home, with
his wife and two children, one of whom is an exceptional child.
He is paying $80,000 a year for that treatment to that child
and that's where all his income is going. He's a devoted
parent.
But the care that's being offered for some of our
exceptional family members through the TRICARE system that we
have now I think needs to take a closer look at those specific
concerns and help these families, because they're having tough
times otherwise.
Senator Warner. They look to you as the uniformed boss. But
I would like to invite Secretary Winter to follow on to the
General's observation. I commend you for your recognition of
the Navy-Marine Corps family as they've endured these high
operational tempos, the initiatives you have outlined, adding
4,000 child care spaces, authorizing 100,000 hours of respite
care for families of deployed servicemembers, enhanced programs
for children and youth, indeed at a price. Tell us a little bit
about those initiatives?
Secretary Winter. Sir, as has been said many times, we
recruit sailors and marines; we retain their families. Ensuring
that we're able to provide for an appropriate lifestyle and an
appropriate environment for our families there is of absolute
importance. Doing that at our Fleet concentration areas has
been a major objective here. It has been somewhat easier, if
you will, in those areas than it has been at some of the more
farflung places that we operate, and in particular a little bit
more challenging, obviously, for those families associated with
our IAs and reservists that have been called up for Active
Duty.
What we're trying to do right now is to develop a whole
range of programs and processes that can address the full
spectrum of those families. The child development center
investments that you referred to are a major part of that. That
happens to be one of the highest priority items any time we go
out and conduct surveys of families as to what is really
important for them. Similarly, being able to provide the full
range of support from the fleet and family service centers is
increasingly important.
What we've been doing of late, in addition to those
activities, is affording mechanisms for families that are not
co-located, that are not in those Fleet concentration areas, to
participate in the call centers, the Internet Web sites, the
other mechanisms that we've been able to identify, to be able
to make sure that our families are taken care of and know how
to get the resources that they need, no matter where they live.
Senator Warner. I want to thank you for that initiative.
Gentlemen, it's interesting, this July will mark 35 years
of the All-Volunteer Force. Too much has been said about me
here today, but I was privileged to be in the DOD in your
position in July 1973 when the draft ended. We took a deep
breath. I say ``we''; the whole of the United States, and
particularly the military leaders, civilian and uniformed,
decided to try an experiment that no other nation had ever
tried. It has worked magnificently.
As a matter of fact, I think it has worked better than any
of us at that time had the vision to foresee. We have to
protect it. I'd just like to wind up this session by hopefully
receiving your assurances that in your collective professional
judgment, if all three will respond to the question, that the
All-Volunteer Force is very much alive and well and even
strengthening.
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Winter. Yes, Senator. I would argue it is not
only necessary, but it is clearly possible. We just need to
take care of our servicemembers and their families, and I think
this Nation will continue to support us.
Senator Warner. Admiral?
Admiral Roughead. Senator, in June 1973 you spoke at my
graduation.
Senator Warner. At Annapolis.
Admiral Roughead. You headed me fair, as we say in the
Navy, and I'm honored that you're here at my first posture
statement.
The reason I bring that up is because of your leadership
and your concern for the men and women of our Navy. That today
I serve in the best Navy I have ever served in, and it's a
function of the All-Volunteer Force, the care that you and this
committee, the attention and the thought that goes into truly
creating an environment where our young men and women can come
and be fulfilled personally and professionally, has made our
Navy what it is today. I thank you and I thank the committee
for everything that you do.
Senator Warner. General?
General Conway. Sir, I joined the Marine Corps in 1971 in
the operating forces. That was before the All-Volunteer
military. There is no comparison between today's military and
the people we had in our ranks at that point, absolutely no
comparison.
I would offer that a small All-Volunteer military is really
put to the test in a protracted conflict such as we see here
now. But use of our Reserves, I think, across all Services has
helped to mitigate that, and we're managing that, I think
effectively, in many instances.
I would end, sir, by saying, however, that we're now a
country of over 300 million people. Less than 1 percent of our
numbers wear the uniform at any point in time. That is our
warrior class. That's our insurance against all those things
out there that could in some way do damage to our country. I
would only ask that you continue to support and sustain those
people to the best of your ability, because we owe them a great
deal.
Senator Warner. I want to thank you for those comments. As
a matter of fact, I leave here to go to the floor at 2 o'clock
to join Senator Webb, who's really been a leader in so many
initiatives in the short time he's been in the Senate, to put
forth legislation to strengthen and broaden the GI Bill.
When I reflect on my modest career, it would not have been
achievable had I not received a GI Bill education for modest
service in World War II and a law degree for again modest
Active Duty in the Marine Corps, this time during the Korean
Conflict. I think this generation is entitled to the same
benefits as my generation had. That educational program was
probably the best investment that the American taxpayers ever
made. It started in 1944.
I mention that only because in my judgment the initiatives
of Senator Webb and others who joined on this field are going
to strengthen and solidify the foundation on which the All-
Volunteer Force exists. I think it's an important step. Sleep
with one eye open. We cannot ever revert back to the draft in
my judgment, absent some extraordinary unforeseeable situation.
You remember, General--and I think probably, Admiral, you
saw the vestiges of the draft--the problem that we had, the
disciplinary problems, because there were just individuals who
were there, not because they raised their hands and
volunteered, as does every single person in uniform today. They
are there because they had the courage and the willingness to
raise their hand and said ``I volunteer.''
So sleep with one eye open and guard it.
I thank you again, Senator, for your comments.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. A lot's been
said about you today.
Senator Warner. Too much.
Chairman Levin. Well, no, not enough. A lot more is going
to be said about you in the months ahead. But most importantly,
it's not just what you've contributed to the security of this
country, representing your beloved Commonwealth, but we're
going to look forward to many, many, many, many more years of
your contribution to the security of this country after you
leave this particular place early next year.
Senator Warner and I have exchanged this gavel many times
as chairman. I think we've each been chairman three times now.
I'm just wondering, Senator, since this is going to be, I
think, your last posture hearing, unless we can slip in an
additional one just for old time's sake before you leave, if
you would gavel this hearing to a close.
Senator Warner [presiding]. This is an unexpected pleasure.
Thank you. A third of a century of my life has been with the
Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and with our military, and I
wouldn't be here today but for what they did for me, and I
don't think I've done in return that much for them. But I thank
you for this honor.
Thank you. We are adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
increases in navy science and technology funding
1. Senator Reed. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, the Navy
mission has undergone significant change where the threats, theaters of
operations, and increasingly joint context of operations have shifted
significantly. One would expect a `bump' in science and technology
(S&T) funding associated with technology enablers for new mission
capabilities. This can be observed in the Army funding the S&T efforts
to support the Future Combat System (FCS) when it was evident that a
transformation to a faster, leaner, more connected ground force was
needed. The Army got their S&T bump starting in 2005 and is now coming
back down. Many of the technologies will not necessarily be tied to a
platform, but are part of the overall theater combat network. We are at
a point in time in the Navy where the force structure is changing and
several new ship and air platform types are in the works. Typically,
there is an increase in S&T before new platform types are introduced
into the fleet as new systems technologies are developed for the
platform. We are at that point in the Navy where a bump should be
expected. The Navy budget for S&T has essentially flat-lined since 2004
including the budget presented this year. Are we falling behind the
curve in funding research and development (R&D) to support both
shipboard and expeditionary force advanced capability?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. We are not falling behind.
The Navy has renewed its commitment to a strong S&T leadership role as
reflected in the 6 percent increase in S&T investment in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2009. We continue focusing
our S&T investments on greater integration of capabilities and on
aggressively tapping into the opportunities provided by the global
movement of ideas, technology, and innovation.
Our S&T investments present a well-reasoned balance between applied
science, focused on near-term challenges, and basic research to make
longer-term investments to advance the frontiers of science. Our
investment in basic and early applied research will build the
scientific foundation for future technologies, emphasize key ``game
changing'' initiatives that can provide disruptive technologies to our
sailors and marines, and focus on the transition of critical S&T
programs to the acquisition community and the fleet.
The naval S&T strategy provides this balance by directing minimum
investments as follows:
At least 40 percent in discovery and invention (basic
research and early applied research)
At least 30 percent in acquisition enablers, primarily the
Future Naval Capabilities (applied and advanced research)
At least 10 percent in leap ahead innovations such as
Electromagnetic Railgun (applied and advanced research)
At least 10 percent in quick reaction S&T (advanced research)
2. Senator Reed. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, if the Navy
is falling behind in funding on R&D to support shipboard and
expeditionary force advanced capability, how much is needed to supply
an adequate `bump' in Navy S&T funding?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The Navy is not falling
behind on R&D funding. We value S&T to give us a warfighting advantage
and enable new innovative naval operating concepts. We have increased
our investment in S&T by 6 percent in the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2009 and 1.5 percent across the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
unmanned aerial systems
3. Senator Bayh. General Conway, the MQ-9 Reaper, an Unmanned
Aerial System (UAS), continues to distinguish itself during challenging
combat operations in Southwest Asia supporting U.S. and coalition
forces in combat abroad. U.S. and allied military commanders engaged in
these operations have identified the MQ-9 Reaper as consistently key to
mission success. The capabilities of the MQ-9 Reaper equipped with the
DB-110 Reconnaissance Pod meet U.S. Marine Corps combat requirements in
Iraq and Afghanistan, providing persistent endurance, superior wide-
area/day-night surveillance, precision strike, and beyond-line-of-sight
operations, while also providing a 3,000 pound external payload
capacity to meet future Marine Corps combat needs. However, the Marine
Corps currently lacks these UAS capabilities and their dedicated
employment. What are the combat benefits the Marine Corps could derive
from the MQ-9 Reaper's immediate strike capability assuming the MQ-9
Reaper were dedicated to and under direct control of Marine Corps
fighting forces?
General Conway. The MQ-9 Reaper is a large, multi-function UAS with
a myriad of capabilities for providing day/night ISR and weapons
employment. The Marine Corps could certainly benefit from dedicated MQ-
9 Reaper support. However, UAS support is a zero sum equation and the
Marine Corps is currently meeting its commitments with the RQ-7B
Shadow.
Operational control (Direct Support vice General Support to the
Joint Force) of an RQ-9 system by the Marine Corps would be in conflict
to the Joint Force Commander's employment plan and would be achieved at
the cost of support to another joint or coalition unit. Beyond
operational support, the Marine Corps could not support the MQ-9 system
with regard to logistics or manpower. The MQ-9 Reaper is three times
longer, five and a half times wider, and an order or magnitude heavier
than the currently fielded RQ-7B Shadow. The size and weight of the MQ-
9 limit its ability to be incorporated into the expeditionary
warfighting methodology used by the Marine Corps.
The future Tier II capability desired by the Marine Corps will
retain its expeditionary capability with a requirement that it be
transportable by a CH-53 aircraft. The MQ-9 does not meet this
requirement.
If given the opportunity to operationally control an MQ-9 system
for direct support to the MAGTF, the USMC would certainly derive a
short-term benefit. The cost to the Joint Force Commander could be
considered detrimental given the limited availability of MQ-9 assets.
It is a matter of debate as to the priority for MQ-9 support.
4. Senator Bayh. General Conway, could the MQ-9 Reaper's and the
DB-110 Reconnaissance Pod's capabilities complement Marine aviation
functions, to include: Offensive Air Support, Aerial Reconnaissance,
Assault Support, Electronic Warfare, Command and Control of Aircraft
and Missiles, and Anti-Air Warfare?
General Conway. Yes. Direct support to the MAGTF provided by the
MQ-9 Reaper would complement the six functions of Marine aviation. The
difference between the benefit provided and the associated cost of
ownership is the deciding factor regarding the MQ-9 Reaper. If the
Marine Corps were directed to support the MQ-9, the other aviation
functions would suffer due to the logistical and manpower requirements
to operate and control the system (e.g. maintainers, aviators, command
and control officers, etc).
5. Senator Bayh. General Conway, could the Marine Corps benefit
from an extended Marine Corps MQ-9 Reaper/DB-110 Reconnaissance Pod
combat evaluation in Southwest Asia, while operating under direct and
dedicated Marine Corps control?
General Conway. Yes, the Marine Corps could stand to benefit from
MQ-9 Reaper support. Two key assumptions are critical to a successful
evaluation. First, if all system support was provided by the owning
agency (e.g. operators, maintenance, and controllers). Second, if the
tempo from that agency matched our battle-rhythm. The rate at which
tasks were turned into reconnaissance and actionable intelligence would
have to be responsive and timely to meet the Marine Corps concept of
operations. Given both assumptions, the Marine Corps would benefit from
a combat evaluation of the MQ-9 Reaper.
nuclear and fossil-fuel navy power analysis
6. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, the Navy
has been studying variants of the next cruiser, CG(X), including
nuclear power, in an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA), which was to be
completed in 2007. I am extraordinarily pleased the Navy is undertaking
this effort, and compliment the Navy's leadership and vision in
pursuing such an in-depth study so critical to our Nation's security
for the next half century. Is this analysis a true apples-to-apples
comparison of nuclear and fossil-fueled ships, taking into account:
the fact that procurement costs for nuclear ships
include the cost of fuel for the ship's lifetime, while
procurement costs for fossil-fuel ships do not include a
lifetime of fuel;
the cost of the fuel supply infrastructure for fossil-
fueled ships, including costs to protect supply ships as
capital ships (including the potential growth of fuel and
infrastructure costs over the life of the ship);
the value of energy independence, increased mobility,
and reduced carbon emissions from nuclear ships;
the value of more space for weapons, unmanned
vehicles, and aircraft fuel in nuclear ships due to space saved
by not storing fuel for power;
long-term savings on submarines and aircraft carriers
due to increased nuclear production; and
the value of nuclear power's ability to accommodate
the high energy demands of future weapon systems?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The Maritime Air and Missile
Defense of Joint Forces AOA, which includes consideration of CG(X)
platform alternatives, examined and compared the Life-Cycle Costs
(LCCs) for nuclear and fossil-fueled ship concepts on an equal basis.
The LCCs include costs for development, procurement, operations and
support (including fossil fuel usage), and disposal. This cost
comparison includes the cost of nuclear reactor cores supporting ship
life in the upfront acquisition cost comparisons. For the operating and
support costs, a delivered fully burdened cost of fuel is used in
accordance with Office of the Secretary of Defense guidance and the
Defense Energy Support Center price which includes direct costs (fuel
price, refinement, transportation, facilities/operations) as well as
proportionate indirect costs (Navy storage and handling, oiler
acquisition and operating costs, and environmental related costs).
The cost of protecting supply ships or growth in fuel supply
infrastructure was not evaluated in the AoA. As CG(X) is envisioned to
operate with Strike Groups and/or Surface Action Groups, accordingly no
major impact to the Combat Logistics Force (CLF) structure is
anticipated with either a new nuclear cruiser or a new efficient, high
endurance, fossil fueled cruiser because CG(X)/CGN(X) is not the
limiting ship class for re-supply. Should the Navy consider platform
alternatives or operating concepts that affect these assumptions, the
Navy will consider the impact to the CLF in the decision process.
Regarding the value of increased mobility:
While any financial benefits that would accrue from operational
advantages were not included in the cost comparison, studies of
operational sufficiency conducted in support of the AoA suggest that
nuclear power allows higher transit speeds in surge-to-theater missions
without underway replenishment. Nuclear power offers increased time
between replenishment resulting in longer time on station during
warfighting operations.
The value of energy independence beyond the operational benefits to
a nuclear-powered CG(X) was not evaluated in the AoA. Quantification of
the impacts of nuclear power on strategic energy independence is
difficult in a cost comparison.
Regarding the value of reduced carbon emissions from nuclear ships:
The value of reduced carbon emissions was not evaluated during the
AoA. Design and operation of a future CG(X) platform will comply with
applicable Federal, State, and local statutes.
Regarding the value of more space for weapons, unmanned vehicles, and
aircraft fuel in nuclear ships due to space saved by not
storing fuel for power:
Development of ship design concepts to support the assessed
operational requirements (including weapons, unmanned vehicles, and
aircraft fuel) in the AoA included examination of the design impacts of
alternative propulsion systems such as machinery space and fuel tank
requirements.
Regarding long-term savings on submarines and aircraft carriers due to
increased nuclear production:
The AoA considers but did not specifically include the long-term
savings (5-9 percent) on submarines and aircraft carriers due to
increased nuclear production.
Regarding the value of nuclear power's ability to accommodate the high
energy demands of future weapon systems:
The ability to accommodate higher electric energy demands
associated with future weapon and sensor systems is a function of
electrical generation and distribution capacity, and is independent of
fuel type (nuclear vs. fossil fuel). Flexibility in accommodating
increased electric loads can be introduced into either nuclear or
fossil fuel propulsion plant designs, although fossil fuel endurance is
degraded with electric load growth.
7. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, when will
the results of the AoAs be complete and made available to Congress?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The results of the Maritime
Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces AoA, more commonly referred to
as the CG(X) AoA, were delivered to the Navy Staff in January 2008. The
Navy Staff is reviewing this comprehensive and lengthy report. The
report is over 600 pages of information and reflects 18 months of work.
The Navy is conducting a series of internal reviews prior to making
final decisions in several critical areas. I have been updated on the
progress of the internal Navy AoA reviews. Once complete, the AoA
Report will be forwarded from the Navy Staff via the Secretary of the
Navy's Office to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for final
approval. The Office of the Secretary of Defense will have the final
determination on when the AoA will be made available to Congress.
8. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, if the cost
of fuel, as well as the costs of operating and protecting supply ships,
were added to the upfront costs of fossil-fueled ships, what would the
difference in upfront costs be for nuclear and fossil-fuel cruisers?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The Maritime Air and Missile
Defense of Joint Forces AoA, which evaluated CG(X) platform
alternatives, examines and compares the LCCs for the nuclear and fossil
fueled ship concepts on an equal basis based on the fully burdened cost
of fuel to include the operations of the supply ship. The AoA did not
evaluate the cost of protecting supply ships. As CG(X) is envisioned to
operate with Strike Groups and/or Surface Action Groups, no major
impact to the CLF structure is anticipated with either a new nuclear
cruiser or a new efficient, high endurance, fossil fueled cruiser
because CG(X)/CGN(X) is not the limiting ship class for resupply.
Should the Navy consider platform alternatives or operating concepts
that affect these assumptions, the Navy will consider the impact to the
CLF in the decision process.
9. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, has the
Navy considered alternative funding methods for nuclear fuel--for
instance, funding nuclear fuel with the same appropriations fund that
is used for fossil fuels--to reduce the difference in procurement costs
in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) fund? If not, why not?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. No, the Navy has not
considered alternative funding methods for reactor cores for new
construction ships. These funds are required to support construction.
Changing the appropriations to procure these reactor cores represents
no advantage to the Navy.
10. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, absent the
current budget approach for nuclear fuel in SCN and fossil fuel in
Operation and Maintenance, Navy, which power plant--nuclear-powered or
fossil-fueled--will provide operationally superior capabilities for a
cruiser able to meet the Navy's drastically increasing operational
tempo and support Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and other future high
energy weapons systems?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The budget approach has no
impact on operational capability. However, studies conducted in support
of the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces AoAs, which
included consideration of CG(X) platform alternatives; assess that
nuclear power offers increased time between replenishment resulting in
longer time on station during warfighting operations and higher transit
speeds in a surge-to-theater scenario.
Cruisers currently deploy with other fossil fuel ships including
CLF assets that can provide refueling at sea capability in the existing
air defense concept of operations. The operational impact of reduced
operational presence due to replenishment at sea is minimized if
operating distances between CLF assets and the CG(X) remain small.
The ability to accommodate higher electric energy demands
associated with future weapon and sensor systems is a function of
electrical generation capacity, and is independent of fuel type
(nuclear vs. fossil fuel). Flexibility in accommodating increased
electric loads can be introduced into either nuclear or fossil fuel
propulsion plant designs, although fossil fuel endurance is degraded
with electric load growth.
11. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, several
years ago, the Nation's various shipyards were consolidated under two
shipbuilding companies, to achieve greater efficiency and reduced
costs. Have those predicted results been realized in savings in
shipbuilding costs?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The consolidation of the
shipyards under two shipbuilding companies allows those shipbuilders
more flexibility to take a sector view in balancing their resources and
facilities as they determine the most efficient approach in the
production process. The Navy is encouraged by General Dynamics' and
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding's recent attempts to explore corporate-
wide efficiencies across their shipyards. The innovative design and
build practices being implemented by General Dynamics Electric Boat and
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding Newport News in the Virginia-class
Submarine Program serves as a model for other programs. Cost reduction
goals are being realized and as a result the Navy will begin procuring
two submarines per year in fiscal year 2011, 1 year earlier than
previously planned. General Dynamics has also used Electric Boat's
designers on the DDG-1000 design contract and Northrop Grumman Newport
News resources have been used to support production of ships at
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems. The Navy believes greater efficiencies
and cost savings are possible as industry further examines the
potential for corporate-wide savings.
12. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, both of
the Nation's shipbuilders own nuclear and non-nuclear shipyards. Would
shifting contracts to the shipbuilders vice individual shipyards better
facilitate construction of future classes of nuclear-powered ships, by
requiring the shipbuilders to most efficiently allocate their resources
and distribute their work throughout the individual shipyards?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. Awarding a nuclear
shipbuilding contract to the ``parent'' corporation will not
significantly change the allocation of ship components or systems
within the corporation. The Navy awards contracts to the legal entity
capable of performing the work. In most cases, the legal entity that
possesses the qualifications, certifications, facilities, and resources
to construct and deliver nuclear-powered ships is the individual
shipyard, not the parent company. There is currently no contractual
prohibition against sharing work across sectors of the same
corporation, and shipyards do that. The Navy, in collaboration with
industry partners, determines the most efficient manner to build ships,
subject to the requisite technical approvals and competencies of the
specific shipyards.
modular construction
13. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, modular
construction has been very successful for the Virginia-class submarine
program. How will the Navy apply this successful method of modular
construction to other programs, particularly the nuclear cruiser
program?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. Modular construction has
been a standard practice for more than 2 decades (e.g., DDG-51, LPD-17,
T-AKE, and DDG-1000). The Navy seeks increased use of modular
construction to maximize pre-outfitting and testing. Such efficient
construction methods are planned for incorporation into any cruiser
alternative. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Newport News and General
Dynamics Electric Boat are the Nation's two authorized and experienced
nuclear qualified construction shipyards. Non-nuclear sections of
future nuclear-powered ships could be built by other shipyards
experienced in Naval Surface Combatant construction (General Dynamics
Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Gulf Coast). The
method and location of construction of potential additional nuclear-
powered ship classes have not yet been determined. Lessons learned for
efficient modular construction in the Virginia- and Ford-class programs
will be applied to any new nuclear ship construction plan.
number of navy ships and submarines
14. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, given the
fact that the number of Navy submarines will dip significantly below
the Navy's stated minimum requirement of 48 submarines in about 20
years, are there ways to rearrange the Navy's shipbuilding budget to
facilitate more submarines sooner?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The shipbuilding plan
detailed in the Navy's Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for
Construction on Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2009 reduces the number
of years that SSN force structure is below 48 from 14 years (per fiscal
year 2008 plan) to 12 years. The 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan is the best
balance of anticipated resources to the Navy's force structure
requirements. Having less than 48 attack submarines (from 2022 through
2033) is not ideal, but the long-term risk incurred is manageable as
part of a stable shipbuilding plan that is properly balanced within
anticipated resources. A two submarine per year build rate is good for
Navy (cost and operational requirement) and for industry (stable
market).
The Navy is pursuing a three-part strategy to mitigate the risk
incurred by the SSN shortfall by reducing the construction time of
Virginia-class submarines from 72 to 60 months, extending the service
life for 16 SSNs (ranging from 3 to 24 months in length), and extending
the length of selected SSN deployments from 6 to 7 months. This
strategy will reduce the impact of the projected dip in submarine force
structure in the 2020-2033 time period and provide for all current and
projected Combatant Commander critical forward presence requirements.
15. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, absent
budget restraints, what is an achievable procurement schedule that
minimizes national security risks and accelerates the timeline to get
to a 313-ship Navy?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The budget submitted
represents the best balance of resources to warfighting requirements.
However, the Navy continues to evaluate the threat and evolving
security environment to determine what, if any, adjustments to the
force structure may be required. The Navy shipbuilding plan contains a
313-ship force to meet the need in the 2020 time period.
The Navy has examined the feasibility of increased shipbuilding in
fiscal year 2009. Most of the ships in the Navy's construction
inventory cannot be accelerated due to programmatic risk or production
limitations. For other ships in production, such as DDG-51 class ships,
in order to award and construct additional ships, numerous Government
Furnished Equipment and Contractor Furnished Equipment vendor base
issues would need to be resolved.
LPD-17 class Amphibious Assault Ship and T-AKE Dry Cargo Carrier
could accelerate the shipbuilding plan, but doing so would imbalance
competing priorities to meet warfighting capability requirements across
all warfare areas within the limits of Navy Total Obligating Authority.
Given current industrial base capacity, the Navy's plan to achieve
the required 313-ship force by the fiscal year 2020 time period, and
other competing Navy requirements that must be met, the Navy's current
procurement schedule represents the appropriate approach to achieve the
required warfighting capability.
16. Senator Bayh. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, should SCN
funding be increased or budgeting methods for ship procurement--
including submarines and nuclear ships--be revised to facilitate
achieving the 313-ship Navy?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The Navy examined the
feasibility of increased shipbuilding investment in fiscal year 2009.
Given the current industrial base capacity and other competing Navy
requirements, the fiscal year 2009 budget request of $12.4 billion is
sufficient. The Navy plans to increase shipbuilding investments from
$12.4 billion in fiscal year 2009 to over $17.9 billion in fiscal year
2013. Stability in the shipbuilding program will be key in cost
control.
The current budgeting methods for ship procurement are sufficient.
It is the Navy's policy to fully fund the cost of shipbuilding programs
in the year of contract award, with the exception of incremental
funding for aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious ships. While we
have no plans for expanding incremental funding, we will continue to
assess methods that responsibly optimize ship procurement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
competition in navy surface ship combat systems
17. Senator Warner. Admiral Roughead, the Navy's first Quarterly
Report to Congress on Naval Open Architecture, submitted this month,
states: ``The Submarine Domain's Acoustic Rapid Commercial Off-the-
Shelf Insertion (ARCI) program is widely recognized as the Navy's most
mature Open Architecture program. Based on studies in 2006, the
development and production costs for the ARCI model process were
roughly 1/6th of those for previous systems acquired under the
traditional ``Mil Standard'' model. Consequent operating and support
costs were approximately 1/8th of those for predecessor systems.''
That's an 83 percent reduction in acquisition costs and an 88 percent
reduction in annual operating costs for the Navy's entire submarine
fleet for the equipment acquired under this program. The key to
achieving this unprecedented result was use of Open Architecture
approaches and open business models involving continuous competition
among businesses.
Last year the committee required the Navy to report quarterly to
Congress on how it plans to achieve similar results for surface ships.
The Navy's report shows that there is a lot of Open Architecture
activity going on in the Navy. Absent is any meaningful activity to
open up competition--i.e. the business model--for the combat systems on
Aegis destroyers and cruisers, which are by far the most numerous ships
in the fleet. This is especially important since the contract for Aegis
combat systems on Navy surface ships has not been competed since 1969.
The Navy has already approved two sole-source justifications to spend a
total of $2.5 billion with the incumbent Aegis combat system contractor
over the last 10 years on a cost-plus basis, and is working on a new
sole-source waiver to competition. Could you please explain your plan,
using Open Architecture business models, for improving capability and
lowering costs for computers and software on Navy surface ships?
Admiral Roughead. The Navy has recently implemented an open
business model for the procurement of displays and processors.
Additional components for competition will include display services,
electronic warfare/softkill integration, track management (including
integrated architecture behavior model integration), training, anti-
submarine warfare capability improvement, and support systems.
The Navy continues to focus on removing barriers to competition as
we move forward with Open Architecture. Our ability to accelerate the
reconfiguration of our ships to open architecture is limited by two
factors. First, the fleet must maintain adequate numbers of operational
ships to meet its worldwide commitments. Second, we must take into
consideration the industrial capacity of our shipyards when we schedule
the work necessary to configure our in-service fleet in the Open
Architecture model. The cruiser and destroyer modernization programs
address both of these factors and the budget required.
Our intent is to move ahead as quickly as possible, while
fulfilling our primary mission of providing a combat capable, reliable,
and ready fleet.
18. Senator Warner. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, is the
incumbent Aegis combat system contractor working with the Navy to open
up competition for the DDG-51 combat system modernization?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The Navy is focused on
removing barriers to competition as we move forward with Open
Architecture. We are transitioning from the current platform-based
development to a capability-based development. To this end, we are
directing the Aegis combat system contractor to adhere to a government-
controlled objective architecture with government-defined and
authenticated interfaces. We are providing incentives to broaden the
vendor base, including the use of third-party components. These efforts
will support competition for Aegis modernization components, including
competitively awarded display contracts (fiscal year 2008) and the
recently announced competition for the common processing system.
Additional components being considered for competition include display
services, electronic warfare integration, training, anti-submarine
warfare capability improvement, and support systems.
19. Senator Warner. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, why is
the Navy's surface ship community so far behind the submarine community
in adopting Open Architecture?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The submarine community's
success in adopting Open Architecture results from their open business
methods of collaboration and competition combined with a vigorous Peer
Review process. These methods are being emulated by the surface
community. This year we are delivering Open Architecture-based combat
systems in U.S.S. Bunker Hill (CG-52) and U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN-68).
Our Aegis cruisers and destroyers have a tightly coupled radar
sensor-to-weapon control loop, which requires significant work to parse
the functional relationships between components such as radar, weapons,
and display. Some of this effort has been done with the separation of
Display and Common Processing functions. The next step is to facilitate
competition at the component level.
The Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) MK2, fielded in our large
amphibious ships and aircraft carriers, has migrated to Open
Architecture. The software and hardware are separated and can more
readily accommodate legacy and new interfaces. The software
applications are maintained in a common software library and are
compiled for ship-specific installations. The SSDS commercial hardware
is now upgraded via pre-planned product improvement kits to address
commercial component parts obsolescence.
20. Senator Warner. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, what
percentage of all the software that has been developed by the DDG-51
contractor over the last 40 years is in the Navy's re-use library?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The DDG-51 Aegis Baseline
7.1 software is included in the Software, Hardware Asset Re-use
Enterprise (SHARE) library. This accounts for approximately 14 percent
of all currently operational Aegis software baselines. Other components
developed from the broad vendor base for Aegis and other combat systems
that satisfy our Open Architecture needs will also be included in the
SHARE library.
Operational software delivered prior to Baseline 7 is not included
in the SHARE library because it is written in older programming
languages and is not transferable to newer Open Architecture systems.
Additionally, non-operational software developed and fielded since
program inception will not be included in the SHARE library due to
software obsolescence.
navy strike fighter gap
21. Senator Warner. Admiral Roughead, the Navy is facing a strike
fighter shortfall estimated to range from 80 to 200 tactical aircraft--
roughly 2 to 4 air wings--and extending through the next decade. The
exact shortfall will depend on the Navy's ability to extend the service
life of F/A-18 Hornet aircraft and the ability to procure 50 Joint
Strike Fighters (JSFs) per year beginning in 2014. The Navy's plan to
extend legacy Hornets from 6,000 to 10,000 hours appears highly
optimistic. Similarly, the plan to buy 50 JSFs per year during the
period that you plan to double the shipbuilding budget raises true
concerns. What is your best estimate for the most likely magnitude of
the strike fighter shortfall?
Admiral Roughead. The current estimate of the strike fighter
shortfall is a projected 125 aircraft in 2017 (69 Navy and 56 Marine
Corps). F/A-18 A/B/C/D aircraft are reaching life limits and will
require extensions to bridge the gap to the JSF. The Service Life
Assessment Program (SLAP) is assessing the remaining life on these
airframes. The initial SLAP analytical data necessary to determine
extension to 10,000 flight hours was released in January 2008. Costing
data to support the extension is planned to be released in June 2008,
and the required engineering change proposals to support the extension
will begin development in July 2008. Initial Naval Air Systems Command
and Boeing indications are encouraging on reaching 10,000 flight hours
for the F/A-18 A/B/C/D aircraft.
22. Senator Warner. Admiral Roughead, how does the strike fighter
shortfall affect the Navy's ability to meet its commitment to maintain
three deployed carriers, and be able to respond to crises by deploying
three additional carriers within 30 days, and a 7th carrier within 90
days?
Admiral Roughead. The Navy will experience an estimated 69 aircraft
strike/fighter shortfall by 2017. This shortfall would be exacerbated
by delays in JSF, reduction in F/A-18E/F or JSF procurement, or early
F/A-18 retirement. Without mitigation, Carrier Strike Group operations
will be sub-optimized due to insufficient numbers of aircraft available
to provide full complements of strike-fighters at the appropriate level
of readiness to meet projected combatant commander demands.
23. Senator Warner. Admiral Roughead, what steps are being taken--
or otherwise necessary--to reduce the strike fighter shortfall, and
also mitigate risk in the F/A-18 service life extension and JSF
procurement plans?
Admiral Roughead. The Navy is developing a stable aviation plan
that balances aviation capabilities through investments in
recapitalization, sustainment, and modernization programs. An ongoing
effort to reduce the strike fighter shortfall includes the F/A-18 SLAP
to assess the feasibility of extending the F/A-18 A/B/C/D aircraft to
10,000 hours. Initial indications are encouraging. Additional
mitigation efforts will be addressed in Program Objective Memorandum
(POM)-10.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
naval ballistic missile defense
24. Senator Collins. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, let me
first congratulate you for the successful downing of the dead satellite
last week. I was proud to see that the ship that made the successful
shot, U.S.S. Lake Erie (CG-70), was a Bath Iron Works-built ship. This
is a tremendous accomplishment that the whole Navy team should be proud
of. The demonstration of capability and flexibility of the Aegis
Cruiser and Destroyer fleet was a result of many factors and it
highlighted the tremendous capability our complex surface combatant
force brings to the important mission of naval BMD from the sea. What
do you see as the future role of front-line surface combatants in
defending our forces and our homeland from potential threats posed by
ballistic missiles?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The threat to our forces
afloat and ashore, to our friends and allies, and to our homeland is
real and becoming more complex. We are building capability and capacity
to conduct the regional BMD mission afloat in stride with our forward-
deployed and rotational-deployed forces. Additionally, these forces are
being integrated into the Ballistic Missile Defense System as Long-
Range Surveillance and Track assets, contributing to the Homeland
Defense Mission by providing early detection and cueing to support
ground-based interceptors.
The Navy has 12 engagement-capable BMD ships in the fleet today,
and will have 18 by the end of calendar year 2008. Beginning in fiscal
year 2012, our DDG modernization program will add this capability to
our entire fleet of Aegis destroyers. While our current fleet has no
capability against the longer range intermediate and ICBM threats,
future Aegis baselines and Standard Missile Interceptors (SM-3) deliver
this capability within the next 10 years.
25. Senator Collins. Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead, would
not the naval BMD capability argue for a larger fleet of surface
combatants going forward, in light of the growing threat we face?
Secretary Winter and Admiral Roughead. The Navy is committed to
delivering BMD capability through the DDG modernization program and
through new classes of surface combatants, such as CG(X).
Today the Navy has 12 Aegis BMD Engagement ships and five Aegis BMD
Long-Range Surveillance and Track ships that have been upgraded with
BMD capability. Eighteen Aegis BMD Engagement ships will be available
by the end of calendar year 2008. Additionally, the Navy will begin
outfitting the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with BMD capability as
part of the DDG modernization program in fiscal year 2012, expanding
the number of BMD capable surface ships to 62. The Navy is also
examining opportunities to include BMD capability in the CG
modernization program.
naval shipyard infrastructure
26. Senator Collins. Admiral Roughead, let me first thank you again
for taking time from your schedule to come to Maine to visit both Bath
Iron Works and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard last month. As I am sure you
saw, the dedication and quality of the workforce at both of those
historic Maine yards is second to none. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has a
number of buildings and facilities that are quite old. While the ``can
do'' attitude and Yankee ingenuity have allowed the shipyard to be one
of the most efficient public shipyards that the Navy has, the
infrastructure of the yard has presented the workforce with a number of
different challenges.
While we were there, you and your staff were provided with a brief
that detailed the different military construction projects that the
shipyard requires in order to help it to remain as efficient as it
currently is. During the past, many of the military construction
projects have been provided through congressional plus-ups instead of
being included in the annual Navy budget that is submitted to Congress.
In fact, I have been told that since 1971 all but four military
construction projects that have occurred on the shipyard have been
funded with congressional adds.
As you saw in the brief provided to you, Portsmouth has done a
significant amount of planning and prioritization in laying out its
military construction projects. I am concerned, however, that these
projects may not be funded in a timely manner. As the Navy begins the
transition from the Los Angeles-class to the Virginia-class submarine,
what steps is the Navy taking to ensure that Portsmouth will have the
facilities it requires to continue its outstanding record of
performance?
Admiral Roughead. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has an approximate $160
million MILCON reinvestment plan. This includes $67 million in MILCON
programming in the fiscal year 2009 FYDP to improve the condition and
operational efficiency of the shipyard. Specific projects include:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011................................ P-266; Structural Shops 23.8
Consolidation.
2012................................ P-268; DD#3 Waterfront 16.8
Support Facility.
2013................................ P-280; Gate 2 Security 4.1
Improvements.
2013................................ P-282; Consolidate 12.2
Global Sub Complex
Facility.
2013................................ P-285; CBQ Building 373 9.7
Addition Phase 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy will continue to target investments throughout future
programming processes. This plan will ensure Portsmouth has the
facilities it requires to continue its outstanding record of
performance. Portsmouth does not require any MILCON projects in the
FYDP to service Virginia-class submarines, as its facilities are
already capable.
sealift capability and increased end strength
27. Senator Collins. General Conway, last year the President
announced that he wanted to increase the end strength of the Marine
Corps by 22,000 marines. This process began last year and, according to
the Department of the Navy's ``Budget Highlights,'' the Marine Corps
end strength will continue to grow in fiscal year 2009. An important
component of this increased capability is the ability to get the Marine
Corps to where they need to go. Do you believe that there is sufficient
sealift capability to accommodate the Marine Corps, especially
considering the increase in Marine Corps end strength?
General Conway. The end strength increase does not impact in itself
Navy and Marine Corps amphibious lift requirements. These requirements
are derived from Major Contingency Operation plans and Combatant
Commander presence demands. The current amphibious lift requirement is
34 operationally available assault ships. This is sufficient to support
a simultaneous amphibious assault by two Marine Expeditionary Brigades.
Because of fiscal constraints, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and
the Chief of Naval Operations have agreed to accept risk by reducing
the amphibious lift requirement to 30 operationally available ships as
the minimum. However, this 30-ship assault echelon fleet must include
at least 10 ``big deck'' aviation capable assault ships (LHA/LHD/
LHA(R)), at least 10 LPDs, and 10 LSD-41/49s.
Moreover, we must fully fund the Maritime Prepositioning Force
(Future) program so as to provide a Marine Expeditionary Brigades'
worth of reinforcing capability to fully enable a seabased Marine
Expeditionary Force to fight a Major Contingency Operation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
shipbuilding and the national maritime strategy
28. Senator Martinez. Admiral Roughead, this committee has strongly
supported the Navy's 313-ship plan. Likewise, we have supported the
recently developed Maritime Strategy, which provides a framework for
the Navy's role in meeting national security requirements. However, we
remain concerned that Navy shipbuilding continues to fall short in
numbers of ships procured and dollars invested. When coupled with cost
growth on new ship programs, the 313-ship Navy--and with it, the
Maritime Strategy--appear beyond the reach of the Navy's budget. How do
we drive the necessary changes to our requirements and budget and
procurement processes that are needed to improve the affordability of
the shipbuilding plan?
Admiral Roughead. The October release of our new Maritime Strategy
will inform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process
for POM-10. We have tailored our budget and defined our future Navy to
enhance and support the speed, flexibility, agility, and scalability
that our forces bring to the maritime realm.
During the Navy's POM-10 programming, the Maritime Strategy will
guide our decisions to ensure that the Navy is properly sustained, has
the capacity to satisfy mission requirements, and is relevant for
future operations. We are evaluating our current programs and
reconciling our portfolio with fiscal realities. The result of this
process will be a balanced program which will allow us to meet the
imperatives outlined in our Maritime Strategy. The Navy recognizes that
building the required force structure will largely depend on
controlling shipbuilding costs (including combat systems) within an
affordable range and the need for aggressive requirements and cost
control measures. This can only be achieved by working closely with
industry, utilizing realistic assumptions, instilling discipline in
shipbuilding requirements, and driving more industry and government
investments to reduce cost. Given the importance of requirements-
containment and cost-reduction to the viability of the shipbuilding
plan, the Navy continues to evaluate each ship class and identify cost
reduction opportunities while balancing warfighting requirements,
costs, and industrial base realities.
The Navy is emphasizing repeat builds of ships within the same
class to reduce new construction costs, provided required warfighting
capabilities can be fielded. This permits longer production runs and
resultant cost reductions associated with production improvements and
economies of scale. The Navy's shipbuilding plans include incorporation
of Open Architecture for hardware and software systems and increased
use of systems modularity. In addition, the Navy is aggressively
pursuing opportunities to incorporate standardized components to reduce
logistics support costs. These initiatives will reduce the cost of
maintenance and system upgrades, and they will facilitate keeping Navy
ships in service longer.
29. Senator Martinez. Admiral Roughead, if we agree with the Navy's
determination that the 313-ship fleet represents ``the floor'', why
aren't we seeing the funding in the shipbuilding budget request
necessary to get up to that floor?
Admiral Roughead. The current President's budget 2009 represents
the best overall balance between procurements to meet operational
requirements and affordability. The Navy has examined the feasibility
of increased shipbuilding investment in fiscal year 2009. Given current
industrial base capacity, the Navy's plan to achieve the 313-ship mix
required by the fiscal year 2020 timeframe, and other competing Navy
requirements that must be met, $12.4 billion in the fiscal year 2009
budget request is sufficient and represents the necessary resources to
achieve the required warfighting capability on time. In addition, the
Navy's plan increases shipbuilding investments from $12.4 billion in
fiscal year 2009 to over $17.9 billion in fiscal year 2013.
It is a significant challenge to get the number of ships we need
with the right capabilities within the Navy's overall funding level;
however, the Navy is committed to achieving a force structure of at
least 313 ships, with the necessary warfighting capability that the
Navy will need by fiscal year 2020.
carbon fiber composite hull technology
30. Senator Martinez. Secretary Winter, I am concerned that we
aren't seeing as much development within the Navy of composites and
carbon fiber hull technology for ships. This is something that other
countries, including China, seem to be pursuing, yet our research
efforts with this technology seem minimal at best. Please provide an
update of what programs you're planning on implementing with regard to
composite hull technologies.
Secretary Winter. The Navy has a robust program in the development
and material performance evaluation of composites and carbon fiber
technology for use in naval vessels.
Our basic and applied research efforts supporting carbon fiber and
composite hull technologies, including steel-composite hybrid hull
technology, are targeted at understanding and mitigating those
degradation mechanisms that are unique to naval hulls; specifically,
the dynamic effects of seaway loading, extreme loading from weapons,
fire, and the marine environment itself.
The Navy has dedicated composite hull technology efforts in the
following areas:
An agreement with the Japanese to develop technology for a
hybrid composite-steel ship hull for a Navy surface combatant.
Under the agreement, large composite and hybrid test articles
are exchanged and tested by both countries (deck house and hull
sections) for signature, underwater, and air explosion.
Currently prototyping a large scale carbon composite high
speed vessel bow for feasibility and cost evaluation using a
vacuum assisted resin transfer molding method.
Mk V.1 Special Operations Craft Replacement is an 82 foot,
carbon/epoxy hulled boat that was delivered March 2008 for
performance evaluation. The outcome of these trials will assist
in determining value of carbon composite hulls in future
combatant craft.
Navy Transformable Craft Innovative Naval Prototype program
includes a composite hull craft from one of the competitors.
Additionally, the Navy has the following ongoing efforts to develop
and demonstrate the use of composites in the construction of ships and
submarines in an effort to reduce procurement costs:
DDG-1000. The composite Deckhouse and Hangar program
represents the largest use of composite structures to date
within the surface Navy. This ship class will also be the first
to use composite rather than steel rudders, specially contoured
to reduce cavitation and meet performance requirements.
Additionally, a project is in planning to demonstrate a low
cost method for fabricating composite exhaust stacks for the
ship's turbine engines, which would replace the current design
requiring expensive, heavy nickel-base alloy that is difficult
to manufacture.
Virginia-class Submarine (VCS). The Navy is converting the
VCS Sail Cusp, a hull-to-sail fairing, from steel to a much
more affordable and easier-to-manufacture composite structure.
The VCS steel main ballast tank flood grates were recently
converted to fiberglass composites. Additionally, the VCS
program is considering converting the expensive steel bow
planes and nickel-aluminum-bronze tail cone to composite
structures.
CVN-21. A light-weight, composite superstructure,
incorporating thermal, acoustic, and fire insulation, as well
as ballistic protection, is in final validation testing.
31. Senator Martinez. Secretary Winter, what can Congress do to
further our research efforts on the carbon fiber composite hull
technology front?
Secretary Winter. The Navy currently has a robust research program
in carbon fiber composite hull technology. Congressional support of the
R&D program request in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget
submission will enable this research program to continue.
law of the sea treaty
32. Senator Martinez. Secretary Winter, I am aware of the Navy's
and the administration's strong support for Senate ratification of the
Law of the Sea Treaty. This treaty has been in the works and debated,
on and off, since the Carter administration. I have some concerns that
the United States would be routinely outvoted on issues of national
interest were they to come up in the International Tribunal that the
treaty establishes or with the International Seabed Authority. It seems
to me that freedom of the seas and the rights of free passage are long
established. Are you concerned that other nations may try to sue the
United States or the Navy if the Senate were to ratify this treaty? For
instance, for the use of sonar or for some other perceived
environmental threat.
Secretary Winter. No, I am not concerned that ratification of the
Convention will open the Navy to lawsuits. Specifically, the compulsory
dispute resolution procedures will permit the United States to
completely exempt its military activities from dispute resolution and
prevent any opposing state, court, or tribunal from reviewing our
determination that an activity is an exempted military activity. When
the Convention was being drafted, military officers serving as members
on the United States delegation negotiated this exemption; it is
ironclad. The Convention they helped craft permits a maritime nation,
like the United States, to use compulsory dispute resolution as a sword
against foreign coastal state encroachment while simultaneously
shielding military activities from review. It is important to note that
all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (except
the United States) and numerous other countries have taken the military
activities exemption. For this reason, I am not at all concerned that
accession to the treaty would make the United States more susceptible
to lawsuits.
33. Senator Martinez. Secretary Winter, it is certainly in the best
interest of much of the world to be a party to this treaty because
other nations stand to benefit from the fees collected by the Seabed
Authority for deep sea mining that would then be distributed to them
under the ``Benefit of Mankind'' provision (Article 140). The vast
majority of what the Navy is seeking under this treaty is
unobjectionable. However, it is also only a small fraction of the total
treaty. Has the Navy taken into consideration the non-military
provisions in this treaty?
Secretary Winter. The Navy, in considering its support of the Law
of the Sea Convention, has taken all aspects of the treaty into
account. The benefits are considerable, which accounts for the treaty's
broad and long-standing support from the President and the Departments
of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Interior. The
treaty also has broad support from industry. Every major ocean
industry, including shipping, fishing, oil, natural gas, drilling
contractors, shipbuilders, and telecommunications companies that use
underwater cables support United States' accession.
Specific questions relating to the non-military provisions of this
treaty might better be answered by others. However, in regards to
Article 140, the Convention does not set forth any ``royalty''
requirements for seabed production. If the United States became a party
to the Convention, we would need to agree to the establishment of any
``royalty'' requirement and, as in the case of the extended continental
shelf, no payments would go to the United Nations; they would be
distributed to states parties in accordance with a formula which would
require concurrence by the United States before it could be
implemented.
next generation enterprise network
34. Senator Martinez. Secretary Winter, as part of last year's
National Defense Authorization bill, the committee included report
language on the status of the Next Generation Enterprise Network
(NGEN). What is the current status of the NGEN?
Secretary Winter. The NGEN program is concluding the requirements
definition phase. When the resulting requirements document is signed by
the Service Chiefs, it will be forwarded officially to the acquisition
agent.
Following approval of the requirements document, detailed costing
and engineering analysis will be conducted by the NGEN Program Office.
Both an Acquisition Strategy and Acquisition Plan are currently being
developed. Subsequently, the Service Specification will define the
required system functions, performance parameters, and all other
requirements and constraints. Upon completion, Department of the Navy
leadership will conduct a review of the Service Baseline in order to
confirm that the recommended solutions adequately address the approved
requirements within cost, schedule, performance, and risk parameters.
An NGEN Oversight Team, under the leadership of the Department of
Defense Chief Information Officer, has been established to ensure
coordination, effective test and evaluation planning, comprehensive
architectural compliance, and continued responsive oversight of the
program. The Oversight Team includes representation from the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Network Integration and Information),
the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, the Joint Staff, the
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, the Defense Information
Systems Agency, and Department of the Navy leadership.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (S.
Rept. 110-77) requested the Secretary of the Navy submit a report
jointly with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
Information Integration; the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and the Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation on the plans for the NGEN acquisition. The
information requested has been compiled and the report is currently
within the Department's staffing process. Department of the Navy
intends to submit the report to the defense committees by April 1,
2008.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roger F. Wicker
cooperative strategy
35. Senator Wicker. Secretary Winter, the Navy, Marine Corps, and
Coast Guard recently published its revised Naval Strategy called ``A
Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.'' This Strategy
represents the first time that the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard
have all collaborated on a single, common strategy for defending the
U.S. Homeland and protecting U.S. interests overseas. I applaud our
three maritime forces for coming together to form a unified naval
strategy. This strategy seems to rightly coincide with the Navy's
decision to increase the fleet by 33 commissioned ships--from 280 to a
floor of 313 ships. However, given the current rate of production, I am
concerned with our ability to meet the future needs of our maritime
forces and meet the minimum of 313 ships. How will the President's
budget meet the ``Cooperative Strategy'' objectives and is the proposed
mix of naval ships that combine to form the 313-ship Navy sufficient to
provide a ``credible combat power to be continuously postured in the
Western Pacific and Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean,'' as outlined in the
strategy?
Secretary Winter. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget request
and current procurement schedule both meet the Cooperative Strategy
objectives by representing the necessary resources and warfighting
capabilities to achieve the 313-ship fleet. This fleet will have the
agility to meet a broad array of challenges and requirements to include
operations with allies and friends around the globe. The increased
emphasis of naval forces in the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/
Indian Ocean reflects the combined demands of planned steady-state
operations and response times for potential projected contingencies.
The current mix of the 313-ship Navy described in the Long-Range Plan
for Construction of Naval Vessels for 2009 includes large deck nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers, conventionally-powered amphibious ships and
other associated surface combatants, submarines, maritime preposition
ships, combat logistic ships, and support ships that establish our
combat credibility not only in these regions, but worldwide.
36. Senator Wicker. Secretary Winter, does the current mix of big
deck ships outlined in the 30-year shipbuilding plan meet the challenge
of creating a ``credible combat power to be continuously postured in
the Western Pacific and Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean,'' as outlined in the
strategy?
Secretary Winter. The increased emphasis of naval forces in the
Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean reflects the combined
demands of planned steady-state operations and response times for
potential projected contingencies. The current mix of the 313-ship Navy
described in the Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for
2009 includes large deck nuclear-powered aircraft carriers,
conventionally-powered amphibious ships and the other associated
surface combatants, submarines, maritime preposition ships, combat
logistics ships, command-control ships, and support ships that
establish our combat credibility not only in these regions, but
worldwide.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND AND THE UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS
COMMAND
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed,
Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, Warner,
Inhofe, Sessions, Collins, Chambliss, Cornyn, Thune, and
Martinez.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr.,
professional staff member; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K. Levine, general
counsel; Thomas K. McConnell, professional staff member;
Michael J. McCord, professional staff member; Michael J.
Noblet, professional staff member; and William K. Sutey,
professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw,
Republican staff director; William M. Caniano, professional
staff member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; and
David M. Morriss, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Fletcher L. Cork, Jessica L.
Kingston, and Benjamin L. Rubin.
Committee members' assistants present: Sharon L. Waxman,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; James Tuite, assistant to Senator
Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman;
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Christopher Caple,
assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Andrew R. Vanlandingham,
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to
Senator Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb;
Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe; Todd
Stiefler, assistant to Senator Sessions; Mark J. Winter,
assistant to Senator Collins; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to
Senator Chambliss; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune;
and Brian W. Walsh, assistant to Senator Martinez.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. Today we welcome
Admiral William J. Fallon, Commander of the United States
Central Command (CENTCOM); and Admiral Eric T. Olson, Commander
of United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM).
Admiral Fallon and Admiral Olson command virtually all of
the U.S. forces who are currently participating in combat. We
ask you to convey to the men and women under your command our
heartfelt gratitude for the many sacrifices that they and their
families are making on our behalf. Of course, our thanks also
go to you personally and to your families for the contribution
which you and they are making.
Admiral Fallon's command is responsible for U.S. security
interests in 25 nations that stretch from the Horn of Africa
(HOA) through the Arabian Gulf region into Central Asia. He
commands the bulk of U.S. troops in combat today and is
responsible for an area with a host of security challenges. In
that position, Admiral Fallon also uses diplomatic skills to
help us deter and prevent conflict almost as much as his
military skills when a military response is appropriate. Today
we will be seeking his views on a host of troubling issues in
his area of responsibility (AOR), predominantly, but not
entirely, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Admiral Olson represents the over 50,000 military and
civilian personnel working for SOCOM, who are fulfilling
critical direct and indirect long-term and short-term missions
all over the globe. Special operations personnel have been
heavily concentrated in the CENTCOM AOR since 2003, so it is
fitting that we have the two commanders here together today.
Our Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Forces are
overstretched and increasingly stressed. General David Petraeus
has advocated ``a period of consolidation, perhaps some force
adjustments and evaluation before continuing with further
reductions'' in troop levels in Iraq once the five surge
brigades complete their redeployment this summer.
Although General Petraeus also said that there's ``every
intent,'' in his words, to further reduce forces. President
Bush has already indicated he would support a recommendation
for a pause in redeployments. In other words, there is a strong
possibility that force levels in Iraq will remain at pre-surge
levels of approximately 130,000 and that troop levels in Iraq
will be about the same when President Bush leaves office as
they were in December 2006, before the surge.
At the same time, Iraqi leaders continue to squander the
opportunity our troops and our taxpayers have given them. Our
soldiers risk their lives while Iraqi politicians refuse to
take political risks. We cannot have the lives of American
servicemembers held hostage to Iraqi political bickering. The
State Department said last November that the ``Shiite-led
government is a larger threat than al Qaeda.'' The report went
on to say that ``senior military commanders now portray the
intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key
threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al Qaeda
terrorists, Sunni insurgents, or Iranian-backed militias.''
In Afghanistan, we're now increasing American troop levels,
with over 3,000 additional marines slated to deploy in the
coming months, and more may well be needed. Meanwhile, our Army
troops continue to face multiple tours of 15-month duration,
with only 12 months or less at home between rotations, and
marines also see more time deployed than at home, although for
shorter, more frequent periods.
These levels of deployment without adequate rest for the
troops and repair and replacement of equipment cannot be
sustained. General George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, has
said that the ``Army is out of balance'' and that ``the current
demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply.''
For too long, United States military operations in
Afghanistan have taken a back seat to the war in Iraq. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen,
acknowledged as much in December when he said, ``It is simply a
matter of resources, of capacity. In Afghanistan we do what we
can. In Iraq we do what we must.'' That's not acceptable.
While the President paints a rosy picture of the situation
in Afghanistan, just last week the Director of National
Intelligence, Michael McConnell, told this committee that ``The
Taliban-dominated insurgency has expanded'' to previously
peaceful areas west and around Kabul. He testified that the
Taliban controls about 10 percent of the country, while the
Afghanistan government is capable of controlling about 30
percent, which leaves about 60 percent of the country outside
of either's control.
Defense Intelligence Agency Director General Michael Maples
stated that al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is ``increasing
to levels unseen since 2001 and 2002'' and that the number of
attacks, suicide bombings, and improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) continues to rise.
As has been reported, Admiral Fallon is conducting an
assessment of the Afghanistan mission, one of a number that the
administration and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
are undertaking. The Atlantic Council report, which by the way
says that ``NATO is not winning in Afghanistan and that,
despite efforts of the Afghan Government and the international
community, Afghanistan remains a failing state and could become
a failed state,'' that Atlantic Council report also says that
the assessments that Admiral Fallon is making, will hopefully
be completed in a matter of weeks, not months, and we'll be
interested in Admiral Fallon's recommendations for
strengthening the U.S., NATO, and international community's
efforts in Afghanistan.
Another major challenge in the CENTCOM AOR is addressing
the safe havens that the Taliban, al Qaeda, and other violent
extremists have found in the tribal areas along Pakistan's
border with Afghanistan. As Director McConnell recently
testified, the tribal areas are serving not only as a staging
area for attacks into Afghanistan, but also as a terrorist
training location for attacks in Pakistan, Middle East, Africa,
Europe, and the United States.
Director McConnell and Secretary Gates have testified
recently that they believe that Pakistan's political leaders
now perceive that the lawlessness prevailing in the border
tribal areas represents a potentially mortal threat to
Pakistan. We'll be interested in Admiral Fallon's views on what
opportunities exist to encourage Pakistan to confront extremist
elements on its territory and eliminate the sanctuary for the
Taliban and al Qaeda along the Afghanistan border.
Over 80 percent of SOCOM's operators are deployed in the
CENTCOM area of operation. However, SOCOM's responsibilities
are global and the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are
affecting the command's ability to maintain critical language
and cultural skills and relationships in other parts of the
world. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommended
increase in the size of SOCOM will help address that problem. I
hope Admiral Olson will comment on whether that increase is
sufficient.
In addition, while the Department included funding in
SOCOM's budget for some personnel growth, the fiscal year 2009
budget request is $300 million less than their budget for this
fiscal year. This comes in a year when the overall DOD funding
request is 7.5 percent above this year's level and when the
Services have increased funding requests ranging from 7 to 9.6
percent above the fiscal year 2008 base budget.
Some of the decrease in SOCOM funding is due to one-time
military construction costs. But since SOCOM's end strength
continues to increase, it's unclear why the procurement
account, for example, has decreased by 17 percent.
The $300 million decrease in SOCOM funding from fiscal year
2008 to 2009 is all the more perplexing given the fact that
SOCOM also gave the committee: one, a list of 31 additional
procurement and research and development programs that they
would like funding for, totaling $413 million; and two, have
given us a list of 12 unfunded military construction projects
totaling $186 million.
On top of this, Admiral Olson, I understand that in
response to an inquiry from Senator Bayh, that you recently
identified a $300 million unfunded requirement for
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), which is
a critical asset in the hunt for terrorists in the CENTCOM area
of operation, and that $300 million itself falls short of the
additional $900 million which Admiral Fallon has indicated in a
CENTCOM joint needs statement is necessary for counter-
terrorism in his area of operations.
So we have many issues to explore today. We are very
appreciative of our witnesses' appearance here today and of
their service to this Nation, and I call upon Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I followed your
statement very carefully and much of the statement that I will
ask to have put into the record today reflects views in many
respects parallel to yours.
I want to, of course, join in thanking our two witnesses
and their families for their service, and each and every one of
the many in uniform that you have in your command, and the
important component of the civilians who work dedicated in your
commands.
Mr. Chairman, in the past few weeks I've had an opportunity
to go over and visit with Admiral McConnell, the Director of
National Intelligence and I expressed to him a need that we
here in the Senate Armed Services Committee, and indeed the
entire Senate, would value greatly updates in the intelligence
area on Afghanistan and Iraq. I've included and ask unanimous
consent to put in today's record here his response to me. He
said he would publish a paper in March updating the National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) threat on the homeland here in the
United States, publish an NIE on Afghanistan by late summer,
early fall, but the Iraq piece will be ready in March.
Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Warner. I recall, Mr. Chairman, a trip with you and
our colleague Senator Sessions in 2006 to Iraq, and I remember
coming back and I expressed my own views that the situation is
just drifting sideways. I'm pleased this morning to acknowledge
that I feel that the surge operations initiated by President
Bush in January 2007 have moved forward in Iraq and turned a
situation from one that was unpredictable going down to some
definite signs of improvement in that area.
The President said that this was to clear and secure
neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, to
help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of
providing the security that Baghdad needs. He further added
that when this happens daily life will improve, Iraqis will
gain confidence in their leaders, hopefully, and the government
will have the breathing space.
Certainly the military operations under the leadership of
these two fine witnesses this morning has shown that it has
resulted in that security situation. They are approaching, I
think--Admiral Fallon will give us greater details--a time when
we'll take a brief breathing space ourself to determine the
true levels. But I hope the Admiral can assure us that the
commitments the President made to bring home the forces by
July, the surge forces, can be met and that that interregnum
between further reductions, which I hope will be achievable,
will not be a lengthy one.
I also said at the time when the President spoke that more
responsibility should be given to the Iraqi forces. I'm anxious
to hear your views this morning, Admiral. In my judgment the
Iraqi forces have shown a significant increase in their
professional ability to work and carry out the responsibilities
of protecting the sovereign nation of Iraq.
Nevertheless, the violence there, while it has fallen off
considerably, it remains, as is al Qaeda remains, a threat. I
think, Admiral Olson, particularly your forces in Special
Operations under General McCrystal--and I do hope that he can
soon return to the United States and take on new
responsibilities with the Joint Staff--you told me yesterday
that General McCrystal has 120 days of accrued leave. He hasn't
hardly been home to see his family in this long, extensive, and
distinguished tour he's had over there.
But nevertheless, a substantial degradation of al Qaeda has
taken place, but it still remains a threat.
The factions, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in Iraq are
disappointing--Shia factionalism, criminal activities,
corruption remains at a higher than acceptable level; and
sectarian distrust prevails at a level far unacceptable
throughout Iraq.
I acknowledge that the Iraqi Council of Representatives
(COR) passed a long-awaited de-Baathification law, a provincial
powers law, an amnesty law for detainees, and a budget for
2008. Credit is owing for those achievements. But I regret that
the political situation remains far short of demonstrating the
decisive leadership needed to preserve and grow a new sovereign
nation.
For example, the Provincial Powers Act was passed by the
legislature and rejected by a member of the Presidency Council.
This is another example of moving ahead two steps and then one
backwards. Let us hope that that can be readily cured and that
legislation can go forward, because the Iraq people have
tremendous potential for developing a nation which could become
the envy of all the countries in the Middle East. There is
untapped natural resources in that nation, principally oil,
that can restore the economy to a strong, vibrant economy and
match any of the increases that we've seen by different
countries in the Middle East.
But your soldiers, your sailors, your airmen, and your
marines have made it possible for the increases that have taken
place thus far in political reconciliation.
In the coming months the United States Government and Iraq
will negotiate a strategic framework agreement and a status of
forces agreement (SOFA) that will chart our long-term mutual
relationship. Our colleague Senator Webb has taken the lead on
that. I was privileged to join him yesterday for a special
briefing and I judge that hopefully he'll join us this morning
and address that important issue.
But Admiral, I think it's important that you likewise
address those agreements and give us your best estimate of the
timing and particularly the necessity. The underlying necessity
for such agreements is to protect the individual serviceperson
wearing the United States uniform and carrying out missions in
that AOR.
Turning to Afghanistan, the chairman quite properly recited
the number of attacks by the Taliban insurgency exceeded that
of the previous year. The poppy situation is absolutely abysmal
in my judgment, and it is really the responsibility of the
Department of State and NATO as a whole to come to grips with
this situation. I find it totally unacceptable that our forces
are facing an enemy using ammunition and arms and other things
purchased as a consequence of the recycling of the poppy
culture profits into armaments. I think I just find that just
totally unacceptable and I hope that this year some much
stronger initiatives can be undertaken to bring about a
cessation of that poppy crop, which today is the most
significant drug dissemination source in the whole world.
I'd like to commend our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates,
for his tireless efforts over the past few weeks to impress
upon NATO allies the importance of NATO's mission in
Afghanistan. In testimony before this committee last month,
Secretary Gates expressed concern and said the alliance
evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which some are willing
to fight, some are not. The people's security is at stake.
The debate on the importance of the mission in Afghanistan
is the most complicated mission that the NATO allies have faced
since the alliance was formed. Failure there by NATO could
bring about the demise of NATO.
The committee will want to know your views on the role of
NATO and what they should do to prepare themselves for a
stronger retaliation against the Taliban and for the need for
each of the NATO participants to live up to their commitments
with regard to the manpower levels.
The chairman made reference to the three reports on
Afghanistan that were brought before this committee. I share
with him the views in those reports and I'm sure you have seen
them, Admiral Fallon.
Another area of concern is Pakistan. Working with the
Pakistan armed forces and with their government, is an
essential relationship to our mission in Afghanistan. So much
of our supplies, so much of the particularly petroleum and so
forth, has to transit Pakistan. The tribal areas are certainly
moving in a direction which is antithetical to a strong central
government in Pakistan, and I hope that we can work in
partnership to alleviate that threat to Pakistan.
I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, with a note on Iran.
It appears to be enhancing its ability to project its military
power, primarily with ballistic missiles and naval power. Iran
continues to provide support for violent terrorist groups in
Lebanon and Syria and seeks to deepen its influence in Iraq and
western Afghanistan.
I want to close in recognition of America's Gold Star
Mothers, Mr. Chairman. I was visited by them recently. This is
an organization of mothers who have lost a son or a daughter in
the war. It was founded shortly after World War I. These women
who have suffered a parent's loss continue to provide support
for mothers and families of servicemembers of today's
generation.
The Gold Star Mothers across the country, our Nation owes
you a debt. I would expressly ask in a question: I wonder what
the reaction of a Gold Star Mother who lost a son or a daughter
in Iraq as a consequence of the illegally imported weaponry
that Iran is sending into Iraq. I wonder what their reaction is
to the visit by Ahmedinejad from Iran to Iraq this week? I'd
like to have your comments on that eventually, Admiral.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Admiral Fallon?
STATEMENT OF ADM WILLIAM J. FALLON, USN, COMMANDER, UNITED
STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
Admiral Fallon. Senator Levin, Senator Warner,
distinguished members of the committee: It's a great honor to
be back in front of you again this morning, and particularly to
appear with my distinguished colleague Admiral Olson. Tampa is
in an unusual state now with all this maritime leadership not
seen before. Not that we spend much time there. We're focused
out in the region, where we certainly have lots of challenges,
as both Senator Levin and Senator Warner have highlighted here
today, and many issues. I'd be pleased to get into these issues
as I get into the testimony.
I would like to begin by picking up on both Senator Levin
and Senator Warner's comments about the hard work and sacrifice
of our men and women in uniform and those civilians that
support them. Every day that I get the chance to visit and work
with our people, I am more proud, if that's possible, of the
great work that they do in our behalf, under conditions that
are certainly challenging in many respects. But they and their
families, who have shouldered this burden of our engagement in
troubled areas for several years consecutively now, I can't say
enough about them and certainly join you in saluting them.
I have to tell you that going to Iraq I am very encouraged.
From the time that I sat here about 10 months ago, the
situation has improved substantially in the security arena, and
I believe that there are many other aspects of the situation
that are coming together, that have contributed to this
improvement, and I see this on an upward vector, and I'll be
pleased to get into the details of your questions in talking
about Iraq.
In Afghanistan, I'm encouraged. I know that there are a lot
of reports, a lot of commentaries that are rather negative. But
I'm encouraged for a couple of reasons with what I see in
Afghanistan. First of all, the Government of Afghanistan still
enjoys broad support from the people. We're working very
closely with the Afghan security forces, particularly the army.
I'm really encouraged by the leadership, determination, and the
willingness to go out and engage; and at the end of the day
these are the people that are really going to provide stability
and security that are going to enable this country to stand on
its own two feet.
There are certainly lots of other issues--Pakistan,
Lebanon, Somalia, lots of places in which stability and
security are fragile, if at all existent. But with each of
these places, there are also opportunities for us to engage, to
help people to help themselves, to try to make this a better
region.
So in Pakistan, for example, they're suffering turmoil
politically, under attack internally from an insurgent threat,
just completed an election as the world watched, and they are
in the process of forming a government, which we certainly
encourage and will certainly do our utmost to support. Again,
opportunities for us to not only help them to help themselves,
but to help some of our interests, and particularly the recent
use of these ungoverned areas or previously ungoverned areas
along the Afghan border.
I see other signs of hope. The recent agreement that was
brokered by United Nations (U.N.) Secretary General Kofi Annan
in Kenya to try to bring to a halt the strife and bloodshedding
that's been going on there in recent days. We engage throughout
the region to try to provide stability and security, to do what
we can to lend our experience, our resources, through the
generosity of certainly this committee and your colleagues in
Congress, to lend the opportunity for our people, our best
ambassadors, to work with these people, to show by their
example how things could be done differently and better, to
provide opportunities.
So as I get around and spend most of my time out in the
region, I'm encouraged. I wish we had more hours in the day to
both engage to a greater degree in each of these countries--and
I have to tell you in summing up here that I couldn't be any
more proud of the work that our men and women do every day
throughout this region.
Thank you for the support that you provide to them and to
their families. I am grateful to be here again and I'll look
forward to your questions. Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Fallon follows:]
Prepared Statement by ADM William J. Fallon, USN
i. introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee:
On behalf of the men and women of the United States Central Command
(CENTCOM), I thank you for this opportunity to testify about the state
of the command and to provide an assessment of security and stability
in my Area of Responsibility (AOR), as well as our military strategy
and operational requirements.
I would begin by highlighting the selfless service and sacrifice of
our servicemembers and their families. This dedicated work on behalf of
our Nation merits recognition and credit for the substantial progress
that has been achieved in security and stability during these past 12
months.
The CENTCOM AOR is large and diverse. It spans 6.5 million square
miles and 27 countries stretching from the Horn of Africa, through the
Middle East to the Central and South Asian States. These countries
possess vast human and natural resource potential, have rich histories,
and sit at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe. The region is
home to nearly 700 million people, who speak more than 80 languages,
identify with 50 or more ethnic groups, and are adherents of more than
a dozen religions. Despite differences in language, culture, and
history, we share basic aspirations with the peoples of the Middle
East, East Africa, and Central and South Asia. They desire security and
prosperity for their families, opportunities to make choices, and
governments that respect their rights and respond to their basic needs.
This is the 7th consecutive year of combat operations in the
CENTCOM AOR. I am pleased to report significant progress in security in
Iraq. Our forces there, in concert with coalition partners and the
increasingly competent Iraqi security forces (ISF), have expanded areas
of stability and brought a return to more normal life for the citizens
of Iraq. Likewise, in Afghanistan, large areas of the country are
generally stable, millions of children are in schools and the Afghan
National Army (ANA) is growing in size and demonstrated performance.
But challenges remain in both these countries and in other areas of the
region. Violent extremism, weak governance, political crisis and
lagging economic development are key inhibitors to long-term stability.
Given the complexities of the region, two certainties stand out; there
are no simple answers to the challenges, and enduring solutions require
predominately non-military initiatives.
To advance U.S. security interests and regional stability, CENTCOM
works with interagency and international partners to promote
development and cooperation among nations, responds to crises, deters
and, if necessary, defeats aggression. Success will require patience,
thoughtful application of resources and commitment.
The strategy in support of this mission has focused efforts in five
main areas: setting conditions for stability in Iraq; expanding
governance and security in Afghanistan; degrading violent extremist
networks and operations; strengthening relationships and influencing
states and organizations to contribute to regional stability and the
free flow of commerce; and posturing forces to build and sustain joint
and combined warfighting capabilities and readiness.
ii. setting conditions for stability in iraq
United States and Coalition forces have operated continuously in
the region since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and will soon
enter the 6th year of combat operations in Iraq. Our objective is a
unified, democratic and Federal Iraq that can govern, defend, and
sustain itself and is an ally in the war on terror. We are pursuing
this objective along political, security, economic, and diplomatic
lines of operation. I can say with confidence that we are closer to our
objective today than when I last testified.
The most significant development in Iraq over the last year has
been a dramatic decrease in violence. By almost every measure, the
security situation has improved significantly. This turnabout is the
result of many complex and interrelated factors. The application of the
``surge'' deployment implemented last February, which increased troop
levels and shifted our strategy to the priority task of protecting the
population, has enhanced local security. The proximity of our troops to
the populace and their shared experience in day-to-day life throughout
the country has reversed the widespread anti-coalition attitude to a
general acceptance and appreciation for our presence. This situation
has been facilitated by the larger and more capable ISF, which have
expanded the scale and effectiveness of operations against al Qaeda in
Iraq and criminal Shia militias. The population has welcomed the
widespread deployment of the Iraqi Army and is growing more comfortable
with the Iraqi Police. Both of these forces are becoming more capable
and competent as they assume an increasing share of security duties and
boost reconciliation.
Equally important have been the growing rejection of al Qaeda by
the Iraqi people and the genesis of the ``awakening'' movement, which
has altered the local balance of power between extremists and security
forces. More than 90,000 Iraqi men have volunteered to assume grass
root security functions as Concerned Local Citizens, also known now as
Sons of Iraq. These men are key partners who supplement uniformed
security forces in their communities and provide invaluable
intelligence about the violent extremists. Although at this point,
these groups are comprised primarily of Sunni Muslims, some Shia
communities have started similar initiatives as Jaysh al-Mahdi
extremists wear out their welcome.
While security in Iraq has improved dramatically and sectarian
violence has greatly diminished, these gains are not irreversible.
Multiple strains of violent extremism remain a threat to the government
and populace, and some of these groups benefit from external support.
From the East, Iran pursues a destabilizing political and ideological
agenda and is a key source of finance, weapons and training support to
lawless militia groups. In the West, foreign fighters continue to enter
Iraq from Syria.
To sustain and build on improvements in security, Multinational
Force-Iraq conducts security operations with the ISF while
transitioning, where conditions allow, to Iraqi led and conducted
operations. More than 530,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers now
secure their country with notable improvement in capability and
battlefield performance. With the ISF proving themselves in battle, the
next steps in building the ISF will focus on enhancing capabilities in
command and control, logistics, combat support functions, and other
operational enablers. I believe our efforts to improve Iraq's Army and
Police will help set the conditions for sustained security and enable
future U.S. troop redeployments.
Meanwhile, the previously announced reduction of Brigade Combat
Teams from 20 to 15 is underway, along with several Marine Corps
battalions and some enabling forces. General Petraeus is preparing a
response to a Planning Order from me to consider scenarios for the
post-July 2008 period in Iraq and to provide recommendations on the
pace and scope of a further reduction of forces from Iraq. His
recommendations will be considered by the Chain of Command and our
inputs, along with his, will be forwarded to the President for his
consideration. Recommendations will consider the existing security
situation, progress of the ISF and their readiness to assume
responsibility for security. The conditions on the ground will be a
major determinant of future moves.
Progress in governance lags behind security, but there are signs of
improvement. To sustain the security gains, a general improvement in
government effectiveness and the enactment of legislative guarantees
are required. Iraqi political leaders have begun demonstrating the will
and skills to move this process forward. The recent passage of the 2008
National Budget, Provincial Powers, Amnesty, and de-Baathification laws
are significant accomplishments. The Presidency Council returned the
Provincial Powers Law to the Council of Representatives but with the
assurance that preparations for provincial elections this fall should
continue. Meanwhile, the Government of Iraq continues to work toward
other important legislation including Hydrocarbon and Election laws and
the referendum on Kirkuk.
Economic development is a key component of sustained growth and
reconciliation. The Government of Iraq has improved budget execution
and increased allocations to provinces and ministries. Iraqi and
coalition initiatives to secure critical infrastructure and a
substantial investment in repair and refurbishment have resulted in
greater oil production and revenue from oil sales. The international
community is playing an increasing and welcome role in Iraq. The
Neighbors Conference Ministerial meetings have contributed to
stabilization efforts. France is actively reaching out to Iraq while
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait are considering the
re-opening of diplomatic offices in Baghdad. The U.N. designated a new
Special Representative to Iraq, who has demonstrated strong initiative
and a keen understanding of the situation. The U.N. also dramatically
increased its assistance mission, while the Security Council passed a
new Chapter 7 mandate for the Coalition to operate in Iraq until 31
December 2008.
Looking to the future and as U.S. forces are withdrawn, we are
planning to normalize long-term bilateral relations through a framework
agreement that reflects our shared political, economic, cultural and
security interests, as well as a Status of Forces Agreement. These
agreements will establish authorities and jurisdictions for U.S. and
coalition forces operating in Iraq beyond 2008. The documents will
allow us maximum flexibility to assist the Government of Iraq in the
fight against al Qaeda, develop its security forces and combat harmful
influences inside Iraq while, at the same time, protecting our own
forces. As Iraq increasingly asserts its sovereignty, we want to
continue to assist in developing the Iraqi capacity to secure and
defend their country.
iii. expand governance and security in afghanistan
U.S. and coalition forces support international efforts to assist
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to provide security, improve
stability, and enhance development and governance. Within Afghanistan,
the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commands the
security mission while CENTCOM leads the military capacity building and
counterterror efforts. These command structures require close
coordination between CENTCOM and NATO.
Despite increased violence in 2007, most visibly in the form of
suicide attacks, Afghan and coalition forces have degraded the ability
of the Taliban and other insurgents to execute coordinated and
effective attacks. The coalition has maintained relentless pressure on
the insurgents, and as a result, the enemy has shifted most of its
effort to targeting police and civilians. The recent increase in
suicide attacks is a concern and may give the perception that the
insurgents have grown stronger. In reality, most of their successful
attacks are confined to about 10 percent of total districts, while the
vast majority of Afghans deny support to the violent extremists.
The successes in Khowst Province are one example. Long considered
ungovernable and one of the most dangerous provinces in Afghanistan,
Khowst has been turned around by Afghan and coalition counterinsurgency
operations. Tangible improvement in governance, reconstruction,
development and security have been noted and are good examples for
application elsewhere in the country.
The increase in U.S. forces planned for this spring will reinforce
our momentum while enabling accelerated growth of Afghan National
Security Forces (ANSF). CENTCOM recently concurred with an initiative
to expand the authorized end strength of the ANA from 70,000 to 80,000
soldiers. The Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A)
is scheduled to complete the fielding of 80,000 ANA personnel by the
end of 2010. Meanwhile a Marine Corps Special Purpose Marine Air Ground
Task Force will deploy this spring and bolster the ISAF maneuver forces
in Regional Command-South.
The ANA has taken the lead in more than 30 significant operations
to date and has demonstrated increasing competence, effectiveness and
professionalism. Operation Maiwand executed last summer in the Andar
District of Ghazni Province is an example of recent progress. Planned,
rehearsed, and executed under the direction of the Afghan 203rd Corps
Commander, a combined ANA and NATO ISAF task force cleared the entire
district and removed a Taliban shadow governor. This well-integrated
security operation was quickly exploited with the synchronized
application of governance and development efforts consisting of medical
treatment for 2,300 citizens, 10 new schools, the delivery of 260 tons
of humanitarian aid, and $1 million committed toward additional
development. This operation resulted in significant disruption to enemy
forces in Ghazni Province and is a manifestation of the growth and
maturation of ANSF as well as the spread of governance and development.
The Afghanistan National Police (ANP) are improving, although at a
slower pace than the ANA. While police competence has progressed in
many areas, corruption, poor leadership, pay issues and equipment
shortfalls challenge this organization. A new initiative, led by CSTC-
A, called the Focused District Development plan and implemented late
last year, shows great promise. This initiative withdraws local police
from selected districts, replacing them temporarily with highly trained
and effective Afghan National Civil Order Police. The local police then
receive 2 months of immersion in a concentrated program of instruction
by carefully selected mentors to upgrade their professional
performance, equipment and confidence. Local police units then return
to their districts as much more capable forces and better able to serve
their communities.
Recruiting for both the Army and Police has shown a positive trend.
Despite increased targeting of ANSF personnel and high casualty rates,
Afghans continue to enlist in large numbers. This demonstrates
confidence in the government and their future (as well as a strong need
for employment opportunities). Proper training of these dedicated
volunteers will take time, and additional U.S. personnel will be needed
to fill key shortfalls in training capacity. A battalion of U.S.
marines will deploy to support and mentor the ANP this spring in an
effort to boost ANP capability.
Setting the conditions necessary for economic growth is essential
to long-term security and stability. Afghanistan has come a long way in
7 years. Since 2001, Gross Domestic Product, per capita income and
Foreign Direct Investment are all up. There has been considerable
growth in Afghanistan's domestic revenues as well as international
reserves, which have nearly doubled since 2004. However, Afghanistan
still faces formidable economic challenge. The Afghan Government
remains overly dependent on foreign aid, with official revenues
covering only 20 percent of recurrent costs. Inflation, particularly
for food and fuel, is rising. Access to credit is limited, and few
Afghans are able to borrow.
Four strategic economic priorities support the counterinsurgency
effort. These include embracing free market economic policy, enhancing
government resources, addressing inflation and implementing structural
reforms. Staying the free market course means resisting costly new
subsidies, which serve to reduce resources for other more constructive
expenditures in areas like infrastructure, education and health care.
U.S. and international community efforts are assisting the Afghan
Government move toward a sustainable fiscal policy to generate revenue,
manage resources and operate without massive foreign financial support.
The international community is also trying to boost economic growth by
modernizing the infrastructure, particularly in the areas of electrical
power, road construction, water management and agricultural
development. Our Provincial Reconstruction Teams are key elements in
these endeavors, and they have brought real improvement directly to the
populace. Finally, trade is benefiting, albeit slowly, from growing
regional integration. On March 3, Afghanistan is scheduled to join the
South Asian Free Trade Area, bringing greater access to and integration
with six other regional countries.
Narcotics remain a significant challenge for Afghanistan and the
international community. Opium production in Afghanistan increased
substantially in 2007. The narcotics trade dissuades work and
investment in legitimate activities, provides the insurgents with a
lucrative source of funding and contributes heavily to heroin addiction
in Central Asia, Europe, and increasingly in East Africa. We will
continue to work with the interagency and international partners to
reverse this negative trend. Of note, the ANA is standing up a new
counternarcotics battalion for the single purpose of poppy eradication.
This unit is in training and is expected to deploy this spring to
destroy (by plowing under) poppy plants in fields when found.
Our commitment to the Afghan Government and people seeks to shape a
future of a moderate and stable Afghanistan as a key regional partner.
There is a general sense of optimism and determination among the Afghan
leaders and people. They regularly voice their appreciation for our
assistance. Enduring success will require additional, well coordinated
Coalition resources and support.
iv. degrading violent extremist networks and operations
Whether sponsored by Iran, enabled by Syrian acquiescence or
motivated by networks such as al Qaeda and its associated movements,
violent extremism is a serious danger to regional and global security.
We must identify, mobilize against, and confront this menace as its
anachronistic worldview and murderous tactics threaten people and
stability worldwide. While our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
continue, we will use all available methods to build regional and
international momentum for moderate behavior while eroding support for
violent extremist ideology.
The highest priority in our counterterror efforts is to defeat al
Qaeda. Part of this effort, but not an end to itself, is the removal of
senior al Qaeda leaders. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, we and
our partners have captured or killed terrorists, diminished safe
havens, driven leaders underground, and restricted their operating
space. Despite these efforts, challenges continue as our enemies work
to reconstitute their networks. Critical to countering these violent
extremists is the denial of the sanctuaries, nation-state support and
lines of communication that sustain them. These militant Islamist
terrorists attract recruits from a large, worldwide pool of disaffected
young people. Unfortunately, their tactics and radical ideology remain
almost unchallenged by voices of moderation. In response, we will
enhance our intelligence capabilities, develop partner nation
capacities, strengthen information sharing, disrupt illicit lines of
communication, and work to prevent terrorist organizations from
acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction. All of these actions
will require interagency and international coordination and
cooperation.
Equally important to defeating al Qaeda and other extremist groups
is delegitimizing the underlying social and political movements that
support them. To diminish the radical social movements from which our
enemies derive their strength, we must maintain operational pressure on
their networks while building capacity in governance and security that
help at-risk societies address problems that foster internal and local
grievances. This work requires empowering credible experts to expose
the flaws and internal contradictions of the enemy's ideology; provide
viable, competing alternative worldviews; and contest the intellectual
``safe harbors'' where extremist ideas incubate.
Defeating extremists and their ideology would be easier if they did
not have state sponsors. Iran and Syria have not cooperated with
efforts to combat terrorism and promote reconciliation. Their policies
and actions threaten the internal security of their neighbors and the
collective stability of the region. The Iranian regime provides Shia
militia groups in Iraq with training, funding and weapons including
lethal Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), a particularly deadly
form of Improvised Explosive Device (IED). Iran continues to employ
surrogates in Lebanon and Gaza, providing money and weapons to
Hezbollah and Hamas, threatening the stability of Lebanon and
undercutting the future of Palestinians, as well as engaging in
confrontational activity in the Gulf.
Iran's most destabilizing activity has been the pursuit of nuclear
weapons technology in defiance of the international community,
International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations Security Council.
A nuclear-armed Iran would further threaten regional stability,
potentially trigger an arms race and increase the potential for
extremists to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
The Syrian Government continues to meddle in Lebanon. Its support
for Hezbollah is destabilizing the country, and it stonewalls the
investigation into the Rafik Hariri assassination.
Over the past 5 years, terrorists, suicide bombers, and foreign
fighters have traveled through Syria to attack Iraqi and coalition
forces. The government in Damascus has tolerated the presence and
operations of Iraqi Sunni extremists who have fueled the fighting in
Baghdad and elsewhere in the country.
In Lebanon, the government is confronted by opposition groups and
violent protests, but the Lebanese Armed Forces are maintaining a
fragile order. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese have stood up publicly
against assassination and terror, and for their elected government and
a peaceful, prosperous future. The international community continues to
support the popularly elected government in Beirut and its legitimately
constituted and disciplined security forces.
v. strengthening relationships and influence states and organizations
to contribute to regional stability and the free flow of commerce
To increase prospects for long-term stability and security in the
region, we are working to strengthen relationships between and among
these nations and the United States. We are also trying to influence
states and organizations such as the Gulf Cooperation Council to
contribute to regional stability and work to ensure the free flow of
commerce and positive economic growth.
During the course of my numerous trips to the region, I have
developed relationships with most of my military counterparts and many
of their political leaders. The foundation of these partnership
building efforts is our Theater Security Cooperation program, which
helps develop the security capabilities of current and prospective
coalition partners, builds and supports effective regional security
arrangements and interoperability, and synchronizes efforts with other
U.S. Government agencies. More importantly, these programs forge
personal relationships between the U.S. and partners in the region,
enhancing mutual trust and confidence and facilitating the effective
operations of our commands.
The CENTCOM Theater Security Cooperation program is built on a
foundation of enduring relationships. The synchronized efforts of all
the elements of U.S. and international power are key to success. We are
fortunate to have a number of close, reliable partner nations. Five of
these countries, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Pakistan, are major
non-NATO Allies, and of those, Jordan and Bahrain are Free Trade
Agreement partners. Our Theater Security Cooperation Strategy enables
regional stability and advances security efforts that protect vital
U.S. national interests and helps partners build capacities to combat
terror and become self-reliant.
Department of State programs such as Foreign Military Funding (FMF)
and International Military Education and Training (IMET) are vital to
build enduring security relationships. Attendance at U.S. institutions
and courses of instruction by foreign military personnel offers
exposure to our ideas, principles, standards and most importantly, our
people. The resulting personal relationships have proven invaluable in
building long-term trust and access. In my experience, withholding IMET
funds inhibits the ability to influence the positive transformation of
regional military forces. Additionally, authorities for building global
partnership capacity proposed in title 13 of the draft National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 will give me the tools I need to
support our partners in the war on terror more effectively and
efficiently than current authorities. Passage of this legislation will
allow CENTCOM to use existing authorities to train and equip partner
nations' non-military security services in addition to national
military forces, and to engage in a wider range of combined exercises,
training, and personnel and information exchanges. It will also give
more field commanders the authority to spend Commander's Emergency
Response Program funds, give rewards for valuable information and
integrate a wider range of Department of State capabilities with our
military ones. However, it will still require advance notification to
Congress, thereby maintaining appropriate levels of transparency and
oversight.
In order to facilitate multi-lateral engagement between our
partners, I hosted the inaugural CENTCOM Chiefs of Defense Conferences
in Tampa, bringing together senior military officers from 19 of the 27
nations in our region. These conferences were very well received and
bolstered the stature and acceptance of the Iraqi and Afghan Defense
Chiefs. Additionally, the unprecedented engagement between participants
reduced suspicion and enhanced trust while cementing personal
relationships.
Military exercises enable our troops to operate with partner forces
and improve interoperability as well as demonstrate capabilities. Our
forces have participated in 49 combined exercises throughout the AOR,
including multi-lateral exercises in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates
(UAE), Egypt, and Kazakhstan. Qatar hosted an exercise focused on air
defense and consequence management called Eagle Resolve for the third
consecutive year. This event has strengthened defense cooperation among
many of our regional partners. The UAE hosted three air exercises, two
of them at the Gulf Air Warfare Center, which focused on multi-lateral
cooperation and interoperability among Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
members. Egypt hosted CENTCOM's longest standing cooperative exercise,
Bright Star, for 13 partner nations. After 25 years, this exercise
continues to be relevant and has grown to emphasize strategic level
engagement. In Central Asia, Kazakhstan hosted exercise Regional
Cooperation, which enhanced interoperability and integration between
the various disaster preparedness and consequence management ministries
of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. By
bringing together units from various nations to cooperate in response
to realistic and challenging scenarios, these exercises hone the skills
of U.S. and partner military forces while enhancing regional stability
and security.
Following are highlights of the development of key relationships in
the region:
Egypt
Egypt is a key ally, strongly supporting the Middle East Peace
Process and U.S. regional initiatives. Our close relations greatly aid
our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror by providing
expedited Suez Canal transits for U.S. warships, over flights and
access to basing. Egypt has maintained a field hospital and medical
staff in Afghanistan since 2003 that continues to provide medical care
and training. Egypt has signaled its intent to help combat smuggling
into the Gaza strip through the purchase of technical equipment that
could assist Egyptian security forces detect and exploit tunnels, a
requirement that has assumed even greater importance in light of recent
events. Egypt is one of the largest contributors to the United Nations-
African Union Mission in Darfur with some 1,200 Egyptian soldiers and
police officers. FMF significantly contributes to the modernization and
interoperability of the Egyptian Armed Forces, which helps provide
stability in the Suez Canal area and the Levant.
The prospects for positive change in Egyptian governance are
enhanced by our close interaction on regional security matters. These
relations also ensure continued Egyptian support for our regional
presence and operations and demonstrate that when we make a commitment,
we keep it. For these reasons, I urge Congress to continue its support
for Egyptian FMF levels.
Horn of Africa and Yemen
The nations in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti,
Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, and the Seychelles) face border and ethnic
tensions, insurgencies, corruption, terrorist infiltrations and
poverty. CENTCOM's Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA)
conducts operations, training, and humanitarian missions in the Horn of
Africa and Yemen to build partner nation military capability, improve
quality of life, expand governance, strengthen bilateral relationships,
and build partner nations' military capability. Cooperation of these
nations with us contributes to building their own capacity to combat
terrorism and prepare for other challenges, including natural
disasters. CENTCOM is working closely with U.S. Africa Command to
ensure our relations continue to strengthen as the new geographic
command prepares to assume its responsibilities.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia is a key regional strategic ally and close partner in the
war on terror. This strong bilateral relationship was readily evident
in the wake of Ethiopia's initial military operations in Somalia to
support the Transitional Federal Government against radical insurgents.
Ethiopia has also demonstrated strategic importance by its considerable
contributions to United Nations peacekeeping missions, such as the U.N.
Mission in Liberia and its pledge of 5,000 peacekeepers for the U.N.
African Union Mission in Darfur. Our support for the efforts of the
Ethiopian military to modernize and professionalize will be critical to
the government's ability to address security threats effectively and in
conformity with international norms.
Ethiopia has, however, refused to evacuate disputed territory on
its border with Eritrea, despite the fact the United Nations Ethiopia-
Eritrea Border Commission made its final ruling in favor of Eritrea's
claim. Eritrea has denied supplies to the United Nations mission there
in order to force it to depart. President Isaias Afwerki's government
also sponsors violent extremists in Somalia, and there is evidence it
does the same in Ethiopia. Eritrea's treatment of its own people is no
better, as Isaias has jailed all political opponents and devastated
what had been a relatively healthy economy. As long as Eritrea is
aggressive toward its neighbors and repressive against its own people,
the amount of assistance CENTCOM can provide will be severely limited.
Kenya
The just signed power-sharing agreement between President Kibaki
and Orange Democratic Movement leader Raila Odinga is encouraging.
While we should remain vigilant for signs of a return to political
crisis and ethnic violence, I believe Kenya's strong institutional
foundations can be a basis for long-term stability. Kenya provides a
traditional locale for the U.S. and the international community to
conduct relief and rescue operations in regional trouble spots and is a
key contributor to regional conflict resolution and counterterrorism
efforts. Historically, Kenya has been one of our closest and staunchest
partners against terrorism. America's interests are to assist Kenya in
countering the terrorist threat, support the processes of political and
economic reform, help raise the standard of living, combat health
crises, and protect Kenya's resource base.
Djibouti
This small, peaceful, and tolerant Muslim country is an island of
stability in a region characterized by tension and violence. Djibouti
is a key security partner as it hosts CJTF-HOA and provides refueling
facilities for coalition naval vessels. Djibouti is also the warehouse
location for prepositioned emergency food relief used by the Office of
Foreign Disaster Assistance in times of crisis. As this country
undergoes potentially rapid change while developing a new port complex,
the continued support for CJTF-HOA in cooperation with other elements
of the interagency will be critical to ensure the benefits of growth
are distributed in a way that promotes stability and democratic
development.
Sudan
In 2007, tension between the ruling National Congress Party (NCP)
and the southern Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) increased
due to the slow implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA). These tensions culminated in the SPLM temporarily withdrawing
from the Government of National Unity in Khartoum. We anticipate
additional tension in 2008 due to expected delays in the CPA-mandated
national census. In Darfur, the deployment of the U.N.-African Union
Mission in Darfur will remain behind schedule due to NCP
obstructionism. Multiple attempts to unite the Darfur rebels failed to
bring about a cohesive group prior to renewed peace talks, exacerbating
insecurity and the humanitarian crisis.
Somalia
Military, humanitarian, and political conditions deteriorated
significantly in Somalia during 2007 and could further deteriorate in
2008. Initially fractured in early 2007, the al Qaeda associated Somali
resistance, supported politically by Eritrea, have regained control of
much of southern and central Somalia. We will work closely with our
regional partners to prevent harm to our broader interests, mitigate
the humanitarian challenges and support efforts to achieve a political
settlement.
Seychelles
Our relationship with the stable, democratic Government of
Seychelles focuses on countering coastal security threats and improving
disaster preparedness. Through joint exercises with the Seychelles
Coast Guard we are working to build their capacity to plan and conduct
operations to counter transnational threats.
Lebanon
Since November 2007, Lebanon's already tenuous political situation
has worsened. The government and opposition see the stalled
Presidential election process and the subsequent cabinet formation as
crucial to their interests. The country remains politically stymied as
the Hezbollah-led opposition, with its Syrian and Iranian allies,
attempt to use the vacuum in the presidency as leverage to control
future decisionmaking in the country. Syria will continue to pressure
its allies to refuse any compromise knowing that the election of a
Western leaning government will likely lead to the rapid implementation
of the Special Tribunal to charge the assassins of former Prime
Minister Rafiq Hariri. Damascus fears this will implicate high-ranking
Syrian officials and their Lebanese allies. These political battles
have grown violent as evidenced by assassinations of political and
security leaders. In addition, bombs have targeted high-ranking members
of the security establishment as well as U.S. Embassy employees.
A well-armed and well-trained Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) is a
potential unifying force. The multi-confessional LAF, with its members
drawn from all of the country's communities, enjoys broad support from
the Lebanese people. The LAF demonstrated resolve and courage during
its 102 day fight in the Nahr al-Barid refugee camp last year--a
victory that would have been far more costly were it not for the
support of the United States and key allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
and Egypt. CENTCOM Special Operations Forces enhanced LAF effectiveness
by providing training during the months preceding operations at Nahr
al-Barid. While addressing the short-term needs of the LAF, we are
focusing on its long-term development. The $220 million FMF
supplemental approved by Congress in 2007 is contributing significantly
to this effort, but we must continue the process and strengthen our
bilateral military relationship to resist efforts by Syria, Iran, and
their Hezbollah surrogates to undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon.
Jordan
Jordan is a regional leader in security and counterterror training
and one of our strongest partners. In 2007, Jordan hosted a large
multinational special operations exercise as well as six other military
exercises. It also hosts the Peace Operations Training Center, the
International Police Training Center, the Cooperative Management
Center, and the King Abdullah Special Operations Training Center.
Additionally, Jordanian doctors and nurses operate and provide training
in much needed hospitals in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Consistently supportive of our role and presence in the region,
Jordan has played a major role in promoting stability and
reconciliation in Western Iraq, supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces
and training Palestinian Authority Security Forces. Currently, more
than 1,000 Palestinian authority security personnel are receiving
essential police training in Jordan.
Although it placed enormous stress on public services, Jordanian
leaders opened their country to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fleeing
the violence in their own country. Jordanian efforts to improve border
security are exemplary and set the standard for the region. U.S.
military and economic assistance to Jordan are wise investments for a
peaceful, secure and prosperous region.
Arabian Gulf States
We have improved participation and cooperation with the GCC states
of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Of note,
Iraq has participated in GCC multi-lateral discussions and as an
observer during exercises. Developing these relationships will
eventually lead to greater security and economic opportunity for the
entire region. Each of these nations has been a valuable contributor to
our mutual security efforts providing essential base and port access,
overflight rights and additional force protection for U.S. units in the
region.
Our strong partnership with Kuwait is vital to the CENTCOM mission.
Kuwait hosts the Combined Forces Land Component Command and provides a
staging area for Coalition forces entering and departing Iraq. Military
operations in Iraq would not be possible without critical support
provided by Kuwait in the form of fuel, electricity, water, meals,
waived customs fees, and many other allowances totaling about $1
billion per year. The military-to-military relationship with Kuwait
grows stronger through a robust military sales program and an extensive
program of combined exercises.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has achieved significant success with
an initiative to cut off funding to terrorists and restrain violence.
Saudi leaders have enacted tough antiterrorism laws, established a
Financial Intelligence Unit to combat illegal ``charities'' that
ultimately fund al Qaeda and have built indigenous special operations
and counterterror forces capacity. They have also made efforts to
reform their educational system and have promoted the ideals of
tolerance and moderation in their leading mosques and promote
rehabilitation programs for security prisoners. Saudi Arabia has been
helpful in our efforts to support the stability and independence of the
legitimate Government of Lebanon. Our military relationship is based on
extensive interaction between armed forces and a robust military sales
program that we expect to grow in coming years. It is enhanced by a
U.S. advisory presence in the Kingdom and by our training of Saudi
military personnel.
Bahrain and the U.S. have enjoyed a close military relationship for
more than a half a century. Today, Manama hosts U.S. Naval Forces
Central Command. In addition, a Bahraini officer currently commands
Coalition Task Force 152 with responsibility for Maritime Security in
the Arabian Gulf. Bahrain hosted an Iraq Coalition conference this past
October and is a strong supporter in the struggle against terror. In
the past year, I attended the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain, and the Forum
on U.S.-Islamic Relations in Qatar. These two widely respected fora are
strongly supported by the host nations and allow leaders the
opportunity to benefit from extensive engagement on substantive
regional issues.
We are grateful to Qatar for hosting the CENTCOM forward
headquarters at Camp As Saliyah and our Combined Air Operations Center
at al-Udeid Air Base. The excellent military-to-military relationship
with the Qatar Armed Forces is robust and mutually beneficial. Access
to the airbase at al-Udeid facilitates air operations in the AOR. Doha
also provides substantial in-kind support to U.S. forces, significantly
offsetting the cost of our operations from there. Additionally, they
have participated in the Gulf Security Dialogue meetings with the
Departments of State and Defense in order to build infrastructure and
systems necessary to improve deterrence.
The UAE has emerged as a staunch coalition partner, contributing to
the continued security and stability of the Gulf and the Strait of
Hormuz. In addition to access for air assets at the Al Dhafra Airbase,
the Emirates provide nearly continuous access for Navy ships in the
port of Jebel Ali. It is a leading partner in the campaign against
terror, providing assistance in military, diplomatic and financial
areas. Our military-to-military relationship ties are a key element of
our excellent bi-lateral relations. We expect these relations to
strengthen as the UAE serves as a regional example of the benefits of
private sector growth and broadened opportunity for individual choice.
The Emiratis are leading the Shared Early Warning initiative in the
Gulf and have a robust Foreign Military Sales Missile Defense request
pending.
Oman is a stable, secure, and cooperative partner. The Sultanate
allows the storage of important war reserve material, and its proximity
to the Strait of Hormuz is a uniquely vital strategic position. We have
had an enduring relationship with Oman since the early part of the 19th
century, and they have provided strong support for Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Our cooperation with Oman in areas such as
education and economic development support Oman's own measured path to
economic growth and more participatory governance.
Pakistan
The recent election in Pakistan was encouraging and offers the
potential for a peaceful return to democracy and much needed
stabilization for this populous country. It is important to note that
the Pakistani Armed Forces did not arbitrate these elections, but they
did provide the essential security that enabled a generally peaceful
process. Senior Pakistani leaders understand the threat of violent
extremism to their country and are taking steps to transform their
security institutions to be more effective in combating these
challenges. The military aid we have provided in all forms has been
critical in the fight against extremists inside Pakistan, particularly
along the western frontier adjacent to Afghanistan. Pakistan has
successfully deployed more than 100,000 troops to the western frontier,
directly engaged al Qaeda, the Taliban, and foreign fighters.
Pakistani security forces have captured and killed significant
numbers of violent extremists, to include high-ranking leaders of al
Qaeda and the Taliban. They have also suffered extensive casualties.
Our long-term partnership with Pakistan is central to defeating
extremist groups in the region, and it is difficult to imagine success
in that struggle without its support and cooperation. We are working
together to reduce the tensions stemming from the radical and violent
extremist presence in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Ongoing
initiatives include regular meetings with Pakistan's military leaders,
enhanced liaison and communications among our units operating along the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border and a Security Development Plan, which
includes initiatives to establish a Frontier Corps Training Center,
assist the Frontier Corps (FC) in establishing new Wings (battalion
equivalent) and improve indigenous intelligence operation capabilities.
Advisors will share lessons learned in counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency mission sets, and FC personnel will be provided with
modern equipment. Also, Sector Headquarters and Border Coordination
Centers will be established to improve shared situational awareness and
deconflict border operations with coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Pakistan remains a strong partner of the United States, and our
support for its counterterror efforts will continue with a variety of
focused programs. Our security cooperation funding and bilateral
exercise programs help the Pakistani Government conduct counterterror
operations, develop its counterinsurgency capacity and enhance its
internal stability. In this critical time of democratic change it is
vital that Pakistan view the U.S. as a long term trusted partner,
particularly in our efforts to defeat common enemies.
Middle East Peace Process
Any discussion of security and stability in the region must include
the Middle East Peace Process. Recent efforts to revive this effort are
positive. A peaceful two-State solution that offers justice and
security to Palestinians and Israel would negate the widespread
perception of inequity in the Arab world.
Central Asian States--Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan
These five nations in Central Asia, are strategically important to
the U.S., welcome greater interaction with us and play an increasing
role in the global energy market. They reject violent extremists and
all, save Uzbekistan with whom we have just reestablished a military
dialogue, cooperate with the U.S. in a variety of security initiatives.
Kazakhstan is a valued partner in Iraq and offers the potential to
serve as a regional leader for economic growth and prosperity.
Kazakhstan is a key player in east-west trade and the potential
northern nexus of a trade route that could stretch south to Pakistan,
linking the less developed nations in the region with access to
international markets in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. With regard
to its security needs, we have been assisting Kazakhstan in refining
its defense strategy, modernizing its armed forces, and development of
its peacekeeping forces.
Kyrgyzstan is rebuilding political stability after the turmoil of
the past few years and hosts a U.S. presence at Manas Air Base, a key
logistics node that facilitates operations in Afghanistan. We are
seeking new and innovative ways to help develop the capabilities and
capacity of Kyrgyz security forces to meet internal requirements and to
contribute to regional stability.
Economic woes, an energy deficit and narcotics trafficking
challenge Tajikistan, one of the poorest nations in the region.
Tajikistan has made progress in building national unity, but much work
remains. I am encouraged by Tajikistan's willingness to participate in
international peacekeeping efforts, and our security cooperation
programs are focused on helping Dushanbe build its capacity and secure
it borders.
Turkmenistan is slowly but steadily emerging from the self-
isolation of former President Niyazov. President Berdimuhamedov has
loosened up internal controls, reached out to neighbors in need and
demonstrated a stiff spine by halting gas exports to Iran for non-
payment of agreed fees. Turkmenistan has expanded cooperation with us
on a range of military-to-military activities and recently approved
funding for a U.N. Drug Control program office in Turkmenistan. They
have actively assisted our efforts in support Afghanistan operations.
We have reinstituted a security relationship with Uzbekistan after
a hiatus of about 3 years following the expulsion of our forces from
Karshi-Khanabad airbase, in the wake of the Uzbek Government's response
to an attempted extremist takeover of the town of Andijan in 2005. I
met with President Karimov in January, and we welcome the opportunity
to reverse the deterioration in relations between the U.S. and
Uzbekistan, encourage better regional cooperation and reopen a dialogue
to address issues of reform and human rights.
Throughout Central Asia, there is an opportunity to positively
influence the future development of these countries. We are encouraging
greater economic, political, and security cooperation among these five
states. Greater sustained diplomatic engagement, military aid and
economic assistance would further mutual interests.
vi. posturing the force to build and sustain joint and combined
warfighting capabilities and readiness
Joint and Coalition Operations
Joint and combined warfighting capability and readiness are
fundamental to our ability to prosecute ongoing military operations,
maintain a credible presence to deter aggression and respond
effectively to contingencies. Because we execute nearly all of our
activities jointly and in concert with allies, we must cultivate
effective interservice and multinational ways of doing business.
Existing examples of such integration include the Multinational
Headquarters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. Because our
region is filled with uncertainty, we must maintain a full spectrum of
responsive capabilities through an effective forward deployed force
structure, thorough planning and realistic combined training exercises.
Other critical capabilities include the following:
A Strong Coalition
Currently there are 41 partner nations with troops in Afghanistan
and 31 with personnel in Iraq. They bring important mission
capabilities but also significant integration challenges. Blending
capabilities of these countries into effective action requires, among
other factors, a command and control infrastructure that accounts for
remote locations, multiple languages, cultural differences and
challenging force protection issues. Our coalition must share
classified and sensitive information when appropriate and have the
networks and infrastructure to facilitate such exchanges.
Interagency Coordination
Establishment of security and stability in our region requires the
application of all elements of national power: military, diplomatic,
economic, and information. The military instruments can set conditions
for security but other agencies foster lasting change.
We are fortunate to have several U.S. Government entities engaged
in the CENTCOM AOR. The Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, and
Homeland Security, as well as subordinate agencies including the U.S.
Agency for International Development, Diplomatic Security Service,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, and
U.S. Coast Guard, are actively engaged in our theater. Their efforts
are helping to protect critical infrastructure, prevent terrorist
attacks on our homeland, train fledgling law enforcement organizations
and rebuild damaged or aging infrastructure. There is clearly a need
for better integration and more comprehensive application of all the
elements of national power.
Flexible Logistics
Strategic airlift, rapid sealift, prepositioned inventories, and
access to bases with critical infrastructure are the key logistics
components which support operational flexibility. Our primary focus in
this area remains the timely deployment, equipping, and sustainment of
units engaged in combat operations. As an example, the rapid fielding
of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to our troops would
not have been possible without the highly flexible contingency air and
sealift capabilities. We will leverage commercial air and surface
distribution across the theater and pursue initiatives to improve
theater-wide logistics cost savings and work force reductions. We will
continue working with the Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Department of State, and partner nations to ensure access
to the infrastructure we need to support ongoing and future operations.
Adaptable Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) Capabilities
Interoperable, high-volume communications systems are essential to
conducting operations across a dispersed command space. Our systems
operate near full capacity daily with little surge capability. Because
many of our needs must be satisfied by commercial providers, access to
them is critical. The largest challenge we face is integration of
disparate systems into interoperable and reliable networks. We must
embrace policies that enable successful integration and technologies
that result in effective interoperability and efficient information-
sharing.
Ultimately, our ability to target violent extremists depends on
precise and actionable intelligence. We continue to evolve our
techniques and procedures to optimize efforts to ``find, fix, finish,
and exploit'' targets. Our adversaries have been agile in adapting to
our operations. We continue to improve battle space awareness, seeking
greater specificity, detail, and timeliness of intelligence whenever
possible. We are aggressively seeking ways to manage shortfalls or
capability gaps in imagery intelligence, wide area coverage, sensor
integration, signals intelligence, moving target indicators, layered
Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) architecture,
biometrics, counterintelligence, and human collectors. Your support of
our intelligence needs is much appreciated, and I solicit your
continued funding of these critical items.
Responsive Counter Improvised Explosive Device Program
Insurgents' weapon of choice will likely continue to be the IED, or
road-side bomb. They are cheap, effective, and anonymous and have been
adapted to include toxic industrial chemicals such as chlorine. While
some are crude, our adversaries increasingly use sophisticated
technology, including EFPs from Iran. These weapons have killed or
wounded thousands of military and civilian personnel in Iraq, and IEDs
are becoming increasingly prevalent in Afghanistan.
To counter this threat, and working with the interagency and our
coalition partners, we are fielding jammers, specialized route
clearance vehicles and equipment and improved vehicle and personnel
protective armor. The most effective counter to the IED is targeting
the human networks which supply, train, and employ the devices. We have
pressed this approach through a comprehensive application of ISR. These
initiatives have reduced IED effectiveness. We must continue to develop
new technologies, tactics, techniques and procedures. Of particular
importance to CENTCOM is continued fielding of MRAP vehicles, and
further research and development to improve the detection of mines,
IEDs and unexploded ordnance.
Personnel
Sustained operations in the CENTCOM AOR depend on personnel who
have foreign language proficiency and cultural awareness competency in
addition to military skills. Retention is a critical issue, and we
depend heavily on quality of life enhancements such as Combat Zone Tax
Relief, Imminent Danger Pay, and Special Leave Accrual. The Rest and
Recuperation program continues to be a success, serving more than
590,000 troops to date. Over the past year, we have conducted a
comprehensive review of the manning of our headquarters, which, after 6
years of war, is still highly reliant on temporary individual
augmentation personnel. My subordinate warfighting headquarters are
also heavily manned with individual augmentees. I am committed to
working with the Services and the Joint Staff to properly size and
resource all of these headquarters.
CENTCOM is also working to address requirements for low density
skills. Our present inventory of language and intelligence specialists
(especially human intelligence) and counterintelligence agents does not
support current requirements. Language expertise is crucial in
counterinsurgency, counterterrorist, and counterintelligence operations
and will continue to be in high demand. Contracting language expertise
provides interim capability, but in the long run, we need
servicemembers and career civilians with the requisite language and
cultural skills.
We recognize the importance of co-locating our servicemembers with
their families whenever prudent. We further recognize the value is
compounded when done so overseas as our families interact with the host
nation and strengthen the ties between our peoples. We have initiated
the process to authorize our military families to return to areas as
reduced threats permit. Before such actions, we will take every
precaution to ensure protection and security measures are in place to
safeguard our personnel and their families.
vi. conclusion
During this past year the men and women assigned to CENTCOM have
fought valiantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, provided humanitarian and
reconstruction assistance, and engaged with partners and allies in
deterring aggression. They have worked tirelessly on behalf of the
American people to provide essential security and stability for
millions of others. They have trained and exercised alongside men and
women from many other nations, providing experience, advice, mentoring,
and example in an effort to increase the capabilities of others to
defend and secure their people. The engagement of our service personnel
with foreign counterparts is key to gaining the trust of these people
and facilitating our ability to influence outcomes in support of U.S.
policy objectives. We stand ready to assist those who would work with
us to bring lasting peace to this troubled region of the world.
The American people and Congress have provided staunch and steady
support for our efforts, and we greatly appreciate your advocacy and
assistance. I am proud and honored to represent the men, women and
supporting families of CENTCOM. On their behalf, thank you for your
support and for this opportunity to testify before you.
Chairman Levin. Admiral Fallon, thank you.
Admiral Olson?
STATEMENT OF ADM ERIC T. OLSON, USN, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES
SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
Admiral Olson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and
distinguished members of the committee: Thank you as well for
this opportunity to appear before you to report on the Special
Operations Forces. I'm very honored to represent the 54,000
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and government civilians
of SOCOM. With your permission, I submit my written posture
statement for the record and will limit my opening remarks.
The strong and steady interest of Congress and this
committee has helped Special Operations Forces attain global
capability and effectiveness. Since your creation of United
States SOCOM, now almost 21 years ago, our joint force has
proven itself in many well-known and lesser known operations,
and it's been a steady presence with our friends and allies.
Throughout the command, its strength has been its
extraordinary people, enabled by unique authorities and a
dedicated budget. United States SOCOM is charged by legislation
to prepare and provide fully capable Special Operations Forces
to conduct operations worldwide. These activities include
counterterrorism, counterproliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, direct action, special reconnaissance,
unconventional warfare, training with foreign forces, civil
affairs, psychological operations, and information operations
as they relate to special operations.
By direction of the President, United States SOCOM is also
the lead combatant command for synchronizing Department of
Defense (DOD) planning for the global campaign against
terrorism.
So in aggregate, these doctrinal terms define a complex set
of tasks that are best accomplished by a specially selected,
trained, and equipped joint force with proven skill,
discipline, courage, and wisdom. It's a force that must operate
with equal confidence and equal effectiveness across the
spectrum of conflict from pre-crisis through intense conflict
and to stabilization and reconstruction. Such a joint force
must be carefully managed to optimize its readiness.
When deployed outside the United States, Special Operations
Forces are almost always in support of geographic combatant
commanders. They're present in 58 countries today, mostly in
small numbers, often with low visibility, low profile presence.
Over 80 percent, as you said, sir, of our deployed forces today
are in the CENTCOM AOR working for Admiral Fallon, focused on a
careful balance of direct and indirect actions to defeat
terrorists and violent insurgents and contribute to local
stability.
Operational commanders have learned that no other force can
accomplish such a broad scope of missions in such diverse
operational environments, and so global demand for this force
does exceed supply, and I anticipate no decrease in demand even
as some United States forces eventually draw down from Iraq. In
fact, I expect an increase in demand for Special Operations
Forces as local environments transition from a larger
conventional force presence to a smaller train and assist kind
of activity presence, especially considering the continuing
deficit of Special Operations Forces in the other geographic
combatant commanders' regions.
To answer this, as a result of program decisions of the
last few years, including the QDR in the last Program Objective
Memorandum cycle, we are expanding as fast as we reasonably
can, as fast as we can reasonably absorb the growth. In the
long-term, I estimate that 3 to 5 percent growth per year is
about right for Special Operations Forces manpower. If we must
expand organic enablers like aviation, like cordon and search
forces, like interrogator forces, intelligence analysts,
airfield control and the like in order to become more self-
sufficient, though, those numbers would increase.
Many of the mobility platforms and much of the equipment
used by Special Operations Forces are initially procured by the
Services and then modified for Special Operations-peculiar
mission requirements. So must of SOCOM acquisition programs
must be carefully synchronized with the Services.
Recapitalizing our fixed wing transport fleet and our
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance capability in terms
of systems, not just platforms, are our most critical needs.
For these and other programs that deliver Special
Operations-peculiar items, speed of process is essential and
I'm committed to exploring the scope of my authorities in order
to make that system more responsive.
In any case, I'm convinced that Special Operations will be
required to at least sustain and perhaps grow its levels of
both operational effort and funding for the foreseeable future.
I remain humbled to command such a force, such a capable
and versatile group of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and
civilians, at this important time, and I also remain in awe of
the courage and dedication demonstrated by this force every
day.
I thank you for your continued support and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Olson follows:]
Prepared Statement by ADM Eric T. Olson, USN
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is an
honor to report on the state of United States Special Operations
Command (SOCOM).
SOCOM's mission is to provide fully capable Special Operations
Forces (SOF) to defend the United States and its interests; and to plan
and synchronize Department of Defense (DOD) operations against
terrorist networks.
America's Special Operations Forces (SOF) are organized, equipped
and trained, and then deployed by SOCOM to meet the high demands of
Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCCs) around the world. The range of
special operations is wide, the geographic dispersion is great, the
quality is exceptional and the results are impressive.
Although most SOF deployed from the United States since the attacks
of September 11 have served in and around Iraq and Afghanistan, we
clearly understand the enduring value of a global presence. We are
proud to be serving in about 60 countries today.
The core capabilities of SOF are in the people who choose to do,
qualify for and remain committed to this type of work. Finding,
training, and sustaining them requires steady focus. Ensuring they have
the equipment, sensors, weapons, and mobility platforms of the kind and
quality demanded by their peculiar missions requires willingness to
invest in the rapid fielding of both existing solutions and cutting
edge technologies even when the relatively small purchase quantities do
not optimize production costs.
SOF must be manned, trained and equipped to operate globally with
unmatched speed, precision and discipline within a culture that
promotes innovation, initiative and tactical level diplomacy. While
this Nation appreciates the tremendous impact of SOF's day-to-day
engagement with global friends, allies and partners, and the powerful
impact of SOF on the battlefield is legend, America also expects SOF to
be able to appear in places they are not expected to be, with
capabilities they are not expected to have.
To accomplish our missions, we are focused on three priorities,
each containing nested objectives.
First, we must deter, disrupt, and defeat terrorist threats to our
Nation. We do this by planning and conducting special operations,
emphasizing culturally-attuned international engagement and fostering
interagency cooperation. The Command's synchronization of the plans and
planning to deter, disrupt, and defeat our enemies has great influence
on allocation of the Department's resources.
Second, we must develop and support our people and their families.
Our great people are the foundation of mission success, and they are
national assets. We must maintain our quality, train and educate our
force as joint warrior-diplomats, and always care for them and their
families.
Third, we must sustain and modernize the force by equipping the
operator, upgrading our mobility platforms and further developing
persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) sensors
and systems.
These priorities support SOCOM's ongoing efforts to ensure SOF are
highly trained, properly equipped and deployed to the right places at
the right times for the right missions. Our personnel must be capable
of planning and leading a wide range of lethal and non-lethal special
operations missions in complex, ambiguous environments. This specific
requirement underpins expectations that SOF will continue a military
culture of initiative and innovation at every level. SOCOM will
continue to work closely with the Services to ensure that the
conventional force enablers upon which we depend remain a part of our
future operations.
deter, disrupt, and defeat terrorist threats
The enemy threat is complex and patient. SOCOM anticipates no
relief from our deployed commitments even when U.S. force levels in
Iraq and Afghanistan are reduced. SOF's ability to grow relationships
and build partner nation capacity is a fundamental part of the
Department's campaign plan against terrorist threats.
We pursue two essential, mutually supporting and often intertwined
approaches--direct and indirect. These two approaches integrate the
requirement to immediately disrupt violent extremist organizations
while positively impacting the environment in which they operate.
The direct approach addresses the immediate requirement to pursue
terrorists, their infrastructure and their resources. Despite the
positive trends in Iraq, operations to capture or kill terrorists and
disrupt their networks remain both urgent and necessary. In the dynamic
and ambiguous environments that constitute today's battlefields, the
ability to rapidly analyze and exploit information is key to fast
sequential targeting. This requires unique skills, specialized
technologies and flexible mobility. We understand the necessity of
prosecuting targets with speed, precision and discipline.
The indirect approach addresses the underlying causes of terrorism
and the environments in which terrorism activities occur. The indirect
approach requires more time than the direct approach to achieve
effects, but ultimately will be the decisive effort.
In a world characterized by protracted struggles, emerging
Irregular Warfare (IW) doctrine calls for a suite of capabilities to
prevail against those who threaten us. IW is a logical, long-term
framework that assists in both analyzing and applying many elements of
national and international power to achieve mutual security objectives.
IW often employs indirect operations to gain asymmetric advantage
over adversaries. IW is not a new mission area for SOF. Unconventional
warfare, counterterrorism (CT), counterinsurgency, civil-military
operations, Civil Affairs (CA), Psychological Operations (PSYOP), and
Foreign Internal Defense (FID) are all traditional IW activities and
core tasks for SOF. With IW's emergence as a focus area for broader
participation across the Department, it increasingly describes
activities that both SOF and general purpose forces will employ in
their operational approaches.
Theater SOF Efforts--By, With, and Through
Deployed SOF are normally under the command of Theater Special
Operations Commanders who work directly for the GCCs. The Theater SOCs
have the regional focus that contributes to a good understanding of the
people, the cultures, and the issues of their areas of interest.
It is under the Theater Special Operations Commands that
permanently deployed and rotational SOF work in other countries to
enhance combat skills; establish relationships with counterparts;
advise, assist or manage a variety of civil and military projects;
contribute to the achievement of U.S. Ambassadors' objectives; or gain
the experience that will contribute to future successes.
For example, at the direction of SOCOM-Pacific, SOF assist
Philippine forces' efforts to identify and defeat indigenous and
transnational terrorist organizations in the southern islands. Building
on the model that was effective on Basilan Island in 2002, a Combined
Joint Special Operations Task Force works closely with Philippine Army,
Marine and Navy units and the U.S. Agency for International Development
to provide both humanitarian assistance and military training. SOF also
manage information and public affairs plans in coordination with the
U.S. country team. The combined effect of these efforts has made
central and southern Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago a much more
challenging environment for terrorist activity.
Under SOCOM-Europe, Army Special Forces conducted an exercise
during the summer of 2007 involving several Trans-Saharan (Pan-Sahel)
nations and our European partners. SOF provided training in regional
synchronization, intelligence sharing, planning and coordination for CT
related operations. Last year, SOF also participated in Joint Combined
Exchange Training exercises in this region. These exchanges enhance SOF
skills while building person-to-person and unit-to-unit relationships.
Under SOCOM-Central Command, SOF have continued programs that are
building competent and capable Iraqi and Afghan security forces . Iraqi
SOF are generally touted as some of the most effective military units
in the region.
Under SOCOM-South, SOF personnel train, advise, and assist in
Colombia's campaign against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC) narco-terrorists.
Foreign Internal Defense
SOF employs its unique abilities to assess, train, advise, and
assist host nation militaries to build military capability. In so doing
we improve our partner nations' confidence and abilities to detect and
defeat violent extremist organizations. In 2007, SOF conducted hundreds
of FID missions around the world.
Civil Affairs
CA projects deter support for violent extremist organizations by
legitimizing existing governments and fostering a more favorable
opinion of U.S. efforts. Simultaneously, programs that address
government corruption, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, and basic
human needs build confidence in fledgling governments. While CA units
are key to success in Afghanistan and Iraq, they remain equally vital
to the conduct of myriad other SOF operations throughout the world.
Working closely with Colombian government and military officials,
SOF CA personnel carried out more than two dozen medical humanitarian
civic action events. These events treated thousands of Columbian
patients in remote areas of the country and solidified that
government's legitimacy in undergoverned spaces.
The Civil Military Engagement Program employs Civil Military
Support Elements which are scalable, modular SOF teams that plan,
coordinate, facilitate, manage and lead programs and projects that
support U.S. and host nation objectives. Combatant commanders are
increasingly requesting this CA augmentation to enhance their indirect
operations.
Psychological Operations
One of the most important components in defeating terrorism
includes countering violent extremist propaganda. These efforts are
global in scale and are locally implemented by the geographic Combatant
Commands. PSYOP forces disseminate truthful information to shape
behavior and erode the attraction of extremist ideologies among foreign
audiences.
SOCOM's Joint Military Information Support Command (JMISC) includes
functional, cultural and geographic experts who bring a combined
approach to tackling what has become a tough, entrenched war of ideas.
JMISC currently orchestrates a 24/7 multi-media campaign formatted to
the cultures and languages of relevant audiences. This provides a
factual message as an alternative to the extremist ideology for global
audiences.
A most important tool in our ability to build the capacity of
partner nations to conduct CT or stability operations is our continued
authority to train and equip foreign military forces under language
included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008. Sections 1202 (previously known as 1208) and 1206, which expires
this year, are authorities that have made a big difference in
developing carefully selected counterpart forces. As an authority
specific to Special Operations, section 1202 is especially germane.
Synchronization and Planning
In 2005, SOCOM was directed by the Unified Command Plan to plan,
synchronize and, as directed, conduct global operations against
terrorist networks in coordination with other combatant commanders.
While this was widely perceived as granting SOCOM the authority to
direct a wide range of operational activities in areas already assigned
to the GCCs, we have realized in execution that our greatest value is
in synchronizing global war on terror campaign plans and planning. The
operations themselves are in almost every case conducted by the GCC
responsible for that region, with SOCOM in support. Every day at
headquarters SOCOM, and at numerous outstations and agencies around the
world, SOCOM personnel are collaborating, coordinating, and planning
with other agencies to achieve desired global effects.
The most comprehensive element of SOCOM's synchronization effort is
the global collaborative planning process. This effort draws on other
Combatant Command capabilities and expertise to develop DOD's global
war on terror campaign plan. This plan, coupled with the Geographic
Combatant Commands' regional war on terror campaign plans that support
it, are dynamic and under continuous review. SOCOM and the DOD Global
Synchronization Community have developed structured processes to
evaluate and prioritize the many capabilities, operations, activities,
resources and forces required for DOD's efforts to deter, disrupt, and
defeat terrorism. SOCOM provides real and virtual venues for regular
meetings, briefings, and conferences with each of the GCCs, interagency
partners, and friendly and allied nations. The primary forum is the
semi-annual Global Synchronization Conference. Because collaboration
with our partner nations is so important, several other programs such
as the foreign attache-based Sovereign Challenge and our upcoming
International SOF Week improve global cooperation.
SOCOM's Interagency Task Force is a catalyst to rapidly facilitate
CT collaboration within the U.S. Government against trans-regional,
functional, and strategic level problem sets and opportunities.
SOCOM's International Engagement Program identifies requirements
and helps coordinate actions within selected foreign countries to
assist, resolve and enhance their CT capabilities and increase overall
information sharing.
Future Concepts
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) identified several
initiatives to give the Department greater capability and agility in
dealing with the most common and enduring threats of the 21st century.
The development of IR capabilities was prominent. SOCOM plays a lead
role in developing IW doctrine.
The IW Joint Operating Concept, developed by SOCOM in partnership
the Marine Corps, was approved and signed by the Secretary of Defense
in September 2007. It is the first step in the promulgation of IW
doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leader development and
education, personnel, and facilities.
In order to maintain the momentum in IW planning and policy, SOCOM
established an IW Directorate (J10) in 2007. The J10 provides
continuous focus on IW related issues that cut across operational and
programmatic lines.
develop and support our people and their families
The Commander of SOCOM is responsible for ensuring the combat
readiness of assigned forces. With this requirement comes the need for
better defined personnel management authorities and readiness reporting
frameworks.
Recruiting and Retention
The ability to identify and recruit the best SOF candidates is a
challenge requiring innovation and commitment of resources. Diversity
across the force is an operational necessity posing additional
challenges to recruiting. Attributes sought by the SOF community
include culturally-attuned individuals proficient in foreign languages
who physically blend into the operational environment.
Ongoing personnel sustainment and programmed growth efforts
directed by the QDR require intense cooperation and support between
SOCOM, the Services, and DOD. This concentrated effort has paid
dividends--89 percent of the fiscal year 2007 QDR growth was achieved.
With support from the Services, the SOF community leveraged a
combination of innovative accession programs, revamped training
programs, and implemented retention incentives.
SOF personnel have deployed often and suffered many casualties.
SOCOM puts great emphasis on sustainment programs that assist families
as well as the uniformed member. The SOF Care Coalition project,
implemented by my predecessor, has been extremely successful through
patient and family advocacy that extends beyond recovery,
rehabilitation and any subsequent transition to civilian life. No issue
is too large or too small. Care Coalition successes range from
minimizing medical and physical evaluation board bureaucracy, ensuring
Traumatic Serviceman Group Life Insurance compensation is appropriate,
coordinating home repairs for a family whose father was deployed,
making certain a SOF warrior's young daughter received the best TRICARE
could provide, and providing personalized support for all families
caring for their hospitalized wounded warrior.
Although SOCOM is specifically responsible for the special
operations force defined by Major Force Program (MFP) 11
authorizations, one of the greatest emergent challenges is the health
of our service-provided SOF enablers.
Training and Education
The component assessment and selection programs identify candidates
with the potential for entry into the SOF community. The initial SOF
qualification training that follows assessment and selection takes up
to 2 years to complete, but skills training is continuous thoughout
one's career in SOF.
Professional military education remains an essential element to the
development, sustainment, and advancement of SOF. One initiative
scheduled to begin in 2008 will expand the SOF Interagency Fellow's
program to provide post-graduate courses, full degree programs, and
independent research opportunities for SOF strategists and long-range
planners.
Language and Culture
Language skills and cultural knowledge continue to be key to
establishing effective relations with the foreign forces,
organizations, and individuals with which SOF will interact. The 1st
Special Forces Group language training program was recognized by the
Army and DOD as the best of its kind in 2007 but, although we have
enhanced all of our language training programs in recent years, we
remain underqualified in many key languages and dialects. We will
continue to expand our programs in 2008, stressing the need for a few
individuals to be thoroughly steeped in select languages and cultures.
Our initiatives will include exploration of innovative options to
permit such specialization without sacrificing promotion opportunity.
Joint Special Operations University
The Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) is responding to the
increased need for strategic and operational level education for our
SOF personnel, enablers, and international partners. JSOU will continue
to offer a range of academic options that address strategic and
operational subject areas. Programs will include traditional courses
and seminars; tailored academic electives at the Service professional
military education institutions; joint mobile education teams; symposia
and academic workshops; individual performance support; and similar
activities aimed at the needs of our student base.
sustain and modernize the force
Budget
The budget and acquisition authorities provided in the original
language that created SOCOM have proven invaluable in enabling SOF to
be properly trained and equipped.
The fiscal year 2009 President's budget request of $5.727 billion
for Major Force Program 11 will permit continued development of
capabilities peculiar to special operations. This request will continue
our investment in capabilities to improve SOF warrior systems, promote
specialized and institutional training, explore and exploit new
technologies and refine force structure. Over half of the budget
request--$3.7 billion--is for operations and maintenance to sustain SOF
operational readiness, to maintain equipment, and to provide for fuel,
consumable supplies, civilian salaries, spare parts, and repair of
weapons and equipment.
Of the remainder, $1.5 billion is for procurement, and will be used
to fund vital SOF-unique modernization and recapitalization efforts in
force protection, mobility, weapons, munitions, communications, and
intelligence equipment. An additional $361 million is requested for
research, development, test, and evaluation to develop SOF-peculiar
equipment, to provide technological advances, and to modernize SOF
weapons. Finally, $255 million is requested for Military Construction
to fund 13 projects in 7 States and 1 project at an overseas location.
We expect our tempo of operations will remain high even when
conventional forces downsize in Iraq and Afghanistan. Consequently, the
funding we have received in supplementals will still be required to
support our efforts. In order to sustain our operations long term, we
are working with DOD to pursue a shift of essential supplemental
funding to the base budget.
Force Structure
Last year, SOF added 6,443 military and civilian positions. These
positions provided needed enhancements to both headquarters and
operational force structure.
In fiscal year 2009, SOCOM will add another 1,536 military and
civilian billets across the component commands in order to improve
readiness and add capacity and capabilities. We will grow to 55,890
civilian and military personnel by the conclusion of fiscal year 2009,
of which 43,745 will be Active-Duty military members, 6,870 will be in
Reserve components (4,310 Guard and 2,560 Reserve) and 5,275 will be
government civilians.
Acquisition Efforts
SOCOM's acquisition organization is a very important factor in
resourcing SOF-peculiar requirements. While Federal Acquisition
Regulations uniformly apply to the Department, we strive to take
advantage of flexibilities that are inherent in these guidelines to
quickly provide materiel solutions for the SOF operator. Because our
budget authority is limited to SOF-peculiar equipment and
modifications, SOCOM must work closely with the three military
departments (MILDEPs), because the MILDEPs fund, develop, acquire and
provide the basic Service-common vehicles, aircraft, boats, weapons,
ammunition and other equipment to SOCOM, which we then modify to SOF-
specific platforms, systems and/or equipment.
When a SOF requirement cannot be met using a Service-common
solution, SOCOM uses its authority to develop and acquire SOF-peculiar
equipment or modify the Service-common equipment to meet SOF needs.
SOCOM's acquisition culture stresses assertive risk management, and
process efficiencies to steward a system that is often more tailorable,
responsive, and agile than elsewhere in DOD.
SOCOM's Urgent Deployment Acquisition process continues to provide
a rapid acquisition and logistics response to combat mission needs
statements submitted by deployed SOF. Most capabilities developed under
this program are delivered to the forces within 6 months to a year
after the requirement is validated.
Our total requirements, funding and acquisition sub-processes are
still slower and more restrictive than we believe is optimal for this
specialized force. During the coming year we intend to explore whether
we are using the full extent of our legislated authorities as Congress
and President intended when SOCOM was established.
Science and Technology
SOCOM's Science and Technology (S&T) strategy is to selectively
invest and leverage available resources with the MILDEPs and other
agency laboratories, academia, and industry for the purpose of
maximizing SOF capabilities. S&T programs identify and assess emerging
technologies for potential insertion into current and future SOF
concepts, requirements, and acquisition programs of record. As the
strategic, tactical, and geopolitical environments in which SOF
operates evolve, so too does the S&T investment focus and support.
The SOCOM Special Operations Technology Development (SOTD), Special
Operations Advanced Technology Development (SOST) and Small Business
Innovation Research programs work together to synergistically develop,
evaluate, and eventually transition key technologies. The SOCOM
Locating, Tagging and Tracking efforts are being staffed through the
SOTD and SOST programs in collaboration with our program executive
officers, the Defense Research and Engineering Directorate, the MILDEPs
and interagency partners. Our involvement in several Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstrations and Joint Capability Technology
Demonstrations allows SOCOM to leverage the resources of other
organizations to create robust opportunities for evaluating and
transforming mature technologies in a way that SOCOM could not
otherwise afford on our limited S&T budget.
Equipping the SOF Warrior
The new combat assault rifles, the MK16 and MK17 and their
associated enhanced grenade launcher module, completed development and
began limited fielding in 2007. We expect these weapons to be fully
deployed by the end of 2009. SOCOM will continue the development of
next-generation ammunitions as well as fused-image-capable, clip-on
optics for our weapons.
In 2007, SOCOM fielded more than 11,000 supplemental body armor
kits, saving lives and reducing injuries by increasing the area of
ballistic protection beyond that of previously issued SOF body armor.
More than 4,500 sets of the new protective combat uniform were fielded
to provide extreme cold weather protection for SOF operators. The
Command implemented a product improvement effort to reduce the weight
and/or increase the ballistic performance of the modular integrated
communications helmet.
The worldwide proliferation of night vision devices has somewhat
diminished the technological advantage that the U.S. military possessed
during the conduct of night operations. Although the technology gap has
narrowed, SOCOM continues to identify, test and field many new night
vision and visual augmentation systems. In 2007, SOCOM continued to
field advancements in thermal imaging and camera technology by putting
into service visual augmentation systems that were smaller and lighter
with increased capabilities.
SOF Munitions
Special purpose munitions, such as demolition, breaching,
diversionary, and shoulder-fired munitions, are required to accomplish
SOF missions. Future developments will upgrade the SOF shoulder-fired
systems with the capability to fire within and from enclosed spaces for
use in urban environments. We will continue to procure foreign weapons
and ammunition to train SOF operators so they will be better prepared
to train the forces of our partner nations.
Once munitions are developed and fielded, our logistics personnel
assume responsibility for procurement of replenishment munitions to
sustain the force. All SOF munitions are intensively managed in order
to minimize stock levels while simultaneously providing time-sensitive
capabilities required by the Theater Special Operations Commands.
SOF Communications
SOCOM continues to transform its respective capabilities in the
areas of communications, information technology, automation of
intelligence data and collaboration tools into a single, integrated SOF
information environment. Such an information environment enhances
operations by permitting robust command and control capabilities at the
strategic, operational, and tactical levels and by extending
information services to the individual SOF warrior.
As a result, available satellite communications bandwidth is at a
premium.
SOF Mobility
SOCOM continues to sustain and modernize the venerable SOF C-130
fleet. We have engaged with the Department of the Air Force to develop
strategies for replacing and modernizing the aging MC-130E Combat Talon
I and MC-130P Combat Shadow fleets. As an interim solution, 4 of 12
planned MC-130W air refueling tankers were delivered to date, with 4
more scheduled for delivery in 2008. The eight aircraft will help to
partially offset those MC-130Es and MC-130Ps. Four CV-22 trainer
aircraft and the first three operational CV-22 Ospreys were delivered
in 2006 and 2007. Three additional aircraft will to be delivered in
2008, with Initial Operational Capability projected for February 2009.
SOCOM rotary wing programs, in partnership with the U.S. Army, are
providing the latest technologies and sustainability upgrades to the
current SOF rotary wing fleet. Taken together, these programs for the
MH-47s, MH-60s, and the MH-6Ms will improve current capabilities and
prepare for future modernization while consolidating the fleet into
three common standardized airframes. The MH-47G variant has been
deployed since February 2007. The MH-60M program was accelerated and
will begin deliveries in 2008. The MH-6M Little Bird is nearing
completion of its first block modification upgrade. Meanwhile, the MH-
53M fleet is being drawn down for total retirement later this year.
The fielding and deployment of the Advanced SEAL Delivery System
(ASDS) in June 2007 moved SOCOM Undersea Mobility capabilities
significantly forward. ASDS #1 is now available for deployment as a
reliable combat capability based on successful testing, exercises and
improvements in reliability. This vehicle enables SOF to perform myriad
missions in water space that was previously unreachable. Our other
Undersea Mobility efforts such as the wet submersible Swimmer Delivery
Vehicle and Dry Deck Shelter will continue to provide capabilities that
enable SOF to perform a wide range of specialized tasks. There are on
going studies to better define future undersea mobility joint efforts
in this area.
SOCOM recently enhanced its surface maritime mobility systems by
fielding the advanced forward looking infrared systems for installation
throughout its combatant craft fleet. As a result of combat lessons
learned, SOCOM has also fielded other improvements on the special
operations craft-riverine. As the current models of rigid-hull
inflatable boats and the SEAL Delivery Vehicles age, SOCOM will begin
developing the next generation of these surface and undersea maritime
platforms.
This year, two new classes of vehicles were introduced for SOF
ground mobility: the RG-31 medium mine protected vehicle and the RG-33
mine resistant ambush protected vehicle. These vehicles enable SOF to
deploy forces across the theater of operations with a level of
protection previously unavailable. In 2008, SOCOM will begin fielding a
suspension upgrade for our primary ground mobility vehicle (HMMWV
variants) in order to return payload and mobility to the platform that
was lost with the addition of heavy armor packages. Additionally, the
light mobility vehicle, delivering in 2008, will carry 3-5 personnel
over all types of terrain and is deployable from multiple aircraft
platforms, including the CV-22.
SOF Sensor Systems
Sensor systems that provide persistent ISR are essential elements
of SOCOM's operations and force protection. SOCOM has been swiftly
fielding persistent ISR capabilities within budgetary constraints and
respective Service training program limitations. We have modified
existing SOF equipment where available, procured additional manned and
unmanned ISR platforms, and partnered with the MILDEPs, Defense
Research and Engineering Directorate and the Joint IED Defeat
Organization to cooperatively field additional sensors.
SOF Locating, Tagging, and Tracking capabilities are currently
providing valuable information regarding hostile force location,
movement, and intent while minimizing risk to U.S. personnel. SOCOM, in
conjunction with other government partners, will continue to invest in
leading-edge technologies for sensors and data infiltration and
exfiltration.
Improved laser range finders and designators, hand-held thermal
imagers, infrared pointers and marking and illuminating devices are a
few of the capabilities delivered over the past year. Eye-safe laser
range finders and binoculars provided a marked improvement in the
determination of enemy target locations. Improved target geo-location
accuracy was demonstrated in 2007, providing SOCOM with the world's
most accurate self-contained laser targeting geo-locater.
Additionally, SOCOM acquired and utilizes a combination of several
manned and unmanned airborne ISR assets to provide the necessary
flexibility for supporting the dynamic SOF mission set. Unmanned aerial
systems continue to be powerful force multipliers for SOF activities
and a key component of almost every operation. The micro unmanned
aerial systems, the long-endurance Predator class systems, and the
potential ultra-long-endurance unmanned aerial systems, such as the
Global Observer JCTD, are platforms that provide force protection to
small SOF units and aid in the identification and tracking of
individual targets and items of interest. SOCOM also continues to grow
our manned airborne ISR capability to complement the unmanned ISR
systems. In fiscal year 2007, additional airborne ISR aircraft were
procured with supplemental funds, and SOCOM partnered with the National
Guard Bureau to rapidly modify and employ Air National Guard aircraft
and air crews to augment SOCOM's organic ISR capability.
conclusion
We continue to improve our capability and capacity to conduct all
of our assigned missions, carefully balancing the demands of both
preceding and responding to the sound of guns. Over the course of
SOCOM's 21 year history, Congress has consistently demonstrated strong
interest in the command and its people. The joint SOF you see around
the globe today is a direct product of your vision, your trust, and
your commitment to build the world's premier Special Operations
capability. We will prevail against those who threaten us and assist
those who don't. The men and women of the SOF will meet your highest
expectations. Thank you for your continued support.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Admiral Fallon, what further reductions in U.S. troop
levels do you see for the rest of this year, assuming the
current level of violence continues?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I'm eagerly awaiting General
Petraeus' response to some planning guidance that I provided to
him recently for his assessment of courses of action. I think
there should be little doubt that our desire is to continue to
bring our force levels down in Iraq as the Iraqis demonstrate
their ability to stand up and take responsibility for security
in the country. Those trends are certainly encouraging and
moving in the right direction.
But it's critical that, of course, we not lose the ground
that's been so hard fought this year in providing the overall
stability and security. I don't want to give you a number until
I see General Petraeus' input, but I think that we are clearly
in agreement in the direction we want to go.
Chairman Levin. Admiral, as Senator Warner said, the surge
has helped produce a reduction in violence. I think that's
clear. Its primary purpose, however, was to give the political
leaders the chance to work out political differences. There was
recently a statement ballyhooing the decision of the assembly
over there to adopt some legislation which would have
represented progress. There was a bundle of three bills. One of
them was then vetoed by a member of the Presidency Council.
What is the status of the other two bills that were in that
bundle? Are they interrelated?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, they were interrelated in the
political discussions that enabled the COR to vote and move
those forward. But the other two bills, my understanding is
that they are still in play and we have every expectation that
they're going to go forward. They were linked politically for
the purpose of getting approval through the COR, but now that
they're agreed they're independent.
Chairman Levin. Are they law?
Admiral Fallon. They should become law once the waiting
period expires on those.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner asked a question which I
think is a very pertinent one and I want to comment on it and
then ask you to answer it. That has to do with the visit of
President Ahmedinejad to Iraq. We've shed a lot of blood and
our taxpayers have spent a lot of money to give Iraq an
opportunity to be independent. Next door is a threat to them.
It's called Iran, who is seeking weapons of mass destruction,
nuclear weapons, against the wishes of the United States, and
providing weaponry which is killing our men and women still.
Then we see their leader, a virulent leader, a vituperative
leader, their president, who comes to visit Iraq. I think it's
offensive. The Iraqi leaders have every right to invite whoever
they want. They're sovereign. But we have a right to express an
opinion about it. Have we expressed an opinion about this to
the leadership of Iraq?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I'll address a couple of aspects
of that if I could. Certainly, as you indicated, Iraq's a
sovereign country. They have the right to do what they choose.
The reality is that Iran is a neighbor that shares a long
border with them. As with many things in life, there are mixed
blessings. It's not all one way.
I would highlight a comment that's alleged to have been
made by Minister Bulani, the Minister of Interior, I think
yesterday in Iran, in which he was asked what he thought about
it, the visit, and as I understand it highlighted the fact that
there are many things that are perceived as good coming from
Iran, and he highlighted food and other things that are helping
make life better for some Iraqis. On the other hand, the point
you made: There are lethal weapons, training, support coming
over, that are being used against not only our people, but
moderate Iraqis. So it's a mixed bag.
From my perspective, we are not going to be able to help to
solve the problems inside that country without assistance from
outside. In the past year it's been encouraging to note the
many countries who have come to begin to assist Iraq in very
positive ways. Iran has not been one of those to the best of my
insight and observation.
There may be an opportunity here. My understanding from
speaking to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on this
subject is that we certainly have expectations that the Iraqi
leadership in their engagement with President Ahmedinejad would
convey to him the necessity of stopping this lethal flow of
equipment and beginning to show positive signs that they are
willing to work with the Iraqi Government and with us. We've
had a series of engagements, the first in many decades, with
Iran. We have had one scheduled engagement that keeps being
postponed. I think this is a venue in which we might be able to
move some kind of a dialogue forward to get them to be more
cooperative and helpful in this area.
I have to tell you that it's a difficult picture to
absolutely determine where we are. The levels of lethal
assistance into Iraq, difficult for us to pinpoint, but there's
certainly been a diminution of activity in the last several
months, particularly regarding these IEDs, explosively formed
penetrators, the particular version of those, that are
obviously coming from, at least our vision, obviously coming
from Iran. How much of this is directly a result of decisions
made in Teheran and how much of it is due to our own people and
their good work in the field, I don't know. But this kind of
trend is something that we want to see accelerated and moved
on.
Chairman Levin. I'm not raising the question of having some
kind of contacts with Iran and expressing positions to Iran.
I'm talking about inviting that particular president, a
vituperative extremist, to Iraq, and I don't think it's a mixed
bag at all. That invitation, I don't think it's a mixed
blessing. I think it's an unmixed mistake. Not the opening to
Iran, not the conversations, not the discussions, but that
particular invitation to that particular president it seems to
me sends exactly the wrong message to Iran and to the world.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I join you on that issue of
the visit by President Ahmedinejad.
I'm glad that you gave I think a fairly comprehensive
answer to the chairman's question, and I would hope that others
in the administration would express their indignation about
this visit and the comments made by that president, because
they go to the very heart of the enormity of the sacrifices of
life and limb that we have suffered in trying to provide Iraq
the ability to become a strong sovereign nation and a working
partner for all the Nations in that region. You, I think, are
the only one that I know of that has expressed any opinion thus
far. A White House spokesman sort of touched on the question
here recently, but I cannot find where anyone else spoke out on
it.
Let's turn to NATO. We are sending over two battalions of
marines, one to provide a training mission for the Afghani
forces, the second to--and I asked this of the Commandant and I
think he acknowledged it--is to sort of be a September 11 type
force, to be utilized in Afghanistan wherever the situation is
tough. These marines are up to that tough fight. You know that.
But I believe those two battalions were needed because of
the shortfalls in the commitments made by other nations in
forming the alliance that went in under the command of NATO,
into Afghanistan. Do you share that view?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, if you'll permit me to double
back, lest there be any doubt. My view of Iranian behavior
regarding Iraq and their activities is they've been absolutely
unhelpful, very damaging; and I absolutely don't condone any of
their activities. I have yet to see anything since I've been in
this job in the way of a public action by Iran that's been at
all helpful in this region, and particularly in Iraq, rather.
To Afghanistan and the marines: As we looked at the
situation there and, as Senator Levin indicated, we've been
doing some assessment of where we are and what we might be able
to do in the future, it seemed to me that we could benefit from
an injection of forces there if we could pull them together, to
capitalize on the situation we find ourselves in at the end of
winter, as we approach the end of the winter here.
I believe that General McNeal ought to be able to take
advantage of this significantly capable maneuver force, special
purpose Marine air ground task force, that's moving into the
country, to give him the flexibility to deal with the Taliban
and their al Qaeda allies, to really move us up into security
and stability.
We all know that there's been a longstanding requirement
from General McNeal for additional maneuver forces from NATO
writ large. It's clear that that requirement is not being met,
and it seemed to me that from my view we ought to do anything
we can to try to help General McNeal and give him the assets
that he needs.
At the same time, the other battalion I believe is going to
be of great value to us in helping to grow the Afghan security
forces in a way that will be helpful to us. This is another
shortfall that we've had for some time, that we have not been
able to come up with enough people. I think this is going to be
very useful and helpful to us, and so I'm anxious to get these
folks over there and put them to work.
Senator Warner. Let's turn to this question of the emerging
of the major narco-state as it relates to the poppy production.
This has been the football that's been passed around to several
countries to deal with, and it has each year increased in size
and the flow of funds from this are directly in large measure
going into the Taliban to enable them to do the combat missions
against NATO and the U.S. forces.
Now, when are we going to see a turnaround in this
situation, and what actions? I ask these to you in a very
forceful way for your views on this, but it is largely the
responsibility I think of the Department of State and the
Afghan Government under President Karzai. Therein rests the
primary responsibility. But we cannot tolerate this.
It's interesting to note in history that when the Taliban
were in control of Afghanistan the poppy production was but a
mere fraction of what it is today. So it's literally grown in
size as a consequence of the situation to try and liberate
Afghanistan so that it can join the Nations of the world as a
democracy. In that area we have failed.
What steps are likely to be taken in the future or what
steps are you in your position asking of our Government and
other governments to end this exponential growth in the poppy
production?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, this scourge of poppy production
afflicts not only the Afghan people, but, as you indicated,
many parts of the world. Why the increase? I think several
factors are at play here. Last year the weather conditions they
tell me were pretty much ideal for the production of this
stuff. The fact that the Taliban are using poppy production as
a means to fund their activities is pretty widely accepted.
If we're going to get it fixed, we collectively, ourselves,
the Afghan Government, the rest of the world that's trying to
assist this government, are going to have to get their act
together, I believe, and focus on getting the job done. From
what I know and information, there are a couple of initiatives
within the Afghan Government to do this. There's a drug
eradication operation with people and materials and funding
within the Government of Afghanistan. There's a new initiative.
We've been in discussion with the Afghan military and they have
decided to dedicate a new battalion, or kandak, as they call
it, whose specific and only task will be to work on this drug
eradication. They're in training right now. They're getting the
materials and the tools to do this, and we expect to be able to
put them in the field here in a couple months and actually have
them going after those poppy fields that are under cultivation.
As I get around Afghanistan and look at different areas,
it's really a mixed bag. Those areas which have been
historically most productive here in growing these poppies, are
those that are typically the most unstable, the most insecure.
A couple months ago I went around and met some of the
governors and made an interesting observation. Those provinces
that were particularly well led, strong governors, the poppy
production is either nonexistent or minimized. I met with a
couple of them who had a problem of significance last year.
They've assured me that they've taken steps in the fall, and
that's when the initial actions had to be done to prevent the
planting of this crop. They've taken actions. I'll be anxious
to see what really transpires.
President Karzai and his government for their part have to
step up and recognize this is a problem. I realize it's
complex, that it's a traditional activity in the country, but
it has to stop, and my sense is that progress----
Senator Warner. I hope they could take a lead on it. My
time has expired, but we ought to send a message to President
Karzai. I know he's up for reelection in about a year, but he
can't sit on his hands and tolerate this situation. He has to
move out assertively.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Fallon, Admiral Olson, thank you for your
extraordinary service.
I want to say just briefly, about the Ahmedinejad visit to
Iraq, that I share my colleagues' sense of outrage about it. I
also want to thank you for, both in your prepared statement and
your testimony here this morning, making very clear that
there's no doubt in the mind of the American military that the
Iranians continue to provide lethal training and equipment to
the Iraqis, even though--and this is why I say this--
Ahmadinejad when he was in Iraq denied any such behavior by
Iran, which is simply a lie.
Admiral Fallon. The facts prove otherwise.
Senator Lieberman. The facts prove otherwise, and I thank
you for saying that.
A few questions about Iraq. Again, it means a lot to hear
from you, looking back to last year--and I'm quoting you--that,
regarding Iraq, you're very encouraged that we're on an upward
vector. I appreciate that. I know, as you said, we fought hard
to achieve that, so did the Iraqis, and we're fortunate for
that.
We're now in the process of pulling down the additional
troops, moving out the additional troops that were sent as part
of the surge. That withdrawal will be completed in July. Then
there'll be the pause.
I wanted to ask you this, and I quote from you again. You
said: ``It's critical that we not lose the ground that we
fought so hard to attain in Iraq.'' There's been some concern,
acknowledging the reality of the stress on our forces as a
result of Iraq and Afghanistan, that there'd be pressure to
pull more forces down after the pause, based more on the stress
on the forces than on conditions on the ground. I wanted to ask
you personally, in your role at CENTCOM. My belief, based on
what I've heard you say today and before, is that the primary
consideration in responding to General Petraeus' recommendation
will be that we not lose the ground that we have fought so hard
to obtain and win in Iraq thus far. Am I right?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir, Senator. I think there may be too
much focus on the word ``pause'' and what that means, what it
might mean or might not mean. The reality is that as we go
forward to the midyear point this year there is a plan that's
been well vetted and very complex, that will continue to draw
down those surge brigades as their 15 months in country comes
to an end. That in itself is a recognition of this other
reality that there's great stress on our force.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Admiral Fallon. It's not only that these units are going to
be withdrawn. We have every expectation that that's going to
continue apace. But there are also some other brigade combat
teams that are in the process of rotating so that their
numerical reliefs will be coming in at the same time. This is
an awful lot of activity in a short period of time.
I expect General Petraeus is going to come in and recommend
to me and to the chain of command is that it's prudent to make
an assessment of where we are. It's not just pulling troops
out, but he has a really significantly difficult task, in that
as we withdraw these many thousands of troops he has to reset
the lines of command and control within the country. It's
significantly different now than it was a year ago, because
there are many more Iraqi security forces that are now in the
field and coming in. They did their own surge this past year,
increasing their numbers.
So General Petraeus has this major task of resetting the
battlefield here, and that's the focus, to keep the momentum
going, to keep the stability and security. It is truly
remarkable today to look at the statistical evidence and, as
many of you know because you were in there to see it, to
actually see the difference on the ground.
Senator Lieberman. It is remarkable, and it didn't happen
as an accident. There was tremendous effort by our forces under
your leadership and others, and some excellent work by the
Iraqis as well.
Let me ask you one final question. Over the last weekend
there's been some confusion about a pause ending automatically
after 45 days. In other words, there was a story in some of the
press based on communication with an unnamed national security
official which led some to believe that there would be a 45-day
pause and then automatically the troops would begin to come
out.
President Bush said that was not his intention, that there
would be a review and troops would come out based on conditions
on the ground and of course based on recommendations from
General Petraeus, yourself, and up the chain of command.
So what was the confusion about the 45 days?
Admiral Fallon. I think the confusion is because this is
all speculation. The facts are General Petraeus has yet to come
back to me formally with his recommendations and of course I'm
going to wait until I see what he says before we decide.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Admiral Fallon. The reality is that we'll look at the whole
situation. I'll be eager to hear what he has to say and to have
his input into that. I think nothing is written in stone.
Assuming decisions are made, that people are going to be smart
enough to recognize that we'll take actions based on the
conditions we find. If those conditions change, I expect that
there'll be every consideration.
But all of this is speculation. The facts are that he has
not come in with his recommendations. I think we ought to just
wait a few weeks and see what he has to say, and then we'll be
happy to take that and go forward.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that, and I find it
reassuring, one in that General Petraeus is the key original
source of recommendation from the field; two, that conditions
on the ground will determine the pace of the reduction in our
forces, which all of us want. We spent a lot of time arguing in
the Senate about the troops coming home. Everybody wants the
troops to come home. The question is are we going to order them
out from here or are they going to be brought out by the
military and the Commander in Chief based on what's happening
on the ground, and I hear you say, of course, the latter.
The one of the three new laws that did not make it because
of a veto on that council presumably will be passed before--and
that's the provincial election law, which will provide for
elections, or at least in its original form, no later than
October 1. Very important from everybody I've talked to.
I just want to get a reassurance that one of the factors
that you'll consider as you consider the pace of withdrawal of
troops is that we wouldn't want to take on any additional risk
or vulnerability at a time of the elections when we presume the
terrorists would be looking to create maximum disruption.
Admiral Fallon. Senator, the provincial powers legislation
in Iraq is a political document. You are much more aware of how
this works than I. My understanding is that the process that
has been codified by the Iraqi people in their legislation to
date affords an opportunity for that legislation to go back and
be reviewed and hopefully move forward.
It's complex. There are aspects of this that we're
cheering. I personally would like to see elections as soon as
practical in as many areas as we can. We deal with risk every
day. I think that's the job that has been entrusted to me and
I'll certainly seriously consider every aspect of that risk in
making my recommendations and decisions.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much, Admiral.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of
Senator Warner in terms of the progress of the surge, and also
in your printed statement--I'm not sure you got to it in your
verbal statement--talking about the quality of the training in
Afghanistan. I'm very proud that--I was over there 3 or 4 years
ago, and we turned over the training of the Afghan National
Army to the Afghans, and that happened to be the Oklahoma 45th
that was over there. So I think that we've been following their
progress and they've been very successful.
My three favorite programs that I want to get your opinions
on. You did cover them somewhat in your opening and in your
written statement. First of all, the train and equip, 1206,
1207, 1208 authorizations, they expire this year. We tried to
get reauthorization last time and expanding the authority that
goes with those train and equip programs, but were unable to do
it, not because there was opposition, but we just ran out of
time.
I'd like to have both of you on the train and equip
programs give us your candid opinion.
Admiral Fallon. Eric, do you want to step up to the mike?
Admiral Olson. It's hard to overstate the importance of
those authorities, particularly 1206 and 1208, in the world in
which I operate. 1208 is an authority peculiar to Special
Operations. It is an authorization, not an appropriation. It
authorizes $25 million to be spent around the globe on Special
Operations train and equip activities. We have grown into 1208
very well and in fact we are approaching the $25 million limit.
Senator Inhofe. I understand that's actually the smallest
of the three programs. But you're the one to address that.
Admiral Olson. It is by a long shot, yes, sir. The
realization has struck me that once in it's hard to back out,
and so this will have to be an increase in authority over time.
Senator Inhofe. Do you agree, Admiral Fallon, with his
comments on the significance of the program?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I certainly do, and if I could
offer an endorsement to an Office of the Secretary of Defense
proposal, the building partnership capacity, global partnership
capacity initiative, which would propose pulling together the
1206, 1207, and the Commander's Emergency Response Program
(CERP) together.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, the other thing I was going to ask you
about is the CERP. It's been my opinion is so significant to
the commanders out there, and money well spent.
Admiral Fallon. As I look at the progress that's been made
in Iraq and progress in Afghanistan, and particularly in the
eastern region where U.S. forces are operating in Afghanistan,
this is one of the most important and crucial factors in
progress in both areas, is this ability to actually use a
relatively small amount of funds compared to some other
expenditures to directly affect capacity-building with our
partners on the ground, to give our commanders the opportunity
to actually fix things right on the spot.
It's so different to watch our people in Afghanistan, for
example, and their ability to deal with challenges and watch
the way other countries do it. I strongly encourage the
support.
Senator Inhofe. I see Admiral Olson nodding in agreement.
Of course that's the program that needs to be globalized, and I
think you would agree with that. Anyway, that expires also this
year, so we need to address that.
Then the third one and the last one is the International
Military Education and Training (IMET) program. There was a
time when we treated that program as if we were doing countries
a favor by bringing their people over and training them and
actually requiring Article 98 cooperation before allowing them
to do it. I think we recognized in the last authorization bill
that it's doing us the bigger favor, so we eliminated that
requirement.
Do you see that as a high priority program, the two of you?
Admiral Olson. Sir, as part of my responsibilities for
synchronizing planning in the global war on terrorism we
develop and recommend the list of priority countries, 1 through
204 in terms of their importance. As I go through the top
countries on that list, I'm struck by how underfunded IMET is
in most of those countries. In the places we go and the people
with whom we work, having trained in the United States is a
badge of honor that is proudly worn, almost a self-selection
criteria. It's clear early who has trained in the United States
and who hasn't. The power of IMET to bring people to this
country, to train them in skills and knowledge at schools and
universities, is truly powerful. I think you said it very well
when you said we used to think of it as doing something for
them, but it truly is doing something very important for us.
Senator Inhofe. It builds an allegiance that stays there.
I've noticed this in a lot of the African countries, so I do
appreciate it. We need to do that.
Speaking of Africa, with the Africa Command (AFRICOM)
coming on I've had extensive conversations with General Ward.
Do you think the transition's coming along all right? Just a
short answer.
Admiral Fallon. Thanks, Senator. If I could double back, I
have to say something about IMET. Of all the programs that are
funded by this institution, there are none that I think offer
us the potential on leverage to do good for ourselves and
people around the world than this program. It's really painful
for me to watch the down side of the use of this program in a
way to either punish or to try to get the attention of other
countries. I understand the rationale behind it, but I have to
tell you the damage it does is significant.
Let's take one country, Pakistan. For almost a decade, for
reasons that we well understand and appreciate, we had a
situation in which we were not permitted to have this kind of
engagement with this country. We are paying price for that
right now, because we have a large block of the leadership of
their military services that, frankly, are dubious of trust
with us. As we try to help them face the challenges they
undergo today, it's really a challenge.
So I can't say enough for IMET. It's not only the
opportunity to train people and make the associations, but when
they go back and spread this word it's very helpful.
To AFRICOM, my intention is to take that part of Africa in
which we are engaged right now, in the Horn, which is grouped
under a command, Joint Task Force-HOA, and to try to take that
organization and structure as it exists, to transfer it to
AFRICOM, to continue the same kind of good work that they're
doing. Every single one of our ambassadors, every single one of
the leaders of those countries in that region, tell me they're
grateful, appreciate, and they want it to continue in just that
manner.
Senator Inhofe. I think you have the right guy running that
over there. He's doing a very good job.
My time has expired, so the last two questions I'll ask for
the record if you don't mind. One is your feelings about the
African brigades. It's been going very slowly. The East African
Brigade in Ethiopia and the West in Ghana with the Economic
Community of West African States are doing pretty well, but the
other three are not. So I just would like to get for the record
something as to what you feel the status is and the
significance is.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Eastern African Standby Brigade (EASBRIG) is part of an African
Union (AU) initiative to establish five regional standby brigades
(north, south, east, west, and central) that can deploy as quick
reaction forces in support of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief
operations throughout Africa. Britain, France, Canada, and the U.S. are
partners in supporting the concept of EASBRIG. Combined Joint Task
Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) is the implementing agency for U.S.
Department of Defense involvement. A truly capable EASBRIG is important
to U.S. interests because it would provide a regional peacekeeping and
peace support operations capability and would contribute to the
creation of an overaching regional security architecture.
EASBRIG currently consists of a limited HQ staff in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, a Coordination Mechanism (EASBRICOM) and a Planning Element
in Nairobi, Kenya. CENTCOM, thru CJTF-HOA, has worked with the AU staff
to assist in the development of a training and structural needs
assessment of EASBRIG, as well as exploring options, within CJTF-HOA
resources, to support EASBRIG capacity building leading to a
Headquarter Command Post Exercise.
Senator Inhofe. Admiral Fallon, you and I fought and lost a
3-year battle called the battle of Vieques, and we did the best
we could. It was not a partisan thing. It wasn't Democrats or
Republicans. But we lost. It's interesting now that the very
opposition in Puerto Rico that was there is now coming back
saying: We've changed our minds. Well, we were right and they
were wrong.
But for the record, I'd like to have you inform us as to
the quality of the integrated training that was there before
and after and how we're progressing in making up for that
vacuum that I think is sorely missed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
The loss of the Vieques training facility has had no operational
impact for units currently operating within the Central Command area of
responsibility. Since the closure of Vieques in May 2003, units are and
have been arriving in theater with all training requirements complete.
Over the last 4\1/2\ years, the Navy and Marine Corps have adapted
their training by utilizing combinations of alternate training
facilities in order to provide the same training opportunities that
were afforded by the Vieques training facility.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Fallon, I know my colleagues have commented on the
visit of President Ahmadinejad, but I think his visit and,
frankly, the warm response he received in Baghdad, raises a
fundamental question about our strategy. Iran now seems to me
more powerful than it was 5 years ago, both politically and one
might argue also militarily, working not directly but
indirectly through surrogates in Iraq itself, in Lebanon, and
elsewhere.
From a strategic point of view, doesn't this question what
we've been doing the last 5 years?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I'm not sure. What we've been
doing in regard to what?
Senator Reed. To Iran. We've seen them grow. We have
invested trillions of dollars in our efforts in the region.
Iran, I argued back in 2003, was a much more serious threat to
stability in the region and to our interests in the region than
Iraq was. Now we've seen them, frankly, become more robust,
more politically accepted, and I think it underscores a
fundamental strategic fault or flaw that this administration
has pursued for the last several years.
Admiral Fallon. Senator, Iran is a complex issue. I would
give you maybe a little different view of Iran and their
influence and their stature, if you would, in the region. As I
talk to countries throughout the region and all of Iran's
immediate neighbors, what I come away with is a lot of
skepticism, a lot of distrust, a lot of anxiety about them. In
my opinion their stature has not grown. To the contrary,
countries are taking a very dim view of their engagement.
They know the game. They know that Ahmadinejad gets out,
gets a lot of face time. We see other people in other parts of
the world that act in a similar manner. But at the core of
things, people are concerned, and they are engaging with us--
these are the neighbors--to ascertain our intentions, to be
able to stand tall, to not knuckle under to any Iranian
intimidation or pressure. They're anxious to have us support
them.
Nobody's looking for another conflict, but they are
certainly looking for support from us in our approach. It seems
to me that that's what we ought to be trying to do, and that's
certainly what I do in my engagement with these countries.
Senator Reed. So how would you assess the influence of Iran
in Iraq today versus 5 years ago?
Admiral Fallon. I think the situation is so different in
Iraq today than 5 years ago that it's pretty difficult to say,
because you'd have to set up the conditions and the conditions
are very different.
Senator Reed. Would President Ahmadinejad have made a trip
to Baghdad 5 years ago?
Admiral Fallon. Speculation: probably not. I suspect the
pollsters are out hard at work today asking this same question,
what do you think about this, of the Iraqi people. Even in the
south, where the Iranians have been working overtime to try to
maximize their influence, there's increasing skepticism from
every report that I see from our engagement with the people
there. They're dubious of Iran's real intentions.
I mean, frankly, practically, most everybody in Iraq has
been happy to take their money, and they've been spreading a
lot of it around by every account. But they're now realizing
that there may be other intentions here, and I'm beginning to
sense a significant pushback. Again, I don't know all the
factors that are at play, particularly in the south, but I do
know that things have kind of gone the other way now, and I
think that as people--first of all, as the Iraqis get more
confident in their own ability, my sense is that there's going
to be a little bit of--I'm out in front of my headlights here,
but every indication I have is that people are realizing that
there's no free lunch here. Yes, they like the tomatoes and the
potatoes and the mattresses and the other things that are
helping, and I've been to the borders. I've watched this
incredible amount of traffic coming across.
The Iraqi people welcome the average Iranian pilgrim who
wants to come and visit the shrines, and there's a tremendous
traffic there and that's an economic benefit, of course, to the
people. You can see the interaction with them. But the people
are not stupid. They recognize that this is a potential double-
edged sword, and it's in our interest to continue to work with
the Iraqi people. It's pretty obvious to me, if you look at
just the data of responses to questions in the last 6 months,
as security and stability have expanded in this country, people
have come to realize that the reason that's expanded is because
of our engagement with them and not the Iranians. They have not
been particularly helpful.
So I think it's in our best interest to continue to engage,
to continue to try to build security and stability, and I think
the Iraqi people are going to be smart enough to realize what's
going on here.
Senator Reed. So you aren't troubled by the presence of the
Iranians politically or tactically on the ground?
Admiral Fallon. Of course I am. We want to do everything we
can, and from the military standpoint we are working overtime
with our commanders to try to cut off this Iranian influence in
all of its aspects inside of Iraq.
Senator Reed. There is about 60,000 Sunni militia in the
Concerned Local Citizens (CLCs) that have not been integrated
into the formal structure of the security forces there. The
Government in Afghanistan, heavily dominated by Shia and Kurds,
seem reluctant to do that. What's your estimate of this taking
place? Because I think there are many that are concerned that
if it doesn't take place in the next few months these forces
will become less supportive and cooperative with us. In fact,
there was a ``strike'' in Diyalah a few days ago by CLC forces.
Admiral Fallon. A complex question. Very few free lunches
or one-way streets certainly in this country. We have clearly
welcomed the initiative of the people to step up and be willing
to put themselves and their lives on the line. I think it's
impractical to expect that all of these folks are going to be
able to be integrated into the Iraqi security forces. In
recognition of that, General Petraeus and our team in Iraq have
been working to try to have other opportunities available.
There are a number of initiatives that are beginning to be
under way in and around Iraq to try to provide other
opportunities, vocational training and--it's jobs, that's the
bottom line. At the end of the day, this is probably the most
important thing, the number one issue with the majority of
people in the country: Give me some meaningful work and give me
a future and we'll think things are getting better.
There are issues to work through. This issue in Diyalah
that you mentioned has been resolved, at least for now, by a
step by the Iraqi central government to make an adjustment to
the leadership in the security forces in Diyalah that it turned
out was acceptable to those CLCs, now called Sons of Iraq,
they've seen fit to now go back on the job.
As I was out the week before last in Anbar, went all
through the province looking and watching at what's going on, I
saw enthusiasm among the people, those CLCs that are so
effective. You go to a city like Fallujah now or Ramadi and you
walk around in the city, very few American troops are seen,
marines in this case. A few more Iraqi soldiers, but many more
police and Sons of Iraq. It was interesting to me as I was out
and about on this last trip. I started off with a large
contingent of marines to look out for my safety, and we got
into the city and as we got deeper into the city and just all
of a sudden, turned around and the marines kind of faded back
and the fellows that were escorting me and pointing things out
and providing security were almost all Iraqis, and they were
proud of it.
The requests that I got were: Can you please help us to get
jobs? We want a future and this is the answer.
I'm sorry, that was a long answer to your question. But I
don't believe it's practical to put them all back in the army
or the police, and we have to work hard to make sure we have
other opportunities.
Senator Reed. Thank you. My time has expired.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it's interesting that those who want the United
States to talk with anybody in the world now feign the greatest
concern that Iraq would talk with its neighbor, which is--and
having some sort of relationship with Iran is important for
their long-term success; wouldn't you agree, Admiral Fallon?
Admiral Fallon. Of course. It's their neighbor. They have
to figure out how to deal with them.
Senator Sessions. How many miles of border is that? Do you
happen to know?
Admiral Fallon. I'd be guessing at the number. It's a long
border.
Senator Sessions. A long border. At least they have a good
bit of contact. So I don't know how to handle this. We tell the
Iraqis they have to step up and act like a real country and to
solve political problems, and then they try to meet with a
country that could destabilize them or could be some sort of
halfway decent partner in the future and we jump on Maliki. I
am somewhat taken aback by this line of questioning.
Admiral Olson and Admiral Fallon--well, first, Admiral
Fallon, let me ask you this. At the 30,000 foot level there's
been a good bit of discussion off and on about what kind of
military commitment works best in this region. I saw an article
I think in the Washington Times quoting I believe Colonel
Nagel, who favors a more intensive training of regular army, I
believe, in things that relate to nation-building. General
Casey says he hopes we don't have another one of these happen
again, and certainly we all hope that's true.
But I'm not convinced we won't have a continual demand on
the part of the United States as a government to provide
leadership to states that could fall into the failed state
category and be a danger to the neighbors and us. So I think
that is a continual thing.
Frankly, I find that the military performs better than the
State Department and other agencies who've been very weak in my
view in providing leadership.
I guess what I want to ask you first, and I'll ask you,
Admiral Olson, are we configured correctly? Are we thinking
further, hard enough in the years to come about what kind of
capabilities our military needs in these grey areas between war
and peace and reconstruction and stability in the areas that
may be very important to us?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, we need a multifaceted approach to
this, it seems to me. Many of the skill sets and capabilities
that I believe are and will continue to be very effective in
this engagement are skills that our people are learning in
significant efforts now inside of Iraq, that will be
transferable to other places.
The key thing is to be engaged. We need to be there. We
need to be visible. We need to gain the trust and confidence of
people in each of these countries. My number one objective, big
picture, would be to build capacity in each of these nations so
that they can look after their own security as the primary
instrument of stability in their countries. The extent to which
we can do that is of course a factor of their willingness to
have us, and that means you have to have engagement to be able
to build trust, to be invited to help--because it's their
country; they have to invite us in--having the tools available.
You've been very generous in providing----
Senator Sessions. Let me just ask it a little bit
different. My question is a little bit different. Are you
satisfied that our budget and plans within the United States
military are sufficiently focused on preparing ourselves for
situations like Iraq in the future? Have we thought that
through sufficiently, and do you have any observations?
Admiral Fallon. I have one observation to start with: that
as we look to the future the one thing that's certain is the
future will never be exactly as the events we've just engaged
in. So we have ourselves in a position now where we've honed
and refined the skill set that's very effective in Iraq, that
has been demonstrated, and trying to figure out which of these
applications really suits Afghanistan. So I think we're in very
good shape now for that.
We also have to be mindful that there are other
capabilities that might be required in other situations, and I
think the challenges for the Services in particular are to try
to balance those requirements. Sometimes they appear to be in
competition, but what I find is the number one thing is people.
If we can train our people to be agile of mind and to be
broadbased in their skill sets, so they're very adaptable, they
can handle these situations.
So of all the things you could do, the emphasis on people
and trying to get and retain the best people, have their skill
sets as broad as possible, would be the number one thing. I
think we're generally okay, but I got to tell you that from my
perspective I'm focused on the execution right now. What I see
I like. There are not many things except maybe more of them or
a little more flexibility in the application of the things that
you've given us, but generally I'm satisfied that we're in
pretty good shape right now.
Senator Sessions. Admiral Olson?
Admiral Olson. Senator, all of the Services are working to
build a train and assist capability into their forces. It's
access and how you apply it, is what I think is important.
Certainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we're focused on
building an army from scratch, the big Services have a capacity
to do that that's very important.
In most of the countries of the world, there is in fact, a
limited appetite for that, and where we earn access through a
lower profile presence and an enduring engagement, and those
are the areas that I am more particularly focused on, where
some sort of cultural awareness that builds up over a
regionalization over time, a linguistic skill, a maturity of
experience, and the personal relationships that then do
contribute significantly to building these partner capacities
for the purpose of either disengaging from that country as they
grow their own sovereign capabilities or because we're going to
fight alongside them in some special circumstances at some
point in the future.
We're contributing from Special Operations Forces a great
number of operational detachments, Alpha, Special Operations A
Teams, and a few Navy SEAL platoons, to Admiral Fallon to do
that in specialized units across Iraq and Afghanistan. It works
well there the way we are doing it in partnership with the big
Services the way that they are doing it. The issue is how do
you break down big Service units to do this kind of training
and will the future structure support sort of taking from the
big organizations the specific capabilities that you need to
train to specific skills once we get beyond simply building an
army.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just note that I do think
we need to not only think about how to replicate Iraq in the
future better, a situation like that, but the other kind of
situations we might have and some sort of cadre and training
program for a number of persons that could help us be more
effective from day one I think might be helpful.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Fallon, many of us are so concerned about the
strain that extended and repeated deployments in Iraq and
Afghanistan has had on our troops. Last week General Casey
testified that we would be able to return to the 12-month
deployment, once the number of Army brigades was drawn down to
15. But in reviewing his testimony, it's not clear to me
whether he's talking about 15 combat brigades in both
Afghanistan and Iraq or just in Iraq. Could you clarify that
issue for the committee?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I can give you my opinion, but I'm
not sure. I think you probably need to talk to General Casey to
be sure. My understanding is that it's 15 in Iraq, but I defer
to General Casey because he's the one that's doing the detailed
look at his force structure.
Senator Collins. We have had two recent reports, one from
the Atlantic Council of the United States, the other from the
Afghanistan Study Group, that both warned that we have
insufficient military forces in Afghanistan to accomplish the
goals, as well as an effort on the economic and diplomatic side
that is not robust enough. In effect, both of these reports
warn that Afghanistan is on the brink, that we're at a tipping
point, and both of them are an urgent call for action.
We are sending 3,200 additional marines into Afghanistan to
try to deal with this problem. My concern is that if NATO
troops do not step up to the challenge that's outlined in this
report and if our NATO allies continue to operate under
constraints that make them less effective in dealing with the
resurgence of the Taliban, that in fact we're going to end up
with another enormous effort, imposing still more strain on our
troops, and that it will be impossible for us to go back to a
normal deployment length of 12 months and to stop repeatedly
sending back the same troops after insufficient rest periods.
Based on your assessment, what do you see as the demands
for additional American troops in Afghanistan?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I'll start by saying that I'm not
as pessimistic as some of these reports and studies seem to
indicate the situation is in Afghanistan. Regarding the use of
U.S. forces, we've taken steps and the President's approved the
deployment of two marine units, one to address the need for
maneuver forces under the NATO command, under International
Security Assistance Force. There's been a longstanding request
to have two more brigade-size forces for General McNeal.
Now, there's been another request to have more trainers
working for General Cohn, who works for me, to provide for the
training of the Afghan security forces. We're sending units to
address both of these issues, not in the full numbers that have
been desired, but I think that they're going to be very helpful
this year.
The challenges that General McNeal faces in the ability to
use the existing forces in Afghanistan are well known. The
caveats and conditions under which these forces are used in my
opinion provide some significant tactical limitations. They are
what they are and, there are many efforts being made to address
that issue with the other countries of NATO, to try to get more
responsiveness and more flexibility in the use of those troops.
I expect that this year this influx of troops ought to have
some significant results. I don't think that the situation in
Afghanistan is going to be in the long term solved by a huge
influx of additional forces. I think that we need to get people
focused on executing the specific tasks in Afghanistan that are
going to be helpful to returning this country. It's different
than Iraq, very different, in many ways. Our forces have been
very successful, particularly in the past year, working in the
eastern regions where we have primacy and basically
responsibility. What I see is the kinds of engagement with the
local populations--we learn a lot of lessons from Iraq in this
regard--that basically provide stability and security, but
encourage them through the instruments like CERP that you've
made available and through other means, and the engagement with
the international community, to help build their future--
schools, development, water, power, management, all these
things that are essential to daily life. This combination of
factors in a focused, flexible manner has been what's given us
the results in the east and we have every expectation we'll be
able to build on that this year.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
I want to turn briefly to Pakistan. Obviously, the recent
violence in population, the increase in car bombings, the
assassination of the former prime minister, combined with the
election changes in which a strong ally of our country,
President Musharraf, and his party was resoundingly rejected,
call into question what the impact will be on cooperation with
the United States in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and for
Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, particularly in the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan.
How do you see these recent events affecting the
cooperation that the United States desperately needs from the
Pakistan Government?
Admiral Fallon. My first comment would be that I find it
impossible to separate Afghanistan from Pakistan. There's a
border out there between the countries, but the reality is that
you have a significant Pashtun tribal ethnic reality that
spreads into significant parts of both countries. The Pak
leadership now understands that, I believe, the principal
threat to their long-term security and stability are the same
folks that are operating out of the FATA, that are a problem
for us in Afghanistan. So we have a lot of common ground here.
Certainly there is a lot of swirl and change in Pakistan. I
think it remains to be seen how this is going to work out. The
good news is there's a process, there's a democratic process
that has provided an election, and there is maneuvering going
on and the political actions now to try to form a new
government, which we certainly hope will be supportive of
stability in that country, which will be helpful to us and the
region in the long run, and also that they'll continue to
support us in our endeavors to address the terror threat and
the leadership of those networks that we believe emanate in the
FATA.
We have had, I believe, significant engagement of a
positive manner with the Pak military. General Qiani, the new
army chief, whom I've had the pleasure to meet, I think is very
aware of the responsibilities he has to not only help, as the
army is the dominant institution in that country to provide
internal security, but he very well recognizes the threat
that's posed by these extremists, and the same kind of
behaviors that we see in Afghanistan now spreading into other
areas of Pakistan. They're going to have to deal with it.
From my perspective, we want to stay engaged. We want to
encourage them to work with us as they have in the past and to
a greater extent, so that we can leverage our relationship to
help them help themselves and to help us in the process. I
think it remains to be seen. It's certainly a critical time for
this country of Pakistan and certainly for us. For our part, it
seems to me the priorities for us are to encourage them to work
toward solutions that are going to be politically acceptable
and that are going to give their people the best chance for
security for the future.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Admiral Fallon. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to focus in for a minute on the money being spent,
and I want to particularly focus in on the money being spent in
Pakistan. I think that there have been a number of reports, as
we've had with the moneys in Iraq also, of fraud, waste, and
abuse in terms of military aid to Pakistan. I know that we are
spending $80 million a month on the combat support operations,
the coalition support funds program, which supposedly
reimburses Pakistan for conducting military operations to fight
terrorism on the Afghan border.
My concern is as I look at all the materials on this, I
know that the U.S. embassy is supposed to verify that Pakistan
has in fact incurred these expenses in support of combat
activity on the Afghan border, and that I know the expenditures
are sent to CENTCOM, where they are supposedly evaluated and
the claims are looked at and then reimbursement is forwarded on
to the Pentagon, the Office of Management and Budget, and to
Congress.
But the Pakistan military provides no receipts and many
officials now believe that these invoices are being inflated. I
think another concern obviously is that a senior military
official has said that this aid, this $80 million a month, a
total of $5.7 billion which we have provided, is really being
used on a weapons system to potentially be involved with India;
that Pakistan is focusing these moneys on something other than
the goal that we want them to be working on, which is obviously
the tribal unrest and terrorism that is obviously in play along
the Afghan border.
I would certainly like your take on this and what
procedures can you put in place or your staff put in place to
get a handle on these reimbursements, to make sure that they
are going onto fighting terrorism in these tribal areas, as
opposed to some long-term strategic goal that the Pakistani
Government has in terms of the threat they feel from India?
Admiral Fallon. Ma'am, I'll take this one to start with.
The first comment I would make is these coalition support funds
which are made available by Congress are intended to reimburse
partner nations for their logistic and military activities in
support of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Operation
Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom specifically.
I can tell you what I've done in the 10 months or so that
I've been in charge of CENTCOM. I can't tell you what went on
in the past, but I can tell you we're paying a lot of attention
to it now--and trying to make sure that these moneys are being
used for the purposes for which they were intended. This is
very complex and the support that the Paks provide to us is
extensive. I can tell you, frankly, that we would be very hard-
pressed to be able to conduct our operations in Afghanistan
today anywhere near the scope that we conduct them without this
significant assistance from Pakistan.
The Paks I believe understand that the challenge--I don't
know what it was like in the past, but they certainly
understand now that the threat that they face is really the
same threat that we're facing in Afghanistan. It's the same
people and I think many of the same intentions.
The process by which we look at these expenditures and try
to validate the purpose for which they are being spent is one
in which there's no rubber stamp. We are looking very carefully
at these things and as I look at the way things appear to have
gone in the past and how they go now, we have in many ways
slowed down the process. This has created some friction with
the Paks because they submit these vouchers, if you would,
outlining what they say they have spent the money on and we're
scrutinizing them very carefully.
In the past year, my folks tell me we've only approved
about 80 percent of those requests that have come in, as we try
to drill into them and find out what's really being done.
That said, I think it's only fair to recognize that the
Paks are heavily engaged. They have lost several thousand
people killed and wounded to these insurgents that are up along
the border there. They have been engaged certainly in the past
year that I've been watching them to a much greater degree than
they were in the past. They have moved a significant number of
forces. Somewhere well over 100,000 troops have now been moved
from the east, where traditionally they have been focused on a
perception of an Indian problem, and they are increasingly
engaging in the west.
In operations in the Swat Valley, for example, where they
were I think surprised to see insurgents and terrorists take
over that area, they have fought to push them back out of that
valley. It's been painful to watch and painful for them to
endure, but they've been successful.
So I see a lot of activity. North Waziristan, South
Waziristan, they're actually moving. I think that in the big
scheme of things there's little doubt that in the past they
were focused on India as the big threat to the country. I think
they see things differently now. They've taken steps. It is
different now than it was 6 months ago and certainly a year
ago, and they're working in this area.
People make all kinds of accusations. For example: No money
should be spent for F-16s because that's a big weapon system.
In fact, they have a significant need for close air support to
help their troops that are engaged on the ground. They don't
have the capabilities we do. So they are trying to use every
one of their means to try to address this issue.
The fact of the matter is their capabilities need a lot of
work. That's part of our engagement here, is to help make them
more productive, make them more effective in their engagement.
So we're looking very hard at this money. I understand it's
a large amount of money and we would like to have it spent in
the right way. But they do a lot of things every day. Every
single aircraft that flies into Afghanistan from the south and
east, and that's the vast majority of them, have to overfly
Pakistan. They have to have support, they have to be
deconflicted and so forth. So there are lots of things on these
lists of charges and requests for reimbursement that the Paks
submit that I think have a basis. How much exactly is stuff
that we have to go through. But we're working on this process.
We're working very hard with our own people in Islamabad to
make them more aware of the need to be very careful in
scrutinizing this. We're working on it.
Senator McCaskill. Is it your sense then, Admiral, that
since you have taken over that you're comfortable that we are
in fact drilling down and getting receipts and actually getting
documentation for what they are requesting in terms of this $80
million that we're spending on a monthly basis, which is a lot
of money for the American taxpayers?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, it certainly is. I'm not going to say
that I'm comfortable with any of this. I'll tell you that we're
certainly giving it good close attention. The idea that you
have a receipt for every flight hour that's expended or the
repair costs of the helicopters or whatever I think is a little
difficult to do. But we are certainly engaged with the Paks in
this and I think we're in a lot better shape than we were in
the past, and we're going to keep at it.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Senator Martinez.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Admiral Fallon and Admiral Olson for being
here today. I thank you both for your service, and the troops
that serve under you. Again I want to tell you how proud I am
that both of your commands are headquartered at Tampa, FL, in
the great Sunshine State. We're proud to have you there.
Admiral Fallon, earlier you answered some questions about
Iranian influence in the region and I was intrigued by your
comments because it did appear to me that you suggest that
their influence vis-a-vis the area of influence that they could
possibly project, their neighborhood, you indicated they were
viewed with skepticism, distrust, with a dim view, and their
influence was not increased, but in fact there was great
concern about them.
My question is then, it appears that their neighbors and
the neighbors of Iraq--you suggested that those neighbors were
concerned also about our commitment, and that you were asked
repeatedly by these neighbors about our commitment. I guess my
question to you is, given the fact that things have
dramatically improved on the ground from a year ago, that in
fact levels of violence are greatly decreased in Iraq, would it
be fair then to say that our continued presence in Iraq has
added stability to the region, and that in fact these neighbors
feel better about the fact that we continue to be committed
than they would feel if we in fact had not maintained that
commitment, but had in fact withdrawn precipitously?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, as with most of these issues,
there's more than one side to the story. I think it would be
fair to say that many of the countries in the region were not
particularly pleased with us, directly related to the level of
violence in Iraq in the past years, directly related to the
continuing instability and the concerns about where this all
was going. Now that the forces in Iraq have made substantial
progress, they like it a lot better and now they're concerned
the other way. Probably the majority of that concern is in the
other direction, that they don't want us to pull out and have
this thing drift back into a more chaotic state again.
So it's the battle of perceptions. I think it really
highlights how important it is to have consistent messaging,
based on behavior on our part. There is concern about our
commitment and as many of these countries look at the way we
have engaged periodically and then seemingly gone into periods
where we have not seemed to have focused on their region and
their countries, they begin to doubt us.
It's like anybody else. They want to be loved, they want to
be engaged. They want to feel that we are going to be with them
all the time.
Now, we have requirements from our side, too. We want to be
with them, but we want them to behave in a manner that's going
to be helpful to their own people and to us in the region. So
as with most things, you have to look at the entire thing from
all the angles. But today there's pleasure, increased
confidence that the situation in Iraq is improving. I believe
that countries would like to see us engaged, to remain engaged
in the region. Certainly the concern about Iran demonstrates
that. They want us to do it in constructive ways. So I think
it's in our interest to continue to stay there in some number,
in some form, and stay engaged.
Senator Martinez. In terms of continuing the low level of
violence, I don't think there's any question that it was very
important that the Mahdi Army and Moqtada al-Sadr made a
commitment to continue their ceasefire. Can you tell me how we
deal with an individual that is as volatile as this individual,
who has such deep hatred of the United States, and yet seems to
be in such an influential position as it relates to the level
of violence in Iraq, and how we will move to a more permanent
level of stability?
Admiral Fallon. The short answer is, because we don't have
direct engagement with this individual, Moqtada al-Sadr, we
rely on those Iraqis that deal with him, not just the
Government of Iraq and those clerics with whom he deals, and
that's how we try to convey our messages, which are it's in the
interest of not only his group but the rest of the people of
Iraq to continue this so-called freeze, to continue to focus
their energy in non-kinetic ways, in ways that are not going to
incite levels of violence.
I believe that as the Iraqi people see the benefits of
people not resorting to force of arms they are liking things a
lot better and that becomes a pressure in itself. So it's the
Iraqi people working with the Iraqis and these leaders of these
groups to influence them to act in reasonable and appropriate
ways.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral Olson, recently, in fact Saturday, the Colombian
Government struck a great success in their continuing fight
against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Coloumbia (FARC), a
terrorist group that has been responsible for now over 3 years,
I guess, the kidnapping of 3 Americans, in addition to over
their history over 100 Americans who have been kidnapped by
this group over time. I know that your Special Operations
Forces have been engaged in training in Colombia as well as
other missions, including humanitarian missions, as you
mentioned. Could you speak to us about your work in Colombia?
It looks to me like your training has taken hold because this
operation on Saturday seems to have been a pretty neat deal.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. We do have a longstanding
engagement with the Colombians, as you're well aware. Our
presence in Colombia has ranged from 200 to 500 people as it's
ebbed and surged over the last several years. Under the rules
of the engagement, we are in a train and assist role. We do not
conduct operations with the Colombians, but we do train and
advise and assist, and we say goodbye to them as they go off on
their operations and then we welcome them back as they return.
This has been a successful engagement. It is conducted
largely by Army Special Forces, but we have had marines and
Navy SEALS down there conducting that engagement because so
much of their transportation is dependent on the riverine
system within Colombia. So it's been a good partnership.
I second your thought that this operation that was
successful this past weekend against the number two FARC leader
was at least in large part a manifestation of that
relationship. In fact, one of the Colombian soldiers I'm told
who was killed in that operation is one on whom one of our
Special Operations leaders down there had pinned a U.S. medal
not too many years ago because of the value of the relationship
that we had built with that particular Colombian soldier.
So this is a continuing effort for us. I think that we
should be encouraged by the level of Colombian activity against
the FARC in particular. They had gone many years without having
this kind of success. Now they've had several successes over
the last couple of years.
Senator Martinez. I would conclude by just following on
that comment. The fact is that the Colombian Government is a
democratically elected government. President Uribe was elected
with an overwhelmingly positive vote by their people and it is
distressing to see that neighboring governments seem to be
intent upon destabilizing the Colombian Government and
situation by providing assistance to the FARC.
It's interesting that in this operation apparently some
very direct and clear evidence of this destabilizing influence
of neighboring governments came to light, which I think many of
us have suspected for a long time, but it's pretty clear that
that in fact took place.
I'm proud of your people standing on the side of a
democratically elected government against those who through
violence would seek to destabilize.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Martinez.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service
to our country, and its especially a privilege that we have
your two headquarters located in our State.
Admiral Olson, you need two modified C-27s as a gunship and
you also need some more Ospreys to do your role. You want to
tell the committee about that?
Admiral Olson. Sir, two separate issues. I'll address them
separately. The C-27 we're discussing as a prototype for what
we call Gunship Light. The AC-130 gunship has proven very
powerful and in high demand in Afghanistan and Iraq with its
surgical strike capability from an orbital flight. We are soon
to experience a degradation of that fleet due to the center
wingbox issue that has struck the entire C-130 inventory. The
Air Force solution for the next generation gunship is several
years away, at least fiscal year 2015, 2016, perhaps 2017.
So we're looking at a lighter version of the C-130. If you
take a C-130 and put it on a copy machine and push the 50
percent button, you get a C-27. It's a twin engine. It
looks a lot like the C-130. This is an integration effort
to determine the art of the reasonable with respect to mounting
guns on a C-27, flying it in an orbital pattern to provide
quick response, primarily to troops in contact or where troops
may be expected to be in contact, with the surgical precision
that we've come to expect from the AC-130.
I've talked to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force about
this. It would be an exaggeration to say that we are moving
forward together on this, although we are supportive of the
goals of the effort, and he has spoken about that as well. But
with the acquisition authorities that I am granted as the
Commander of SOCOM, we are striving to move forward with a
prototype development of that C-27.
The V-22 Osprey is our next generation rotary wing lift, at
least for the Air Force component of Special Operations. We
have come to depend on the MH-53 Pave Low fleet, the last one
of which will be retired in October of this year. We have an
inventory of 31. We're building towards an inventory of 50 CV-
22s, largely to replace that capability. It's a Special
Operations-modified version of the V-22. We pay about one-
quarter of the cost, the Air Force pays about three-quarters of
the cost, as we make the SOF-peculiar modifications to it.
In my view that airplane is being delivered to us at too
slow a rate. There are opportunities in the production line to
accelerate that and so we are seeking some funding in order to
do that.
Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Fallon, you may have gone over
this while I had to go and just give a speech, but let me quote
from your comments: ``Looking to the future and as U.S. forces
are withdrawn, we are planning to normalize long-term bilateral
relations through a framework agreement that reflects our
shared political, economic, cultural, and security interests,
as well as a status of forces agreement.''
Then you go on to say: ``As Iraq increasingly asserts its
sovereignty, we want to continue to assist in developing Iraqi
capacities to secure and defend their country.'' That's what
the military does and it does it very well, our military.
Every presidential candidate has some version of a
withdrawal that they have laid out on the table for the
American people to consider. Will political reconciliation
occur in your opinion, and do you see any evidence that it's
occurring other than what you've stated in your testimony here,
the 2008 national budget, the provincial powers, amnesty, the
de-Baathification law, provincial powers laws, and so forth?
Look over the horizon for us.
Admiral Fallon. We certainly have every expectation they're
going to continue down this path to stability and enable us to
do what I believe the vast majority of our people would like,
and that is to be able to withdraw the bulk of our combat
forces and let the Iraqi security folks take over in their own
country.
This will be enabled by continued political development in
the country. It's painful to watch sometimes. But I see things
that go on almost on a daily basis. When I got here last year,
I went out and tried to make a point to meet the leaders
throughout Iraq, particularly those in the central government,
and, frankly, came back with mixed opinions of folks. My
opinion at that time, after meeting them for the initial go-
around, was that most were very narrowly focused based on their
backgrounds from political parties. Recognition that the people
in many of the key positions were there precisely because they
weren't really powerful, because those were the deals that were
brokered.
It's been encouraging to watch the development of these
people from Prime Minister Maliki on down, to see them take
responsibility, and increasingly we're seeing the results of
that. It's not a straight line and I don't think it's going to
be. There are things that are frustrating. This is a different
culture than ours and, frankly, it's a different political
process and philosophy in this country. But it's coming along.
I'll give you one example. There was an impasse in this
legislation and there were a number of items teed up: the
budget, the Provincial Powers Act that Senator Levin already
talked about, the amnesty legislation. They all appeared to be
stymied and as we watched they'd take one after the other and
weren't making progress. They got innovative. They bundled
them, put them all on the table together, and in the process
found ways to make the political accommodations that got them
all passed, amazingly, in one day. It was kind of astounding.
All of a sudden it was, how'd they do this?
So I think we have to continue to engage them, continue to
point out to them the cost of this in terms of blood, sweat,
and tears on the part of our people, which is very substantial,
the resources that we've devoted to this country.
They're working on it. They're taking responsibility in my
view, whether it's in the political process, whether it's in
the recognition--it seems to me they are more aggressive now in
going out and addressing issues away from the capital, and this
is essential to me. If they can't figure out how to get people
in the provinces the basics that they need, we're not going to
be successful, nor they. But increasingly I see them paying
attention to it.
I give you another couple of examples. I was out in Anbar 2
weeks ago and it was pointed out to me by the marines out there
that they had a problem on the border, one of the border
crossing points with Syria. The issue was that the Iraqis out
there, Sunnis most of them, all of them actually in this area,
had been attending to business and they were having to do it
out of their own resources, and the central government had not
seen fit, or at least that was the story, to pay these guys and
to provide them the other resources they needed. It was gnawing
at them. Just this weekend, got a report. They actually sent a
delegation out, addressed the issues, paid the arrears, and
people were moving forward.
I mentioned this thing in Diyalah the other day with the
Concerned Local Citizens/Sons of Iraq. It was gnawing at them
and it was starting to cause the compromise to come apart. They
took appropriate steps to fix it in the budget.
They are increasingly taking responsibility financially for
themselves. The lines have crossed. They are spending this year
three times more on their security than we will spend. Where 3
years ago we were spending the bulk of the money, they are now
spending the vast majority of it, and the trends are in the
right direction.
They were particularly not effective in using their own
resources for their own people. That's increased I think 55
percent or so is the data this year. It's still got a long way
to go. But they are getting better at their own budget
execution.
Anyway, day after day, slowly but surely, it's generally
moving in the right direction. It has to continue. Part of the
role of our folks that are engaged out there is to keep beating
the drums to ensure that they don't lose sight of the fact that
they have to continue to make progress.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. On the question of the Iraqi resources, you
say now being spent more and more to support their own troops.
The Iraqi oil ministry goal for 2008 is to produce 2.2 million
barrels of oil a day. Now, the exports that we know of have
revenues that are estimated $41 billion in 2007 and according
to the current rate in 2008, extrapolating that rate would give
us an estimate of $56 billion of oil exports for 2008.
How much of that oil revenue is Iraq spending for its own
security and economic development?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, this year the number's about $9
billion in security. The number for us is about $3 billion. In
total development, I don't have it off the top of my head, but
I know that when we were out there the week before last that
their intention was to bump a surge amount, if you would, of
$10 billion additional into development.
The trends are increasingly for them to increase and take
over responsibility. In the big scheme of things, this year the
lines crossed in development resources. As I recall, the number
now is total that they've invested is about $51 billion versus
$48 billion for us since 2002. So they're working on it. They
have a long way to go.
Chairman Levin. Since 2002, that's about 6 years or 5
years, and that's about maybe $7, $8 billion a year. But I'm
talking $40 billion in oil money, oil revenues from exports
last year, and perhaps $56 billion this year. How much of that
is just being stashed away in foreign banks, do you know?
Admiral Fallon. A lot of it's in our banks, the vast
majority.
Chairman Levin. Why should that money not be spent in Iraq,
on Iraqi projects?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, it should be. The facts are that
their ability to institutionalize and effectively distribute
those funds is lacking. It's increasing. It's getting better.
As I indicated, it's double this year, the expenditure rate,
than the year before. This is not going to happen overnight. We
have to continue to engage with them.
I think it illustrates a real important fact here. While we
couldn't be where we are without security and stability
provided through the military, the major issues in their long-
term viability are not military. It's government and
development of those institutional processes within the country
that are going to enable them to actually be effective in this
business.
Chairman Levin. I can't accept the answer that they're not
capable of administering their own revenues. They have a budget
which is approximately this amount, and it's totally
unacceptable to me that we are spending tens of billions of
dollars on rebuilding Iraq while they are putting tens of
billions of dollars in banks around the world from oil
revenues. It doesn't compute as far as I'm concerned and I
think that we ought to get an accounting from our either
Inspector General or our Government Accountability Office of
those oil revenues, and we'll be sending a letter to one or the
other to do just that. I take it you wouldn't have any
objection to that?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I'm with you on this one. I think
it's not just sitting in the banks trying to get somebody rich
on interest income. It's because they're in a holding position
now until they can figure out how to effectively disburse this
money.
There's another dimension to this that I find pretty
fascinating. Because of the tradition in this country with
Saddam and his henchman and the way they took all resources and
used them for private funds, the Iraqi leaders at every level
appear to be highly sensitive to the image of corruption, not
that there isn't that that goes on, but to the perception that
they might somehow misuse these funds, the National funds.
So we find what I consider are very extraordinary actions
on their part, risk avoidance, if you would, in taking what
seem to me to be appropriate, prudent decisions to go ahead and
get with the program. It's the checks and balances kind of
thing.
But clearly we'd like to see them take a more active role,
spending more of their money, and so we end up spending less of
ours, no doubt about it.
Chairman Levin. If they can't figure out how to spend their
own money and if the fear of being perceived as being corrupt
is the reason, they sure can transfer those resources to us.
We'll administer them the way we administer our own funds, for
their reconstruction. I mean, we're putting a lot more money
into reconstruction up to now than they have.
Admiral Fallon. But that's changed. They are putting more
in now.
Chairman Levin. It's changing, but that money, which is
sitting somewhere in banks, can be applied to reconstruction,
if necessary through our administration. Some of us voted when
this war began to have the future delivery of Iraqi oil to fund
the cost of this war. We had a vote on that issue. In fact, it
was represented by some people that the Iraqis would pay for
the cost of this war.
The least they can do, instead of stashing that money in
banks, is have that money go to current reconstruction
projects. So we're going to press that issue in the way that I
indicated, and there may be other ways to do it as well.
Admiral Olson, let me get to some of the questions that I
had in my opening statement that I'd like to address. Kind of
working backwards, do your special operators have sufficient
Predators and other assets to conduct aggressive search and
seizure missions against al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in and
around Afghanistan and in Iraq? Do you have enough of those
type of assets?
Admiral Olson. I'd like to give you a yes or no answer, Mr.
Chairman. It's a balance of what Special Operations should
provide and what should be provided by the rest of the theater.
There are now 50-something orbits, is the term, flown over
Iraq, most of which are provided by CENTCOM, some of which are
provided by SOCOM. We're providing on the order of 11 or 12 of
those.
In total, that's not sufficient. If the question is are
there sufficient Predators, there aren't. But I'm not convinced
that a dollar for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance
capability is best spent on Predators at this point. It's a
very complex system, with bottlenecks in training the
operators, training the intelligence analysts, developing the
hangars and the ramp space and the bandwidth and developing the
full motion video sensors. That is all part of the ISR system.
So the short answer is we have insufficient capability for
ISR in total.
Chairman Levin. What is your shortfall? On ISR what is your
shortfall?
Admiral Olson. Sir, the most severe shortfall is manpower
now. It's trained operators of the systems and trained
intelligence analysts to evaluate and distribute the
information that is gathered through the surveillance.
Chairman Levin. Do you have a dollar shortfall? You've
given us a list of dollar shortfalls.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Could you total them up for us?
Admiral Olson. Sir, the shortfall that I've presented is on
the order of about $300 million in short-term funds, and that's
balanced across leasing capability, buying capability,
investing in training capability. There are air space
management challenges. There's a lot that goes into this. But
with $300 million I believe that I can reasonably enhance the
Special Operations capability as our share of the much larger
development of the total military capability.
Chairman Levin. Have you requested that money in the
budget?
Admiral Olson. Sir, we're in discussion with your staff.
Chairman Levin. No, no. I mean in the administration's
budget.
Admiral Olson. No, sir, we did not.
Chairman Levin. Why was that?
Admiral Olson. Because we were depending on Service
capability to provide for that shortfall. We have long
supported a stated requirement for 30 continuous orbits in
Iraq. That's a CENTCOM requirement, supported by U.S. SOCOM. We
internally have grown at a rate that we believe we reasonably
could, in order to support our share of that total shortfall.
But I did not submit in my budget request the funds to make up
for the entire military shortfall.
Chairman Levin. Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Fallon, Admiral Olson, I apologize for having had
to step out of here. As so often happens up here, we have two
very important hearings going on at the same time, and I'm at
the bottom of the food chain here, so I had to wait longer than
I thought I would at the other one before I could ask my
questions.
I also wanted to make sure that I reviewed the questions
that had been asked of you so I wouldn't be redundant here.
I have two areas that I would like to get some
clarification on. The first is, how would you describe the
center of mass of al Qaeda activity in your region, Admiral
Fallon? Where would you put that?
Admiral Fallon. The first word would be ``distributed.''
These guys are pretty clever. They've figured it out. They
leverage the technology today and they recognize the inherent
danger of pulling all the folks in one spot.
We have a working assumption that the most senior
leadership resides somewhere in the Afghan-Pak border area,
probably in the FATA. But we have lots of evidence that
indicates that they have established nodes, if you would, in
lots of other places in the region. It seems that the CENTCOM
region, for better or for worse, mostly for worse, I think,
seems to be attractive to them. That's not surprising because
we have more poorly governed or lawless places, I suspect, than
most in the world. So they tend to come to these areas and take
refuge there and try to operate, and using the technology to
communicate back and forth.
Senator Webb. Recognizing that they are mobile, would you
say that the center of mass of their activities is Pakistan?
Admiral Fallon. Again, I don't have a body count. I think
there are a couple of things that are pertinent here. One is
they have lots of allies and allied groups, and these
affiliated organizations sometimes maybe present the appearance
of mass, but I suspect that there are fractures and fissures
and different views among these folks.
I think this offers us an opportunity in some respects. The
fact that they are distributed in different countries means
that they have to communicate somehow, some way. When they talk
one way or another or move, it gives us an opportunity to use
regional assets, not just U.S. but the countries in the region,
to help us in identifying and hopefully capturing these people.
Senator Webb. Just to say editorially, one of the problems
I've had since day 1 with what we did in Iraq is that we took
probably the greatest maneuver force in the world and locked it
down in a strategic mousetrap, occupying these different
cities, while the people we ostensibly were going after
remained mobile. So we have a situation here where a huge
portion of our military is essentially in a classic holding
action for political reasons while this mobility is occurring
over us.
The question I want to get to because I'm running out of
time is a little different. It's something that Senator Warner
and I have discussed at some length. There are two agreements
now that are being negotiated at the executive branch level
between our Government and the Iraqi Government pertaining to
the future relationships, long-term future relationships that
we are going to have in Iraq. There is some great concern,
particularly on this side of the aisle, that we are going to be
placed in a position as the Government changes one way or the
other after November, where because of the reliance of the
Iraqi Government on some of these terms that are being
negotiated and because of sort of a lack of clarity with us
here in the congressional branch about what is being done,
where we will be kind of ineluctably drawn into a long-term
relationship while it hasn't been properly debated.
Are you familiar with the differences between these two
agreements that are being negotiated? I'd like your thoughts on
that.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir, I think I'm pretty tuned in to
this, and I'm very, very focused on it because it's essential.
The reality is that we have to have in place the appropriate
protections for our troops, and not just for their personal
protection, which is essential, but to enable them to be
effective in operating in Iraq. Come December 31 of this year
when that U.N. Security Council resolution expires, we're going
to be in a different ballgame.
We have a critical task in front of us to figure out. The
two, from my view, they're different, but they're very
complementary and essential, and you have to have both. What
we're trying to do here in what's called the strategic
framework agreement is to frame expectations with the
Government of Iraq about our mutual vision of the future. What
is it we expect to have in the way of a relationship between
the countries? Certainly a lot different than the one that's
been in place for the last couple of years.
So that's the key aspect of the SOFA. Certainly we have to
for our part, I believe, affirm for the Iraqis their
sovereignty. This is their country and they want to have a
future, and they want to be able to make decisions about their
security. At the same time, we want to ensure that our
interests are protected, and most importantly those interests
are our people, that they can actually continue to do what they
do.
We would like to be able to continue to work against this
extremist threat, the terrorist threat, the al Qaeda network
that remains in Iraq. We want to be able to deal with the
challenges that we face.
At the same time, there's another aspect of this and that's
the detail of just the physical presence of people in another
country, as you're well aware. We have SOFAs, for example, with
dozens and dozens of countries around the world. They're
individually negotiated and they cover the interests and
specifics of various nations.
It's essential that we have a replacement for the U.N.
Security Council Resolution. We have a process to do these
things that is well tested. I don't believe that we have any
intention of putting ourselves in a position where we are
making an international agreement such that it would
necessitate Senate review of this or anything along those
lines. These are essential agreements that should be made at
the executive level and I think that's clearly our intention
from my view of what we're trying to do in this duality
approach, if you would.
Senator Webb. We may have some disagreement on that with
respect to the umbrella agreement. We had a meeting yesterday
with some people from the administration on this. When I say
``we,'' I'm saying among this body. There are people who are
concerned that that first agreement is not a security
agreement. When you talk about long-term relations with a
country, it's essentially a national agreement. It's committing
the country and that sounds an awful lot like a treaty.
We have always operated under some sort of umbrella,
particularly when we're putting people into harm's way, whether
it's international compacts like NATO or bilateral security
agreements like the Philippines, Japan, et cetera. So we, those
of us who are concerned, may want some further clarification on
this.
Recognizing that the clock is ticking, that actually is one
of the reasons that the concern level up here and that the
level of sincerity perhaps from the administration both have
come into question.
Admiral Fallon. Senator, from my perspective I can pledge
to you that we'll be as open as we possibly can. There's every
intention to keep you informed. I think from my discussions
with the folks that were up briefing you yesterday that's
certainly their intention as well, to keep you well informed
and to keep your confidence.
Senator Webb. I hope we can shed some more light on this. I
have great respect for the job that you've been doing and
hopefully we can get this into the open air. If we don't, it's
going to become a campaign issue; I can promise you that.
Admiral Fallon. We have highlighted a couple of agreements
with countries around the world. We have many agreements. In my
previous assignment out in the Pacific, we've reached agreement
with countries on similar things. One that comes to mind, very
important for us, was a SOFA-equivalent with Singapore. It was
an executive agreement to codify expectations with that
country.
But back to the key point here, the intention is to be very
open, very forthcoming, to alleviate any concerns in this
regard.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend my colleague, Senator Webb, for taking
this initiative. I feel just as strongly as he about these
agreements.
Now, the SOFA follows the pattern of military agreements
we've had with many nations, and that's to protect our
individual soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors for their
personal activities in carrying out the missions assigned by
the President. Second, we would not want the strategic
framework agreement in any way to tie the hands of the next
president, whoever that may be, as he or she directs the future
missions of our country on behalf of not only Iraq, but indeed
Afghanistan, too, because this is a pattern.
Lastly, I don't know whether this rises to the level of
advise and consent. Senator Webb said a treaty. I'll leave that
to perhaps our colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee.
But I do think it's important, Mr. Chairman, that Senator Webb
and I recommend to you that we have a hearing on this at the
appropriate time, and that there be the maximum amount of
transparency. Now, any negotiation requires a certain amount of
confidentiality between the negotiators, but at the present
time get it all out, so that there's no hidden agenda in the
minds of the American people or in the minds of the Iraqi
people about where the two nations want to go.
So I urge you also that we move out on this thing, because
I would think it would be helpful to have it wrapped up in the
next 90 or 120 days and therefore not become drawn into good
old-fashioned politics of America as we elect our next
president and it become or could be distorted or whatever.
I want to turn to this problem of the rest of the United
States Government. Throughout the years this committee has
pushed for the administration to get more of the departments
and agencies of this Government involved in Iraq. I think
that's slowly come to pass. But do we have a similar situation
in Afghanistan, Admiral Fallon? Now, there there's some
question about the security, personal security of people of
other agencies and departments coming over to perform their
functions. But it is essential. You stressed the need for jobs
in Iraq. I stress the need for jobs in Afghanistan if we're
going to have a strong and stable sovereign country.
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I couldn't agree more. In fact, as
I look at Afghanistan the priorities for that emerging country
are in other than military things--electrical power, roads,
water management, agricultural development. These are the
things that are really going to turn this into an ongoing
concern.
There's a fact of life in this business of the interagency
and their personnel. DOD and our military forces are by nature
expeditionary. We are used to deploying, used to going out in
the world and engaging. Our rotational forces are out there all
the time. The other institutions of this Government are focused
historically domestically, with the exception of the Department
of State. Secretary Rice has had an initiative to substantially
ramp up the number of people in the Department of State. It's
going to take a while to do that.
I am anxious to get more people to engage in these things
because not too many of them are there.
Senator Warner. Good. I mentioned also the Department of
Agriculture. If we're going to come to grips with this
insidious, frightful problem of the growing poppies and the
increased revenue there--from flowing into military operations
to support the Taliban, we have to help that agricultural base
develop alternatives. Let's hope that that can really be on the
top of everybody's list.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Admiral, I noted with a great deal of
pleasure that the U.S.S. Cole deployed into your region. One of
your 24 countries is Lebanon. We all remember the events of the
1980s, to include the tragic bombing of the marine barracks
that killed 241 marines. I remember Senator Tower and I went
out there within 48 hours, I believe, of that tragic incident
to make our assessment.
What's the intent of the deployment of the U.S.S. Cole and
what's the likelihood that that deployment structure will stay
in place for a while?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, the deployment is really sent as a
signal. In my opinion, it's designed to let folks know that we
are certainly very interested in this part of the world and
particularly in activities within Lebanon. It's been
frustrating to me to watch. I visited Lebanon back in September
for the first time in several decades, in fact since I was back
there in 1983, the last time. There had not been a senior
military officer visit.
I was well received by the government, the leadership
there, the defense minister. It's clear that they want to
engage with us. But meanwhile we've watched now this political
impasse drag on and on where--the inability to get a president.
It's very clear that outside actors are influencing this in
Lebanon. The message here is that we are watching with keen
interest, that we are not actively putting our fingers into
this thing, we're not trying to destabilize anything, but we
want to demonstrate through our presence that we are committed
to helping Lebanon to move forward and hopefully resolve their
crisis.
I'm very anxious to get our people engaged in helping the
Lebanese armed forces to be more confident and more able to
provide security and stability. As they demonstrated in the
refugee camp activities this last summer, they have a lot of
challenges. We want to be more engaged.
Senator Warner. I think sending the U.S.S. Cole is quite a
symbol. As we all remember, that ship and its crew suffered a
tragic incident when a terrorist rammed it and exploded. We
repaired that ship and she's back on the line.
Are there other ships accompanying it in this force or is
it a single ship?
Admiral Fallon. I believe that there will be other ships
that are going to operate in the area, sir.
Senator Warner. I would hope that would be the case.
My last question, Mr. Chairman. There's been the assertion
that the Afghan situation should be separated from the Iraq
situation. They are coupled in that it's a common effort to
enable two nations to achieve strong sovereignty, but I think
Secretary Gates again very wisely said the Europeans have a
problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to
Afghanistan, and do not understand the different kind of
threat.
I assume you associate yourself with that analysis by the
Secretary of Defense, and I thought you'd share with us your
own views here.
Admiral Fallon. Senator, both Iraq and Afghanistan are
stability challenges in my region. Each is unique; many
circumstances that are different. I can't explain all the
thought processes within the heads of the people in the various
countries that are involved here, but I can tell you that we
need help in Afghanistan. There are lots of folks who have
raised their hands and said, we aim to be of assistance here.
It seems to me we have to figure out a better way to get people
to be committed to working together in a really complementary
and effective manner if we're going to be successful.
Senator Warner. There's no reason why they can't supply
some of the non-military aspects of the recovery in
Afghanistan.
Admiral Fallon. I think we're a little cautious to say,
look, here's how it works and how it's effective. Our example
in the east bringing to bear those other instruments that
you've made available to us in the way of moneys and ability to
operate to help people in their daily lives, it seems to me
these are very obvious examples of how things could be more
effective than they are now. Removing caveats and allowing
troops to really have their value on the ground is critical. I
just don't understand what people are thinking about in this
except for the risk aversity of things.
It's very different in Afghanistan. For example, the
drumbeat today is things are really going to heck in a
handbasket and there's no doubt about that the IEDs, the
suicide bombings, are up significantly from a year or 2 ago,
but the scale of violence in Afghanistan is a fraction of what
it is in Iraq. I'm not trying to sugar-coat this at all, but it
needs effective engagement.
There are lots of folks there. If we could get everybody to
put in a solid effort without all these caveats, I think we'd
be a heck of a lot further down the road.
Senator Warner. Is Iran trying to project along its border,
particularly in that segment of Afghanistan, it's own influence
and destabilizing some of the efforts that we and NATO are
trying to achieve?
Admiral Fallon. No doubt that the Iranians are influencing
Afghanistan. In many ways it's positive. I've had this
conversation with President Karzai. They have provided a lot of
assistance to Afghanistan.
Senator Warner. ``They'' being----
Admiral Fallon. The Iranians.
Senator Warner. Recently have provided economic assistance?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. In the west, in Herat and that
area, there's substantial Iranian investment and activity. The
cost of that----
Senator Warner. Do you view that as positive?
Admiral Fallon. That's positive. What I don't like is the
flip side of it, that we found several instances last year in
which it was pretty apparent that they were trying to provide
lethal assistance of a similar kind----
Senator Warner. The IED type?
Admiral Fallon. Haven't seen much evidence of that, but
we've seen other things. Now, it's not on a scale of what's
going on on the other border, but it's still unhelpful. Now,
what else we don't know remains to be seen. It could be a very
positive influence. In some ways it is. The flip side of it is
as you know.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I think our witnesses have
shared very superb professional perspectives on your
responsibilities in that AOR. I compliment you and your troops
under you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator McCaskill?
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is my understanding--and please correct me if I'm
wrong--that we have approximately 85,000 Sunnis on the payroll
on a monthly basis in Iraq?
Admiral Fallon. Closer to--this is the former Concerned
Local Citizens, called ``Sons of Iraq'' now?
Senator McCaskill. I'm just curious how many Sunnis we have
on the payroll. I don't know what we call them or what they're
doing. I just want to figure out what is the number of Sunnis
that we are paying every month with American tax dollars.
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I think you're focused on those
volunteers that have helped us with local security. The answer
is about 90,000 total and I'm told that about 80 percent of
those are Sunnis, about 20 percent Shia. So the number is
probably closer to 70-75,000.
Senator McCaskill. They're receiving somewhere between $200
and $400 a month from us?
Admiral Fallon. I don't know exactly what General Petraeus
and his folks are paying them, but they're certainly receiving
a salary.
Senator McCaskill. Is it the sense that this is making a
big difference in terms of stability?
Admiral Fallon. Huge difference, a very positive
difference.
Senator McCaskill. Have we thought about paying 90,000
Afghans a month? How about 90,000 Pakistanis a month?
Admiral Fallon. The situations are different in both
countries. I don't think you can take this--we have looked at
this. A lot of people have said, well, this thing worked over
here, let's get it going in Afghanistan. It's very different in
many respects.
The lesson's not lost on us. We're trying to figure out how
to work with the indigenous people, with the tribes. I would
tell you that right off the bat my experience and knowledge
here in Afghanistan tells me that it's much more complex. Many
more tribal affinities, local tribal affinities. Many of them
don't particularly get along with the folks over in the next
valley. So we've benefited immensely in Iraq in places where
there's large tribal influences that cover big swaths of
territory, folks have cooperated with one another. We think
this is going to be a significant challenge in Afghanistan.
I'm open to any suggestion that would help us move forward,
but I don't think that we can just take this template and plop
it down over top of either of these countries.
Senator McCaskill. How are we going to get out from
underneath this payroll? It's so frustrating. I think the
amount of money--and by the way, I was kind of facetious when I
talked about Afghanistan, but the Atlantic Council has said
only 10 cents of every dollar we're spending there is getting
to the Afghans.
I'm curious also for your take on what kind of measures do
we have in place to make sure these taxpayer dollars that we're
spending in Afghanistan in fact is getting any kind of efficacy
in terms of our goals in Afghanistan, and what's the long term?
If we're doing this, whether it's 75,000 or 85,000 Sunnis that
we're paying every month with American money, when do we stop
paying them?
I know some have characterized that payroll as--I know our
military has performed there very well under General Petraeus
as it relates to security. But clearly this amount of people on
the payroll has also greatly contributed to what has occurred
in terms of more security, and I don't know how we get out from
under that.
Admiral Fallon. Senator, we are very grateful for the
willingness of these folks to step up and assume responsibility
at the local level. It's been extraordinarily helpful in
achieving the stability gains that we've made. We recognize
that this is not a long-term solution, that we will have to
have a way to transition these folks to some future employment,
and that's what it's really about. It's about jobs and that's
what they want.
Some of these folks have been already and the plan is to
continue to try to transition them into the Iraqi security
forces, the army and the police. Many will not be able to do
this, for a lot of reasons. So we're looking at other
alternatives. Some of them are already under way. There are
several trials that are involving a couple thousand of these
people now to get them retrained through vocational schools,
through other economic opportunities.
The answer here in my opinion is as the economic activity
levels increase in Iraq this is really the solution. General
Petraeus and his commanders are certainly aware of this. They
know that we have to have long-term solutions. Again, these are
not all military. We have to have help from the development
agencies and others.
I'm encouraged by the beginnings of investment from outside
private money into Iraq and the future of this country, and
that's the real answer, giving them alternatives. So we know we
have to transition them. We're working to try to effect those
transitions as best we can.
Senator McCaskill. But we have the same challenge in
Afghanistan in terms of alternatives to poppy.
Admiral Fallon. Of course.
Senator McCaskill. I understand the tribal differences and
I understand it's not quite as static as Sunni, Shiite, Kurd as
in Iraq, that it is more complex in Afghanistan. But if what
we're doing in terms of spending money in Afghanistan has not
been successful--and 10 cents on the dollar is certainly not
successful--it seems to me that we need to roll out the full
employment plan in Afghanistan.
Admiral Fallon. I can't vouch for 10 cents on the dollar,
but I can tell you that there are certainly a lot of people
that are intensely focused on trying to make Afghanistan a
success. I would look at their security forces. We are actively
and very positively, I believe, engaged in trying to make this
force--not only allow it to grow, but to grow in a manner that
they're really going to be capable of providing security.
That's coming along.
The real answer is in economic development. But this
country is very different than Iraq. For starters is the
literacy rate. It's in the 30 to 35 percent range. That means
you have limited options when you start talking about economic
opportunities. You have to start somewhere. The good news is
there are millions of youngsters that are in schools now and
that's a really positive sign.
So there's no easy answer to this, this business in
Afghanistan. At the end of the day it's a very different
culture than ours, too, and they're going to have to come up
with Afghan solutions to many of these challenges. We can
advise them, we can be there to help provide security and
stability, which we certainly are, and to encourage them. I get
citizens around the country sending me, almost on a weekly
basis, ideas about things that we might be able to try in
Afghanistan, and I'm anxious to listen to them. Some of them I
think are actually pretty worthwhile. We do what we can to give
these over to our development folks and say, what can you do to
help us?
We're working the problem. We have to have stability and
security as an underpinning, but we know that the real future
in Afghanistan is economic development and we're committed to
try to help.
Senator McCaskill. I worry that the economic development is
going to take so long, and that sometimes what we try to do
militarily is so expensive. Believe me, it's weird that I would
be sitting here pitching for lining up folks and putting them
on the payroll paid for by the American taxpayer. But if in
fact the problem with the poppy and the problem with all the
tribal fighting in Afghanistan and the resurgence of a lot of
the terrorist elements in that country and the Taliban is
because of dire poverty--it took years for us to figure out how
to begin to stabilize in Iraq, and the formula seems to be not
only a good strategy, obviously, by the military, but the fact
that we are now signing up people and giving them money every
month. It seems to me that it's time for an analysis as to how
the employment plan may cost out in terms of a cost-benefit
analysis in terms of the money that we're spending.
Clearly it doesn't appear that we're getting NATO to step
up to do what they need to do to help us. If it's just a matter
of us stretching even more thinly our boots on the ground in
the Middle East, it's weird that I think that this might be a
good idea, because if somebody would have told me I would be
pitching this idea I'd say this is not what I would normally be
doing.
But I would certainly ask that you take a look at that in
terms of just lining people up and paying them like we are the
Sunnis in Iraq.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Do we have any idea how much it would cost us to pay
farmers in Afghanistan--these are the poorest folks--not to
grow poppy? Do we have any idea? I'm not talking about the drug
lords and the places, the heroin labs and the precursor folks.
I'm talking about just those farmers. Do we have any idea, to
pay them 100 bucks a month, what it would cost us?
Admiral Fallon. No, I don't, Senator. But it seems to me
that just paying them money is not the answer. The answer is to
give them a future, give them some viable----
Chairman Levin. I agree. We give them seeds and give them
something else to grow. But do we know how much it would cost?
Admiral Fallon. No. We're working on it. What I'm sensing
is these people have been there for a long time. They're hardy,
they're tough. They've managed to eke out an existence and
thrive to an extent. There are more people in Afghanistan than
Iraq. But they've been in a box. They've been destabilized,
they've been oppressed by the Taliban, other challenges.
We're working on it. Educate them, give them an
opportunity.
Chairman Levin. Let me tell you what I sense after talking
to a whole lot of folks about this issue. The people who are
making the money in Afghanistan are not those farmers. They're
making a little more than they'd make growing other crops. The
people who are making the money are drug lords, drug czars,
people running chemical labs. But we don't go after the drug
lords.
Now, why don't we go after the drug lords? As I understand
it, the order that our forces are operating under is that they
seize narcotics and destroy labs that they come across in the
course of their normal operations, but they do not have an
order to seek and seize and destroy those narcotics labs, which
if you could do that you address the problem.
Why do we not have an interdiction mission in Afghanistan?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I think it's not we don't have a
mission. We're trying to focus on stability and security for
the people of this country, and in the process of course, if
they have an opportunity to engage the drug trade, they're
going to do that. But I've seen an increase in the last several
months of, as we become more effective in engaging in this
country, of starting to get at these what I consider the more
lucrative targets, not working at the farmer and his field end
of the thing, but into the area where they get the refined
drugs.
One of the things I spend time doing as the regional
commander is engaging the other countries, and particularly
those to the north to try to come up with arrangements with
them to be more effective in interdicting this supply. They
have some of the same questions and challenges. This stuff's
coming out of Afghanistan; why can't you guys be more effective
in this?
I think we'll work on it. It's not that our people are
turning a blind eye to this. You know they're working on it.
We'll just have to look and see if we can be more effective.
One of the problems is the corruption issue. It's
traditional here in this country and as we engage with
President Karzai and the leadership we make every effort to try
to influence the right decisions, to get rid of those people
that are identified as corrupt and that are supporting this
drug trade and get them replaced. I think there's no straight
line, but in Helmand Province, the most problematic, certainly
by most measures the most prolific drug producing province, the
governor has just been replaced. President Karzai has put in a
new man. He's been effective in two other provinces, and
hopefully this is the kind of move that's going to provide the
kind of backbone to knocking this stuff off.
Again, my experience as I get around the country, in those
provinces where the governor and the leadership have taken a
strong stand against it then the results follow. So we'll
continue to encourage this kind of activity.
Chairman Levin. Secretary Boucher told this committee in a
recent hearing that the U.S., our Government, preferred to have
Afghan forces seize the drug lords and the heroin labs and the
precursor materials. Then he also acknowledged that Afghan
forces have only had some success with small and medium
traffickers and not a lot of success at the bigger levels.
Then we had a meeting with the British chief of defense,
Sir Jock Stirrup who asserted that the coalition should set a
goal of having two to three high-value drug lords locked up by
the end of the year.
What about it? Why not adopt that? We basically know who
they are. Some of them are pretty high up in the political
support of the Government of Afghanistan. Why do we not just
tell the Afghan Government basically, these drug funds are
being used to support the Taliban, which are out after our men
and women, they're killing us, they're killing your troops? Why
not have an interdiction mission flat-out going after these
laboratories?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I would be very pleased to take on
the drug labs. I think this is where we're probably going to
have much better payoff, again, than working down the food
chain. I'm happy to take that on. I'll be happy to talk to our
commanders and look at it.
I also acknowledge that there's another reality in this
country, and that is that it's very complex. Governance,
effective governance, relies on the allegiance of many, many
tribal entities, and I think finding someone who is completely
lily-white pure in this area and still being effective in
trying to get the allegiances required to move forward is a
challenge. I think President Karzai is acutely aware of it.
Again, they make decisions every day. I see more of them that
are in the right direction than the wrong direction. So we'll
keep at it.
Chairman Levin. Will you get back to us on that issue when
you talk to your commanders, when you take on that mission of
going after the laboratories? Will you, after you have those
discussions, let us know what the outcome is?
Admiral Fallon. Sure.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
There's a terrorist target that was reportedly attacked in
southern Somalia the other day. Do you know what the outcome of
that strike was?
Admiral Fallon. Senator, I'd prefer to do that in a closed
session. We'll be happy to share what I have on it.
Chairman Levin. That's fine.
There's a program in Afghanistan which I briefly talked to
you about yesterday called, in my office, called the National
Solidarity Program. Assistant Secretary of State Boucher again
endorsed a program, this program, the National Solidarity
Program. It's within the Afghanistan Ministry of Rural
Rehabilitation and Development. It provides block grants
directly to locally elected community development councils.
They identify the development projects in their own communities
at very small cost in each community, and there's 16,000
community development councils in Afghanistan. Apparently
there's been like $400 million in payments to those community
development councils, which have financed more than 30,000 sub-
projects in these communities which have improved
infrastructure, markets, services.
Would you take a look at those and tell us from your
perspective whether or not they've been a success? We think
they've been a very important place where some progress at a
local level, much freer of corruption, the progress has taken
place. But I'd like your take on it after you've had a chance
to review that.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
I believe the National Solidarity Program (NSP) to be a valuable
initiative, and I support its intent. The Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan established the NSP in 2003 to empower the grassroots of
Afghan society. It does this by facilitating local governance via
Community Development Councils (CDCs) in more than 20,000 villages
across all 34 of Afghanistan's provinces. CDCs identify and prioritize
community projects and take ownership over each program by contributing
a minimum of 10 percent of cost for each project. The NSP has supported
approximately 34,000 community projects with most oriented on improving
infrastructure such as irrigation and roads. Other projects have
improved access to electricity, safe drinking water, clinics, and
better sanitation. The Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development
implemented the program, which has received approximately $410 million
from an international consortium of donors. The World Bank is the
largest financier. This has been sufficient to run the program, without
direct support from U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Chairman Levin. The question has been raised about these
two negotiating tracks which we're on, and this will be my
final question. Do you know who are negotiating those two
agreements with the Iraqis? Is the military involved in those
negotiations?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. Ambassador Crocker has the lead
for the entire effort in Baghdad. Ambassador Loftus from the
Department of State is specifically the SOFA negotiating agent.
Of course we're involved in them. I've met Ambassador Crocker
all the time. I met with Ambassador Loftus and had a good chat.
I have somebody from my headquarters plugged into his staff. I
understand he's either downrange in Iraq now or headed down
there. So it seems to me that there's a very close relationship
here between the interested parties.
Chairman Levin. Secretary Gates told us that there will be
no security commitment made to Iraq in those agreements. Is
that your understanding?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Admiral Olson. Mr. Chairman, I know we're not allotted any
time in this, but if I can ask for 1 minute to fully address
the question you asked on Predators and ISR.
Chairman Levin. Absolutely.
Admiral Olson.--because I'm uneasy that I left a sense that
we're not being as aggressive as we can be and that we didn't
put it in the President's budget, which we did. We are pressing
ahead with the purchase----
Chairman Levin. I'm sorry. I'm confused. You said that the
money which you had not asked for, that you in fact did ask
for; is that what you're----
Admiral Olson. No, sir. There is $300 million on top of
what we asked for in the President's budget, and I think that's
where the confusion factor was. We did include in the
President's budget a significant amount of money for purchase
and lease of total capability. I meant to say that we are
beholden to the Services for recruiting and providing people,
bandwidth, all of that. We've also become dependent to a large
degree on the global war on terror supplemental for funding the
day-to-day costs of operating our Predators, on top of what's
included in the President's budget as well, to continue the
pace of operations and in fact grow it, as we already have in
our budget. It will require a sustainment of that level of
effort.
But the $300 million specifically was after we submitted
the President's budget we were asked specifically: If there was
more available could you spend it? We did a further analysis
and determined that there is some burden that we could take on
from the services for an additional $300 million of MFP-11
money.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. So it's not that you relied on a
supplemental for that $300 million?
Admiral Olson. Sir, we have ISR funding in the
supplemental, we have ISR funding in our President's budget.
This would be in addition to the supplemental.
Chairman Levin. So there was no signal to you from the
administration that you should not include that request to
them?
Admiral Olson. Sir, these are new items that was based on
additional analysis after we submitted the supplemental.
Chairman Levin. So the answer is there was no signal then
from the administration?
Admiral Olson. That's correct, sir.
Chairman Levin. Again our thanks to both of you. It's been
a long hearing, and we appreciate your work and your commitment
to your missions; and to all the support that you get, we're
grateful to them and to your families. We'll stand adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
levels of violence
1. Senator Akaka. Admiral Fallon, I am pleased and encouraged about
the falling levels of violence across Iraq, and the prospects of a
better future for the Iraqi people. However, I am concerned about other
factors that may be contributing to the reduced number of attacks other
than what can be attributable to the U.S. surge in forces last year. To
what degree do you figure that the nation-wide ceasefire order from
Shiite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr has played in reducing violence
throughout the country, and especially around Baghdad?
Admiral Fallon. Muqtada Al-Sadr's 29 August 2007 ``freeze'' order,
which he renewed for 6 months on 22 February 2008, has certainly
contributed to reduced violence levels, particularly the intra-Shia
violence in the southern provinces. However, it is important to note
elements of the Jaysh al Mahdi, especially the Iranian-backed Special
Groups, continue to conduct attacks against the coalition in violation
of the ``freeze'' order. Sadr's ``freeze'' added to other factors--most
notably the U.S. surge, the disruption of al Qaeda in Iraq, more
effective Iraqi security forces, and the success of local Sunni
security initiatives--to create a synergistic effect that has reduced
violence levels in Baghdad and the surrounding areas. Thus, Sadr's
``freeze'' order has been one factor among many with contributed to
lowering levels of violence.
troop levels
2. Senator Akaka. Admiral Fallon, assuming the number of attacks
remains manageable enough, and that increasing numbers and capabilities
of the Iraqi security forces will allow the United States to continue
the withdrawal of military forces after the summer ``pause'', what
prospects do you give for long-term stability between Sunni and Shia
factions within Iraq at the reduced troop levels?
Admiral Fallon. We are optimistic, despite the uncertainty in Iraq,
that the positive trends we have observed will continue in the next
year and that the prospects for long-term stability between Sunni and
Shia are excellent. The reduction in civil sectarian violence in Iraq
during the past year has been significant, and has allowed Iraq's Sunni
and Shia to focus on a shared adversary, foreign-inspired terrorist-
extremists. The increasing, albeit slow progress on Iraq's political
front demonstrates Sunni/Shia cooperation in a manner that fosters
stability and non-violent resolution of political competition in Iraq.
The growth of localized Sunni security institutions, particularly
tribal security organizations, has encouraged Sunni cooperation and
reconciliation with the Government of Iraq. By giving Sunnis a greater
stake and greater control in the self-governance of their own
communities, the Sunni security initiatives are creating greater long-
term stability between Sunni and Shia factions in Iraq.
opium production
3. Senator Akaka. Admiral Fallon, recent reports before this
committee have highlighted the importance of addressing the opium
production problem in Afghanistan as a prerequisite to coalition
success. What is being done to compensate Afghani farmers for giving up
their poppy crop growing, both financially and in terms of protecting
them and their families from retribution by the Taliban insurgent
forces, for cooperating with coalition objectives?
Admiral Fallon. The State Department's Bureau for International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs serves as the lead implementing
agency on narcotics issues in Afghanistan. Their partner for
Alternative Development in Afghanistan is the United States Agency for
International Development.
The military role in this effort is clear; development activities
can not occur where there is not sufficient security. The NATO led
International Security Assistance Force has integrated counternarcotics
into the broader security strategy and routinely incorporates
development activities as follow-on to security operations.
The challenges of implementing the Alternative Development program
are daunting. Economic growth in Afghanistan is hampered by massive
infrastructure deficits, a shortage of skilled human capital,
insecurity, corruption, weak legal and regulatory regimes, and poor
access to seaports, among other factors. Despite the significant
progress made, given Afghanistan's incredibly low starting point, years
of work remain in order to build a modern and regionally competitive
Afghan economy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
iran
4. Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Fallon, is the President of Iran's
claim that, ``Iran now rivaled the United States in terms of influence
in Iraq'' realistic?
Admiral Fallon. Instead of attempting to quantify President
Ahmadinejad's claim, I think the focus should be Iraq is a sovereign
nation. As such, they have the right to diplomatically engage with
their neighbors; including Iran. The reality is that some Iraqi
politicians have characterized President Ahmadinejad's recent visit to
be a positive step in developing good relations with a neighboring
Muslim state.
In the bigger picture, Iranian activity throughout the area of the
Arabian Gulf is not helpful. Iranian support for terrorism and the
export of sectarian violence beyond its borders is a destabilizing and
troubling influence. Iran is emboldened in their recent behavior and
actively seeks to play a more assertive role within Iraq, such as in
their support for Shia extremists. As a direct result of the visit,
Ambassador Crocker expressed hope that Iran would now deal in a more
positive, constructive manner with Iraq's Government and people, and
stop assisting groups that damage Iraq's stability and security. In
addition, he also hopes Iran's visit would send a clear message to
Iraq's Arab neighbors that they need to engage more with Iraq because
they too have vested interests that may be in danger if they continue
their current diplomatic inertia. The U.S. Mission in Iraq will
continue pressing these key Arab neighbors to open embassies and send
ambassadors to Baghdad.
equipment needs--aircraft full motion video cameras
5. Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Fallon and Admiral Olson, is there
another Service organization besides Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
that could acquire and maintain the aircraft you require to fulfill
Central Command (CENTCOM)'s operational requirement for aircraft with
full motion video cameras?
Admiral Fallon. All Service components and the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization are capable of, and are actively
acquiring and fielding, manned and/or unmanned platforms for the
purpose of intelligence collection using full motion video (FMV). As
stated, in testimony by Admiral Olson, the immediate Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) shortfall, in regards to
processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED); is manning and
intelligence exploitation. It is critical that ISR systems be developed
and fielded with consideration to the entire system, end-to-end, to
include theater bandwidth and communications architecture integration.
Admiral Olson. The Services have large airborne ISR FMV programs
that can provide the detailed information needed by Special Operations
Forces (SOF). However, Service platforms were designed for different
target sets. SOF unique target sets require far more persistence and a
different degree of stand-off than that needed by the target sets the
Service common ISR platforms were designed for. Additionally, Service
common ISR FMV programs are currently insufficient to cover the service
common demand in the CENTCOM, leaving very little to cover any other
Geographic Combatant Command (GCC) theater demands.
Navy programs include P-3/EP-3 and Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
(BAMS). The P-3 fleet is aging and replacement does not begin until
2012 for P-3 (P-8) and 2018 for EP-3. BAMS is still in the research and
development (R&D) stage.
Army programs include the Extended Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP)
Unmanned Aircraft System (Warrior) and Guardrail. The Guardrail is also
aging. The Warrior is FMV capable but has a limited ability to
disseminate its data and is not yet available in sufficient numbers.
Air Force programs include Predator, Global Hawk, U-2, RC-135,
Senior Scout, Scathe View, and E-8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack
Radar System (JSTARS). Only the Predator and Scathe View are FMV
capable; the current planned Predator and Scathe View inventory is
insufficient. The Air Force is reportedly making plans to substantially
increase the size of the Predator fleet. SOCOM encourages this
development as it brings needed capability to the current Operation
Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) fight and to the
post OIF/OEF environment.
Airborne FMV ISR must be thought of as a whole system (pilots,
sensor operators, exploiters, architecture, etc.). Airborne FMV ISR
sensors collect data; PED and then converts that data into
intelligence. Service common PED is designed to convert collected data
into intelligence to support conventional force needs. Operational
experience has demonstrated that Service common PED does not meet SOF
needs.
Based on lessons-learned, SOF has developed its own PED capability/
capacity with SOF unique tactics, techniques, and procedures.
Experience consistently shows that SOF ISR, or Service ISR supporting
SOF combined with SOF unique PED, leads to dramatic increases in
actionable intelligence. Conversely, experience shows that lack of SOF
unique PED support makes ISR dramatically less effective. Current SOF
unique PED capacity is insufficient.
Distributed Command Ground Systems (DCGS) is the current
exploitation program for the Services; in addition, some of the
Services heavily leverage combat support agency (CSA) exploitation
capabilities. There are substantial differences between the DCGS
programs. The Air Force DCGS combines manpower, systems, equipment, and
facilities to provide a PED capability and capacity for ISR assets. The
other Service DCGS programs are mostly equipment-centric. The current
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) led DCGS efforts are
focusing on improving interoperability and data sharing among the DCGS
programs. Discussions about improvements in interoperability have not
been accompanied by discussions on growing PED capacity. Similarly,
discussions on Service common ISR growth are not being matched by
discussions on Service common PED growth. It is important to note that
SOF unique PED does rely heavily on intelligence generated by Service
common ISR and PED. Furthermore, SOF units in the field often receive
time-sensitive direct support from conventional ISR and PED. SOCOM
needs conventional force ISR and PED support to remain in place; they
are a critical enabling capability for SOF. SOCOM encourages the
Services and the combat support agencies to increase their Service
common PED capacities and align them with the projected Service common
ISR growth.
Due to its unique target set and insufficient Service common ISR
and PED, SOCOM has grown and is growing its SOF unique ISR and PED
capability and capacity to meet SOF needs. The global war on terror
requires far more ISR and PED than was ever envisioned. Based on sheer
volume alone, SOCOM will not be able to grow all the SOF unique ISR and
PED necessary to meet the SOF demand. SOCOM will grow its fair share
and make SOF-peculiar modifications to Service capabilities as
required, but it continues to look to the Services and CSAs to expand
their ISR and PED support for the global war on terror.
6. Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Fallon and Admiral Olson, are you
looking into this?
Admiral Fallon. CENTCOM through the Joint Force Management and
Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) processes has consistently
documented operational needs (including theater SOF requirements) for
Aircraft (both manned and unmanned platforms) with FMV capability.
Currently there are eight open JUONs that have FMV as a critical
component. The acquisition of additional platforms with FMV
capabilities along with requisite PED capabilities will greatly enhance
the warfighter's ability to track and target enemy activities. The
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) is currently investigating
FMV solutions, as persistent ISR is CENTCOM's number two issue on the
Integrated Priority Listing (IPL).
Admiral Olson. The Services have large airborne ISR FMV programs
that can provide the detailed information needed by SOF. However,
Service platforms were designed for different target sets. SOF unique
target sets require far more persistence and a different degree of
stand-off than that needed by the target sets the Service common ISR
platforms were designed for. Additionally, Service common ISR FMV
programs are currently insufficient to cover the Service common demand
in the CENTCOM, leaving very little to cover any other Geographic
Combatant Command (GCC) theater demands.
Navy programs include P-3/EP-3 and BAMS. The P-3 fleet is aging and
replacement does not begin until 2012 for P-3 (P-8) and 2018 for EP-3.
BAMS is still in the R&D stage.
Army programs include the ERMP Unmanned Aircraft System (Warrior)
and Guardrail. The Guardrail is also aging. The Warrior is FMV capable
but has a limited ability to disseminate its data and is not yet
available in sufficient numbers.
Air Force programs include Predator, Global Hawk, U-2, RC-135,
Senior Scout, Scathe View, and E-8 JSTARS. Only the Predator and Scathe
View are FMV capable; the current planned Predator and Scathe View
inventory is insufficient. The Air Force is reportedly making plans to
substantially increase the size of the Predator fleet. SOCOM encourages
this development as it brings needed capability to the current OIF/OEF
fight and to the post OIF/OEF environment.
Airborne FMV ISR must be thought of as a whole system (pilots,
sensor operators, exploiters, architecture, etc.). Airborne FMV ISR
sensors collect data; PED and then converts that data into
intelligence. Service common PED is designed to convert collected data
into intelligence to support conventional force needs. Operational
experience has demonstrated that Service common PED does not meet SOF
needs. Based on lessons-learned, SOF has developed its own PED
capability/capacity with SOF unique tactics, techniques, and
procedures. Experience consistently shows that SOF ISR, or Service ISR
supporting SOF combined with SOF unique PED, leads to dramatic
increases in actionable intelligence. Conversely, experience shows that
lack of SOF unique PED support makes ISR dramatically less effective.
Current SOF unique PED capacity is insufficient.
DCGS is the current exploitation program for the Services; in
addition, some of the Services heavily leverage CSA exploitation
capabilities. There are substantial differences between the DCGS
programs. The Air Force DCGS combines manpower, systems, equipment, and
facilities to provide a PED capability and capacity for ISR assets. The
other Service DCGS programs are mostly equipment-centric. The current
USDI led DCGS efforts are focusing on improving interoperability and
data sharing among the DCGS programs. Discussions about improvements in
interoperability have not been accompanied by discussions on growing
PED capacity. Similarly, discussions on Service common ISR growth are
not being matched by discussions on Service common PED growth. It is
important to note that SOF unique PED does rely heavily on intelligence
generated by Service common ISR and PED. Furthermore, SOF units in the
field often receive time-sensitive direct support from conventional ISR
and PED. SOCOM needs conventional force ISR and PED support to remain
in place; they are a critical enabling capability for SOF. SOCOM
encourages the Services and the combat support agencies to increase
their Service common PED capacities and align them with the projected
Service common ISR growth.
Due to its unique target set and insufficient Service common ISR
and PED, SOCOM has grown and is growing its SOF unique ISR and PED
capability and capacity to meet SOF needs. The global war on terror
requires far more ISR and PED than was ever envisioned. Based on sheer
volume alone, SOCOM will not be able to grow all the SOF unique ISR and
PED necessary to meet the SOF demand. SOCOM will grow its fair share
and make SOF-peculiar modifications to Service capabilities as
required, but it continues to look to the Services and CSAs to expand
their ISR and PED support for the global war on terror.
7. Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Fallon and Admiral Olson, do you
believe that Congress should fund this requirement on the supplemental?
Admiral Fallon. Yes. The acquisition of full motion video has been
validated as an urgent need at various levels throughout the Department
of Defense (DOD). Currently there are eight open Joint Urgent
Operational Needs that involve full motion video capability. The
acquisition of additional full motion video capabilities will greatly
enhance the warfighter's ability to track enemy activities, resulting
in successful operations while significantly reducing American and
Coalition loss of life.
Admiral Olson. The Services have large airborne ISR FMV programs
that can provide the detailed information needed by SOF. However,
Service platforms were designed for different target sets. SOF unique
target sets require far more persistence and a different degree of
stand-off than that needed by the target sets the Service common ISR
platforms were designed for. Additionally, Service common ISR FMV
programs are currently insufficient to cover the Service common demand
in the CENTCOM, leaving very little to cover any other Geographic
Combatant Command theater demands.
Navy programs include P-3/EP-3 and BAMS. The P-3 fleet is aging and
replacement does not begin until 2012 for P-3 (P-8) and 2018 for EP-3.
BAMS is still in the R&D stage.
Army programs include the ERMP Unmanned Aircraft System (Warrior)
and Guardrail. The Guardrail is also aging. The Warrior is FMV capable
but has a limited ability to disseminate its data and is not yet
available in sufficient numbers.
Air Force programs include Predator, Global Hawk, U-2, RC-135,
Senior Scout, Scathe View, and E-8 JSTARS. Only the Predator and Scathe
View are FMV capable; the current planned Predator and Scathe View
inventory is insufficient. The Air Force is reportedly making plans to
substantially increase the size of the Predator fleet. SOCOM encourages
this development as it brings needed capability to the current OIF/OEF
fight and to the post OIF/OEF environment.
Airborne FMV ISR must be thought of as a whole system (pilots,
sensor operators, exploiters, architecture, etc.). Airborne FMV ISR
sensors collect data; PED and then converts that data into
intelligence. Service common PED is designed to convert collected data
into intelligence to support conventional force needs.
Operational experience has demonstrated that Service common PED
does not meet SOF needs. Based on lessons-learned, SOF has developed
its own PED capability/capacity with SOF unique tactics, techniques,
and procedures. Experience consistently shows that SOF ISR, or Service
ISR supporting SOF combined with SOF unique PED, leads to dramatic
increases in actionable intelligence. Conversely, experience shows that
lack of SOF unique PED support makes ISR dramatically less effective.
Current SOF unique PED capacity is insufficient.
DCGS is the current exploitation program for the Services; in
addition, some of the Services heavily leverage CSA exploitation
capabilities. There are substantial differences between the DCGS
programs. The Air Force DCGS combines manpower, systems, equipment, and
facilities to provide a PED capability and capacity for ISR assets. The
other Service DCGS programs are mostly equipment-centric. The current
USDI led DCGS efforts are focusing on improving interoperability and
data sharing among the DCGS programs. Discussions about improvements in
interoperability have not been accompanied by discussions on growing
PED capacity. Similarly, discussions on Service common ISR growth are
not being matched by discussions on Service common PED growth. It is
important to note that SOF unique PED does rely heavily on intelligence
generated by Service common ISR and PED. Furthermore, SOF units in the
field often receive time-sensitive direct support from conventional ISR
and PED. SOCOM needs conventional force ISR and PED support to remain
in place; they are a critical enabling capability for SOF. SOCOM
encourages the Services and the combat support agencies to increase
their Service common PED capacities and align them with the projected
Service common ISR growth.
Due to its unique target set and insufficient Service common ISR
and PED, SOCOM has grown and is growing its SOF unique ISR and PED
capability and capacity to meet SOF needs. The global war on terror
requires far more ISR and PED than was ever envisioned. Based on sheer
volume alone, SOCOM will not be able to grow all the SOF unique ISR and
PED necessary to meet the SOF demand. SOCOM will grow its fair share
and make SOF-peculiar modifications to Service capabilities as
required, but it continues to look to the Services and CSAs to expand
their ISR and PED support for the global war on terror.
pakistani training mission
8. Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Olson, do you have plans for SOCOM
to provide trainers to the Pakistanis in order to better develop their
capabilities for irregular warfare operations in the tribal regions?
Admiral Olson. [Deleted.]
9. Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Olson, are the Pakistanis willing
to accept the level of help that is really needed to meet the
challenges they face?
Admiral Olson. [Deleted.]
10. Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Olson, are the local recruits that
Pakistan plans to use for this new mission likely to be reliable?
Admiral Olson. [Deleted.]
assessment of indirect military actions
11. Senator Bill Nelson. Admiral Olson, what is your assessment of
our Government's performance in meeting the challenge of those indirect
military actions required to defeat the terrorist threat throughout
your area of responsibility?
Admiral Olson. At this juncture, we have not yet sufficiently met
the challenge of effectively and efficiently implementing the indirect
military actions required to defeat the global terrorist threat.
This correlates with our analysis that highlights the need for an
increased emphasis on the indirect approach at this time. Within this
indirect approach, DOD should increase endeavors to enable our Partner
Nations (PNs) to help us further reshape the environment around our
enemies to reduce their capacity and popular support. In addition, DOD
needs to bolster its participation and contributions to the whole-of-
government effort, specifically with regard to a reinvigorated
strategic communication campaign.
From a strategic perspective, we need to prevent the emergence of
new violent extremist threats, particularly those that pose strategic
threats to the U.S. and our PNs. To date, we have demonstrated success
in this endeavor. Yet, existing extremist groups continue gaining
support and now seek to align themselves with better known ``brand
names,'' in an effort to increase their legitimacy among their current
and likely constituency. The creation of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and al
Qaeda in Magreb (AQIM) are prime examples of this trend. Increasing our
ability to support the development of capable governments in countries
with at risk populations, and the development of a PN-focused network
capable of delivering culturally effective messages that deter the
emergence of new generations of extremist organizations, is vital to
long term success in this venue.
Meanwhile we have had mixed results in isolating threats to the
regional or local levels, as many VEOs remain as strategic threats. The
outcome of the global effort to deprive terrorist organizations of the
assets and resources needed to wage war over the long-term has been
limited. Unfortunately, DOD support to United States Government and PN
actions has neither denied a sufficient number of extremists their
access to funds nor their freedom to acquire resources and to recruit
adherents and operatives in the global market place.
On the other hand, DOD has been effective in defeating threats once
they are isolated, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. VEOs, such as
al Qaeda, have felt the effects of DOD action manifested in significant
losses and in precipitating their retreat to sanctuaries as opposed to
openly operating among the populace. Yet as fast as we eliminate or
capture enemy leaders and fighters, sufficient numbers of recruits and
support flow into these organizations. This reality demonstrates the
limitation of the direct approach--eliminating enemy combat elements
which can be replaced is not enough to achieve long term victory. We
must employ additional indirect actions to nullify the extremist
networks' strategic capability and capacity to generate and project
power.
Likewise, we must prevent the reconstitution of VEOs, such as the
Taliban in Afghanistan. Success depends on the establishment of a PN
network that refuses to support extremist organizations or to permit
their populations to support terrorism. Many nations continue to
develop counterterrorism (CT) capabilities. DOD, however, has been
limited in its progress to enable PN CT programs.
While DOD deems enabling PNs to combat VEOs as the decisive
military effort in the ongoing struggle, a comprehensive and integrated
strategic communication campaign is also critical to countering the
appeal of the extremist ideology. DOD must continue working with the
U.S. Government lead, the Department of State, to help develop and
implement this program. Still, this effort is complicated by the
likelihood that almost any publically revealed strategic communication
effort linked to DOD will lack legitimacy in the eyes of many targeted
populations. As such, DOD and the U.S. Government must also work with
PNs to spread the anti-VEO message by amplifying moderate voices that
speak out against terrorism.
Finally, to sufficiently meet the global challenge of implementing
those indirect military actions required to defeat the terrorist
threat, DOD will most likely need to realign resources. Operations
designed to remove our enemies' freedom to act and move within
vulnerable populations may require a more persistent application over
several years. Due to the less tangible nature, the longer approach and
the increased challenge of measuring success in these types of
operations, patience will be required to reap success.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman,
Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Webb, McCaskill,
Warner, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Dole, Thune,
Martinez, and Wicker.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel;
Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; Creighton Greene, professional
staff member; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; Michael J.
Noblet, professional staff member; and William K. Sutey,
professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw,
Republican staff director; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff
member; David M. Morriss, minority counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer,
professional staff member; Sean J. Stackley, professional staff
member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard
F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Fletcher L. Cork, Kevin A.
Cronin, and Brian F. Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: Jay Maroney,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; Darcie Tokioka, assistant to Senator Akaka;
Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Andrew R.
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey,
assistant to Senator Bayh; M. Bradford Foley, assistant to
Senator Pryor; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb;
Stephen C. Hedger, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Sandra Luff,
assistant to Senator Warner; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to
Senator Inhofe; Todd Stiefler, assistant to Senator Sessions;
Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Lindsey
Neas, assistant to Senator Dole; Jason Van Beek, assistant to
Senator Thune; Brian W. Walsh, assistant to Senator Martinez;
and Erskine W. Wells III, assistant to Senator Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody.
This morning, we welcome Secretary Wynne and General
Moseley back to the committee. As we do on these occasions, let
us ask both of you to extend, on behalf of the committee, our
gratitude to the men and women of the Air Force, and their
families, for the many sacrifices that they have made, and will
continue to make on behalf of our Nation. Thanks to both of you
for your careers of leadership and service.
A number of critical issues confront the Air Force.
Although not at the same operating tempo as the Army and the
Marine Corps, the Air Force faces the difficult challenge in
balancing its modernization needs against the costs of
supporting ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We
understand that you, General Moseley, have said that you
require something like an additional $20 billion per year,
beyond the budget request, to maintain and modernize the Air
Force. We also know that each of the other Services are facing
their own modernization and readiness challenges. So, we'd like
to hear from both of you this morning about the risks that
will, in your opinion, face future Secretaries and Chiefs of
Staff if additional resources are not provided, but also
whether you requested additional funds from the administration
when discussing your budget with them.
We know that the Air Force is providing forces to the
Central Command (CENTCOM) war efforts in a number of
traditional roles, but it is also providing airmen in support
of land-component tasks and the so-called in-lieu-of (ILO)
missions. According to the witnesses' prepared statements,
there are more than 6,200 airmen currently performing that
mission in the theater now. I think we should hear from the
witnesses about what systems are in place to cushion the impact
of these ILOs being where they're at on the organizations who
are giving up these airmen for those ILO deployments.
On the acquisition front, one of the challenges facing the
Air Force is in space systems. All of the Air Force space
satellite systems are in the process of modernization and
replacement, and all have seen substantial cost growth and
schedule delays. In many instances the initial cost and
schedule predictions were unrealistic, and in others the
technical risk was greater than thought or not well understood,
and others suffered from poor management or execution. Some of
these programs are showing improvement, but most are not out of
the woods yet. As a result, space program costs have increased
substantially overall.
Another challenge facing the Department is the potential
closure of several production lines and what effects those
closings might have on meeting warfighting requirements. The
production program that has had the most prominent discussion
of the past several years is that of the C-17. Two years ago,
Congress added 10 C-17 aircraft to the fiscal year 2007
supplemental request. Then, last year, the Air Force budget for
fiscal year 2008 did not include any funding to keep the C-17
production line open. Congress authorized procurement of eight
additional C-17s in fiscal year 2008, but no funds have yet
been appropriated for those aircraft.
General Moseley has been quoted as saying that he would
like to retire C-5A aircraft and buy more C-17 aircraft. In
fact, you've requested 15 more C-17s on your unfunded priority
list, at a cost of approximately $3.9 billion.
At one point, the Air Force had been discussing a so-called
30-30 option, wherein 30 C-5As would be replaced by 30 new C-
17s. The analysis supporting the Reliability Enhancement and
Re-engining Program (RERP) certification of the Under Secretary
of Defense reviewed that very option, but rejected it because
it would not meet requirements.
So we should hear from you this morning, General Moseley,
about whether your unfunded priority list for buying more C-17s
is part of a plan to retire C-5As or whether they would be
added to the airlift force, and whether you made your case for
the C-17s to the Department of Defense (DOD) for inclusion in
the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
On the C-5 modernization program, the Air Force's RERP has
recently been granted a waiver under the Nunn-McCurdy process.
It was invoked when that effort ran into cost problems. The
program has now been scaled back to a total program of
performing that re-engining on the 49 C-5Bs and 2 C-5C aircraft
in the fleet, and dropping the C-5A aircraft from the program.
Does dropping the C-5As from that program result in having
insufficient strategic airlift capability?
So, in summary, we need to hear about the Air Force's plans
for airlift modernization and sustainment.
Another program facing production shutdown is the F-22. The
fiscal year 2009 budget for F-22 includes neither funds for
advanced procurement of additional aircraft in 2010, nor money
to pay for line shutdown charges. We think the Air Force's view
is clear on this. General Moseley's unfunded priority list for
fiscal year 2009 includes almost $500 million for advanced
procurement for 24 aircraft that would be produced in a later
fiscal year. However, others within the DOD hold the view that
the currently approved program of 183 F-22 aircraft is enough
to meet the needs of the warfighters. So, the committee needs
to hear more about those differing views this morning.
On the tanker issue, the Air Force has not provided, yet,
any details describing the basis under which the winner of the
competition was selected. We appreciate that the Air Force
leadership took special measures to ensure transparency with
Congress in the tanker acquisition process leading up to the
selection of the winning contractor team. I believe that the
Air Force is following appropriate procedures in waiting to
provide details of the decision to Congress until the Air Force
has briefed the participating contractors, and we would welcome
any comments or clarification, as appropriate, this morning.
Underlying all of these major acquisition concerns is an
acquisition management issue. Secretary Wynne, when you came
into this job, you recognized that you would have to take
significant steps to build up the acquisition workforce and to
restore confidence in the Air Force acquisition system after
the abuses and poor decisions, that were previously documented,
on the tanker lease program. We talked last year about that
effort. But, again this year, we'd like to hear from you of any
progress on that front.
In the operational arena, the Air Force has been challenged
to review the procedures under which it manages and protects
access to nuclear weapons. We all know about the incident of
the B-52 carrying nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base
(AFB) to Barksdale AFB, when standard nuclear weapons handling
procedures were violated. It would be useful to hear what the
Air Force has done, both in making corrective actions and in
holding accountable those responsible for the failures involved
in that incident.
So, we look forward to hearing your testimony this morning
on these and other issues that face the Air Force. Again, we're
grateful for your service and for your presence here this
morning.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it's interesting, the Air Force celebrated
its 60th birthday in September, and I judge that you and I have
sat here for 30 years, half the life of the Air Force, working
on these budgets. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. Well, we don't look that old. The Air Force
sure looks that old, but we don't look that old. [Laughter.]
Senator Warner. This budget poses a challenge. The chairman
pointed that out. But, I certainly want to recognize the
tremendous contribution that the men and women in uniform, and
your large civilian component, are performing on behalf of this
Nation all over the world. You should take great pride in it.
I checked, the other day. You've been in the CENTCOM area
for 17 years taking an active role from the first Gulf war to
enforcement of Iraq no-fly zones all during that interregnum
period with the Navy, and now Operations Enduring Freedom and
Iraqi Freedom. Those deployments, in addition to operations in
Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere throughout the world in support
of humanitarian efforts, have made the maximum use of the Air
Force air expeditionary concept. I don't think there's a
Senator around this table that hasn't ridden in the aircraft
operated by the Air Force, particularly the old C-130s, the Air
Guard, a magnificent part of your organization. All of us
remember the flights, every hour on the hour, into Bosnia and
Sarajevo, back in that stressful period of time. In our visits
to Iraq and Afghanistan, it's usually the old workhorse, the C-
130, that takes us around.
It's interesting, this morning I was reading, with great
interest, the acceleration of China's budget. I stopped to
think; the role of the Air Force in balancing the interests of
the United States in China and that region is really critical.
You have a few problems in here, and the chairman touched
on them, but I'd like to add a few of my own views.
We're back again with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Program, and we simply have the funding for the single engine.
This committee has taken the lead, I think I have been in the
forefront of that, to provide for the competition and the
reliability, which history points out is essential to a program
of this magnitude, and particularly where we have, now, a
number of foreign partners in it, and that could even grow.
Consequently, I think we have an obligation to this
contract and the foreign participation to make sure we have
that two-engine. I don't think there's any contract that I can
think of in the history that I've been affiliated with the
Pentagon, which is quite a few years, with that large a
participation by other nations in buying in and sharing in that
program.
So, that's a challenge that the committee will have, and I
feel pretty confident the committee can work that out, as it
has in years past.
Now, the chairman very carefully pointed out about the
conflicting messages with your C-17s and the C-5s and he went
all through the C-17 production line. I've been on this
committee with all of us working it out. But, the plain fact of
the matter is, the C-17 is one of the finest aircraft that
we've ever produced, and we have to continue, somehow, to make
this aircraft available.
Similarly, with the F-22, this conflict between ``it's not
in the budget, but there's no shutdown,'' leaves us up just to
work with you to figure out how we're going to go through that.
I'm going to read this carefully: ``Continuing on the theme
of the budget being incomplete, the Air Force has submitted an
unfunded priorities list of items that did not make it into the
final budget request, that totals $18.7 million.'' Despite the
fact the Air Force budget has grown by nearly 35 percent in
constant dollars since 2001, the Air Force's unfunded list this
year is 4 times the size of the Navy list, 5 times as large as
the Army, and 10 times the Marine Corps.
I guess if you don't ask, you don't get, but we're going to
have to work our way through that in an equitable manner as it
relates to the other components, that is, the Army, the Navy,
and the Marine Corps.
So, we will carefully follow your testimony today. The
chairman mentioned our concern about the nuclear weapons
handling incident.
As we increase the end strength of the Army and the Marine
Corps, how do you intend to adjust your end strength?
The new cyber command is of great interest to me, and, I'm
sure, others.
The interesting thing that you told me, Mr. Secretary, is
about the use of alternative fuels to help alleviate the energy
crisis. I hope you have an opportunity to discuss that.
So, we're looking at this budget like the old song, ``We're
coming in on a wing and a prayer,'' and it's going to take a
lot of praying to work these things out for your folks.
I also want to add my thoughts about this tanker contract.
If you'll recall, there's a reprogramming action that worked
its way through Congress, and the two committees in the House
approved it. The Appropriations Committee in the Senate
approved it, and then myself and others, I was chairman at that
time on this committee, we felt that that contract wasn't
correct. The rest is history. We've lost a lot of time. I join
the chairman in saying that we will work in reviewing with you
how you performed the steps under the law to reach your
conclusion, but I want you to know, I feel very strongly that
Congress should not get into the business of trying to rewrite
a contract, particularly one of this magnitude and complexity,
as it might suit other members. So, I intend to support the
contract; nevertheless, we'll look at it carefully. But, I'm
confident, once we've finished that exam, we can go forward
with this contract.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Secretary Wynne.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL W. WYNNE, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
Secretary Wynne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of America's Air Force.
Thank you, as well, for your support on our improved
readiness, via retirement and recapitalization. We're working
hard to see this through. Today, we urge you to quickly pass
the pending supplemental, as it will help.
Across the total force of Active, Guard, Reserve, and
civilian, we are America's strategic shield in air, space, and
cyberspace. We are contributing to today's fight with
increasing ordnance drops, and we stand watch at the missile
fields; we stand ready in the nuclear field; and we are an
effective air superiority and strike force to both deter and
dissuade any opponent who may consider our forces to be
stretched in the global war on terror.
We're gratified to hear that role reaffirmed by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a deliberate message
to those who might seek to dissuade or deter us from our own
options in the future. This is why we seek to move forward, and
not backward, into fifth-generation fighters, into new
expeditionary tankers, and into new long-range strike assets. I
can report to you that we did complete the award for the new
KC-45 air refueling tanker. This tanker decision is a major
step in the Air Force's critical recapitalization and
modernization effort. It is why we seek to modernize space
assets, as the executive agent for space, and not see further
fragmentation of the management of this now vulnerable area. It
is why we have established the cyberspace command and see this
as a warfighting domain in which we need to dominate to remain
a net-centric force for the future.
Clearly, beyond the global war on terror, we must not lose
America's asymmetric advantage in strategic forces. Your Air
Force has been in the fight for 17 years, as you acknowledge,
and yet has, over the same 17 years, seen underfunded
modernization. We thank you for initiatives to restore fleet
management to the United States Air Force, a responsibility we
don't take lightly. When General Moseley and I came to our
posts, we set about a strategy to restructure our Air Force, to
truly develop a lean and efficient Air Force in order to
husband the resources for investment. We worry about the
industrial base and the need to look after any open line. I am
pleased to report to you that the Department and the Air Force
have indicated a desire to essentially not close the F-22 line,
and to develop a long-range threat asset. It is to these that
we would like to apply the saved resources over the near term
while the F-35 proves itself through rigorous tests and is
effectively capped on production. We ask that you agree with an
approach for the F-22 aircraft, while we work to restore our
readiness with younger aircraft.
The F-35 and the F-22 are complementary. The F-22 is
bigger, faster, planned to fly higher, and can carry more air-
to-air weapons internally. Also, with less than 20 penetrating
bombers in our current fleet, it is time to develop an
alternative, as well. We have talked about being underfunded,
but, here, have worked to offer a balanced budget, prioritized
to best defend America, and we will continue to do that over
the Future Years Defense Program.
The Air Force research laboratories are well engaged in
technology development, expanding the opportunities for energy
alternatives, while reducing our demand in our fleet and at our
bases, also on unmanned flight, in propulsion, in material
science, as well as in human effectiveness.
As regards space, at Kirtland AFB, a branch of the Air
Force research laboratory is creating inherently defensive
space assets. In cyberspace, career development, including the
Air Force Institute of Technology, and also warfighting schools
are keys. Combat commanders and agencies partner with us in
this increasingly contested domain.
I have worked in space for almost two decades, and have
worked in commercial and classified space as a supplier and a
customer. We need consolidated leadership to maintain our
current strategic advantage. Congress asked for a relook at
responses to the Space Commission, and we should really
consider what's in the report. The Air Force is undergoing
back-to-basics, as well as back-to-blue, complementary efforts
to restore a steady demand and a knowledge base to execute on
that demand. I recommend we keep the executive agency exactly
where it is, which is in the Air Force shop.
I have engaged airmen in both theaters of operation, and
they have asked about the continuation of our presence and the
continuation of the ground-force tasking, referred to as ILO
tasking. My answer is, they performed so well that our Army
colleagues don't want to give them up. They do perform well,
many winning Bronze and Silver Stars. Your Air Force is
currently protecting the sovereignty of these fledgling
nations, and, until their air forces can do that, I would not
be surprised to see our Air Force requested to remain. This is
why we are reexamining our force structure, though we have
prioritized, right now, recapitalization in the President's
budget.
I again thank you for the privilege of leading the best Air
Force in the world. Every day, our airmen earn the respect of
our friends and enemies. We worry about their quality of life
as we seek efficiencies and as we implement joint basing, but
we never worry about the sense of mission they bring to the
task.
I will not have the privilege to represent them in this
setting for the force posture again, and I hope I have
reflected their pride in service, as I have felt, myself.
I'm ready to take your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Wynne and
General Moseley follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Hon. Michael W. Wynne and Gen. T. Michael
Moseley, USAF
1.0 executive summary
The United States Air Force provides the Nation with a powerful
deterrent force in times of peace, and it sets the conditions for joint
and coalition victory in times of war. For over 17 years, since
Operation Desert Shield, the United States Air Force has been engaged
in continuous combat operations. Our airmen have maintained constant
watch, deployed continuously, engaged America's adversaries directly,
responded to human crises around the world, and provided the Global
Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power to secure our Nation.
Global Vigilance
The ability to gain and maintain awareness--to keep an unblinking
eye on any entity--anywhere in the world; to provide warning and to
determine intent, opportunity, capability, or vulnerability; then to
fuse this information with data received from other Services or
agencies and use and share relevant information with the Joint Force
Commander.
Global Reach
The ability to project military capability responsively--with
unrivaled velocity and precision--to any point on or above the earth,
and provide mobility to rapidly supply, position, or reposition Joint
Forces.
Global Power
The ability to hold at risk or strike any target anywhere in the
world, assert national sovereignty, safeguard joint freedom of action,
and achieve swift, decisive, precise effects.
Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power constitute
America's edge--America's asymmetric advantage that shapes the global
security environment. Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power
are vital to our National Security Strategy, as conveyed through the
decision superiority they allow, the military options they provide, and
the influence they command. However, in a world of increasing
uncertainty, volatility, and accelerating technology, America's edge
will become a fleeting advantage if we fail to maintain and hone it.
The United States Air Force executes its missions globally. Its
warfighting domains cover the entire planet, offering a unique
perspective. Every day, America's airmen demonstrate a non-negotiable
commitment to offer and deliver sovereign options for the United States
in, through and from air, space, and cyberspace.
Our Air Force strategic imperatives articulate why these sovereign
options are necessary to maintain and strengthen our National security
and global stability. The Air Force is redefining air, space, and cyber
power through cross-domain dominance--our effort to integrate all of
our capabilities to exploit the natural synergies across these
warfighting domains.
This statement articulates the major elements of our Air Force
Posture--our strategy for fulfilling our role in defending the Nation
and its interests; our contributions to winning the global war on
terrorism; our most critical efforts and concerns; and our top priority
programs. We will continue to pursue specific programs and initiatives
to safeguard and strengthen America's military advantages and to
address major concerns and risks.
Three overarching Service priorities serve as the organizing
principles for all of our efforts: Winning Today's Fight; Taking Care
of Our People; and Preparing for Tomorrow's Challenges. The Air Force's
top acquisition priorities specifically begin to address our critical
recapitalization and modernization needs--the new Tanker (KC-X); the
new Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter (CSAR-X); modern space systems
to provide capabilities vital to our joint warfighters; the F-35A
Lightning II; and a new Bomber we intend to field by 2018.
We will continue our efforts to modernize and protect America's
vital air, space, and cyberspace capabilities. We strongly recommend
extending the existing C-130J production line. We are also concerned
with preserving America's aerospace industrial base. Additionally, we
seek relief from restrictions on the retirement of aging, worn-out
aircraft which are increasingly unsafe, unreliable, and obsolete. The
Air Force is highly engaged in national efforts to assure sustainable
energy, and we will continue to push the performance envelope on fuel
efficiency and renewable energy technologies. We are committed to the
Joint Basing initiative and want to work through the transfer of total
obligation authority and real property control without impacting
command authorities, reducing installation service support, or
negatively affecting quality of life. Finally, we will continue our
practice of recruiting and retaining the world's highest quality
airmen. We will build upon our successes in achieving Total Force
Integration (TFI) of our regular, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen.
America looks to its airmen to provide dominance that spans the
air, space, and cyberspace warfighting domains. They need your support
today to defend the Homeland and to prepare for tomorrow's threats and
challenges. Full funding and support for America's airmen will ensure
America's continued freedom of action; reassure our allies; strengthen
our partnerships; reinforce our sovereign Homeland defenses; dissuade
and deter adversaries; and set conditions for joint and coalition
success across the entire spectrum of conflict and crisis.
We guard the Nation--providing the Global Vigilance, Global
Reach, and Global Power that underwrite the security and
sovereignty of our Nation.
2.0 strategic imperative
The mission of the United States Air Force 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.
Today the United States stands at a strategic crossroads. This
junction is characterized by a global economy accompanied by a
diffusion of technology, new and increasingly complex economic and
international relationships, competition for resources and influence,
and the changing conduct of warfare. From the early days of the 20th
century, the United States has played a leading role in preserving and
protecting international stability, particularly as the number of
democratic nations grew. This leadership led in large part to the
current world order and provided the backdrop against which countries
like Japan, India, and China initiated their unprecedented economic
growth. We cannot abdicate our position of political and military
leadership without grave consequences.
2.1 Challenges
Today's confluence of global trends already foreshadows significant
challenges to our organization, systems, concepts, and doctrine. We are
at an historic turning point demanding an equally comprehensive
redefinition of American air power. The future strategic environment
will be shaped by the interaction of globalization, economic
disparities, and competition for resources; diffusion of technology and
information networks whose very nature allows unprecedented ability to
harm and, potentially, paralyze advanced nations; and systemic
upheavals impacting state and non-state actors and, thereby,
international institutions and the world order. The following are
salient features of this increasingly complex, dynamic, lethal, and
uncertain environment:
Violent extremism and ethnic strife--a global,
generational, ideological struggle
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
empowering technologies
Predatory and unpredictable regional actors
Increasing lethality and risk of intrusion by
terrorist and criminal organizations
Systemic instability in key regions (political,
economic, social, ideological)
Unprecedented velocity of technological change and
military adaptation
Availability of advanced weapons in a burgeoning
global marketplace
Exponential growth in volume, exchange, and access to
information
Surging globalization, interconnectivity, and
competition for scarce resources
Dislocating climate, environmental, and demographic
trends
The consequences of not being adequately prepared for a conflict
should a military peer arise would be severe and potentially
catastrophic. We must maintain our focus on deterring potential peer
adversaries from using military threats to narrow our diplomatic
options, or from embarking on militarily risky courses of action. The
rapid development and proliferation of high-technology weapons,
combined with innovative operational concepts, is likely to make these
global and regional engagements particularly challenging, since power
balances will be dynamic and the risks of miscalculation and
misperception high. Therefore, maintaining deterrence will require a
sophisticated, competitive strategy that assures we maintain required
military capabilities for today and make sustainable, affordable
investments for tomorrow.
Even if we continue to successfully dissuade and deter major
competitors, their advanced equipment is proliferating worldwide. We
are bound to confront these weapons systems wherever America engages to
promote and defend its interests. We must also vigilantly monitor
adversary breakthroughs and maintain leading edge research and
capabilities in fields such as cybernetics, nanotechnology,
biotechnology, electromagnetism, robotics, energy conversion
technology, and advanced propulsion. We cannot assume the next military
revolution will originate in the West. Indeed, the hub of innovation in
science and engineering education has shifted eastward. Therefore, we
must anticipate innovative combinations of traditional and new
concepts, doctrines, weapons systems, and disruptive technologies.
Given this spectrum of threats, the United States must field
an Air Force capable of assuring our allies, dissuading and
deterring potential adversaries, and, if necessary, defeating
those who choose to become our enemies.
2.2 The Role of the U.S. Military
It is always better to deter hostile intent or win without having
to fight. Today, the U.S. military does this by shaping the
international environment with the potent tools of assurance,
dissuasion, and deterrence. The principal role of the U.S. military is
to defend our Nation and our National interests. Rooted in overwhelming
capabilities and plainly linked to the National will, two powerful
tools we exercise in this role are our assurance to allies that they
need not bow to violent threats and our deterrence of potential
adversaries. Our armed services accomplish this role by providing a
solid foundation of military strength to complement the tools of
peaceful diplomacy. None of these tools alone can sustain our position
of international political and economic influence. However, we must be
prepared to provide our leaders with critical elements of U.S. military
power to use in proper combination and in an integrated manner to
address potential threats to our Nation and our interests.
2.3 Sovereign Options
In response to current and emerging threats, the Air Force has
implemented a strategy based on providing policy makers with sovereign
options for our defense, covering the spectrum of choices that air,
space, and cyberspace capabilities offer for solving problems. We use
this strategy for sovereign options to guide how we organize, train,
and equip our forces. In peacetime, these options include such
expedients as: supporting the containment of aggressive states or
usurping elements of their sovereignty as a means short of war to
compel positive behavior; signaling opponents of our commitment by
moving forces into contested regions; and providing humanitarian aid--
to both our allies and potentially hostile populations--to assure them
of friendly U.S. intentions. In war, Air Force capabilities provide
decisionmakers with a range of options, from supporting Joint and
Coalition actions in conjunction with allied land and sea forces to
direct strikes against enemy centers of gravity to accomplish strategic
and tactical objectives. These options provide the country with
credible and scalable counters to the full range of potential enemy
actions and support our goals of assurance, dissuasion, and deterrence.
These sovereign options are enabled by the asymmetric advantage the
U.S. possesses in air and space technology and the way our preeminence
in air, space, and cyberspace increases the power of all U.S. and
coalition forces.
Through aggressive development of technology and operational
concepts, the U.S. enjoys leadership in space, and in recent decades
has achieved the ability to gain air supremacy against enemy air forces
and air defense systems. The history of warfare, however, shows such
advantages to be fleeting and fragile. Air and space preeminence is the
key to the ability to accurately strike targets within enemy states or
enable friendly ground or maritime forces to rapidly dominate their
respective domains. While U.S. air and space preeminence has
transformed the way the U.S. fights, allowing joint and coalition
forces unprecedented freedom of action in all domains, the Nation
cannot rest on its laurels. Future preeminence is not guaranteed;
instead, it must be planned, paid for, developed, and fielded.
More than the ability to win wars, sovereign options increase the
Nation's strategic flexibility in determining when, how, and where to
engage an enemy. War is not a matter of convenience. When war is thrust
upon us, we must have the strategic depth to shape the conditions of
conflict. From 1991 to 2003, the use of no-fly zones allowed the U.S.
to contain the aggressive actions of Saddam Hussein. When his
aggressive acts drew us into open conflict, the determined use of air
power as part of a joint force crushed Iraq's conventional armies. A
similar fate met the forces of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. When the
Taliban were removed from power in 2001 by a combination of air power
working with Special Forces and indigenous Northern Alliance troops, we
disrupted Osama bin Laden's plan to operate his global terrorist
network from the relative sanctuary of the Afghan frontier. In the
insurgencies that followed these operations, air, space, and cyberspace
power continued to prevent insurgents from massing into guerrilla
armies, thus diminishing their power and providing friendly forces time
and territory to establish stability.
The Air Force's ability to be simultaneously dominant in air,
space, and cyberspace, has formed the foundation from which we provide
sovereign options to policy makers. Our ability to operate across these
domains and defeat our adversaries in each allows the Air Force the
ability to multiply the power of Joint and Coalition forces or to act
alone to achieve national objectives. Our Air Force combines
capabilities in the domains of air, space, and cyberspace to deliver
Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power to the Joint force.
2.4 Cross-Domain Dominance
No future war will be won without air, space, and cyberspace
superiority. Accordingly, the Air Force must be better postured to
contend with both today's and tomorrow's challenges. To promote and
defend America's interests through Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and
Global Power, the Air Force must attain cross-domain dominance.
Airmen appreciate the interdependence of the air, space, and
cyberspace domains--actions in one domain can lead to decisive effects
in any and all domains. Cross-domain dominance is the ability to
maintain freedom of action in and through the air, space, and
cyberspace despite adversary actions. It permits rapid and simultaneous
application of lethal and non-lethal capabilities in these three
domains to attain strategic, operational, and tactical objectives in
all warfighting domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace.
Through cross-domain dominance, the Air Force contributes to joint
freedom of maneuver in all warfighting domains. This, in turn, allows
the Joint Force Commander to achieve desired outcomes across the full
range of military operations, from humanitarian relief to preventing
war via dissuasion and deterrence to inflicting strategic paralysis on
implacable opponents. Without the Air Force's ability to present this
spectrum of capabilities to the Joint Team in peace, crisis, and war,
U.S. national security would be at risk.
2.5 Implementing the Strategy
The Air Force currently provides joint and coalition forces with an
air bridge to the rest of the world and dominance on the battlefield.
This hard-won capability to dominate air and space will only persist in
coming decades if carefully nurtured.
The technology race continues. Today, opponents are studying our
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and are rapidly developing counters
to aging U.S. air and space superiority technology. These adaptive
competitors are translating lessons from recent conflicts into new
warfighting concepts, capabilities, and doctrines specifically designed
to counter U.S. strengths and exploit vulnerabilities. They are
advancing in all domains. For example:
``Generation 4-plus'' fighter aircraft that challenge
America's existing ``4th Generation'' inventory--and, thus, air
superiority--with overwhelming numbers and advanced weaponry;
sophisticated integration of electronic attack and advanced
avionics; emerging low-observable technologies; and
progressive, realistic, networked training.
Increasingly lethal integrated air defense systems
that threaten both our airmen and aircraft, and could negate
weapons used to suppress or destroy these systems.
Proliferation of surface-to-surface missiles with
growing range, precision, mobility, and maneuverability that
are capable of delivering both conventional and non-
conventional warheads.
Proliferation of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) capable
of conducting low observable, persistent, intrusive missions in
both lethal and non-lethal modes.
Resurgence of offensive counterspace capabilities,
including anti-satellite weapons, jamming, and blinding.
Increasing ability of even marginal actors to surveil
the disposition of U.S. and allied assets through widely-
accessible, commercially-available means.
In the coming years our advantage will significantly diminish if we
do not keep pace by fielding new 5th Generation fighters, modern
bombers, and modern satellites in sufficient numbers to counter the
development of advanced anti-air and anti-space technologies and the
inevitable export of those capabilities to potentially hostile states
and non-state actors. We must provide our airmen with the most
exceptional tools for battle in order to sustain a durable and credible
deterrent against our adversaries.
Equally worrisome is the rapidly shrinking aerospace industrial
base. Historically, America's strength and ability to capitalize on
advances in air and space technologies hinged largely on its vibrant
and diverse aerospace industry. This advantage has deteriorated over
the last decade.
Beyond advantages in technology and operational concepts, America's
commitments abroad require an expeditionary Air Force that can engage
forward in peacetime and fight forward in wartime. While long-range
bombers and missiles are the ultimate guarantor of U.S. security and
power, expeditionary presence reflects U.S. power and is the
indispensable source of local and regional assurance, dissuasion,
deterrence, and, ultimately, sovereign options. Engaging forward in
times of peace and fighting forward in times of war are hallmarks of
U.S. national security strategy. Therefore, the Air Force must have
sufficient resources and capability to continue to maintain a
sustainable, rotational base. We must retain sufficient manpower and
force structure to project influence.
The mechanism to accomplish this is the Air and Space Expeditionary
Force (AEF) that provides Joint Force Commanders with a trained and
ready air, space, and cyberspace force to execute their plans. U.S.
influence flows from permanent and expeditionary basing and serves to
assure allies of U.S. commitment while deterring our adversaries from
threatening U.S. national interests. The Air Force works with combatant
commanders and partner air forces to secure basing and counter
potential anti-access strategies. We continue to develop new ways of
projecting power without exposing vulnerabilities, and we design
systems that facilitate reach-back, thus maximizing forward capability
while minimizing forward footprint.
The Air Force can provide Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and
Global Power only so long as it possesses robust capabilities in such
areas as air dominance; global strike; space superiority; intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); missile defense; special
operations; air mobility, and cyberspace superiority. Today, electronic
communications constitute and connect all joint and coalition
capabilities. In an information age, this network allows us to find our
opponents, process the information, route it to where it is needed, and
guide our munitions to their targets. Cyberspace vastly increases our
capabilities but also presents a potential vulnerability our
adversaries could exploit. Our enemies also increasingly use and depend
on cyberspace systems. Safeguarding our own capabilities while engaging
and disrupting the use and purpose of our opponents' capabilities is
thus increasingly critical to modern warfare.
If the Air Force is to fulfill its crucial role, we must develop
and maintain technological leads in the areas of air-superiority, anti-
access penetration, and long-range reconnaissance and strike
capabilities to hold at risk targets around the world. We must also
field sufficient strike and full-spectrum mobility assets to assure
dominance for the Joint Team. We must continue treating space as an
operational domain by creating architectures and systems that allow us
to provide the appropriate situational awareness and communications
capability, giving strategic and tactical advantage to leadership at
all levels. We must design and develop a force structure to operate in
cyberspace to our benefit while holding adversaries at risk. While
doing so, we will continue our series of cross-Service initiatives to
enhance interoperability and avoid unnecessary duplication of
acquisition, manning, and operations.
3.0 win today's fight
We remain committed, first and foremost, to fighting and winning
the long global war on terror, sustaining our current operations, and
providing strategic defense of our Nation. We also continue to adapt
our ability to deter adversary activities, detect enemy locations, and
defeat them through direct or indirect actions when required--anywhere
and at any time.
America's airmen are key to joint success and have proven their
capabilities applicable and adaptable across the entire spectrum of
conflict. They are the most battle-tested force in our history. Today's
global war on terror missions are only the latest in a succession of
over 17 years of continuous combat and expeditionary operations,
beginning with our initial Operation Desert Shield deployments in
August 1990; continuing with years of persistent conflict in Southwest
Asia, Somalia, the Balkans, and Haiti; and through ongoing operations
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. The past 17 years have
clearly demonstrated success at any point along the spectrum of
conflict requires air, space, and cyberspace superiority.
3.1 Maintain Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power for
America
We are the Nation's premier multi-dimensional maneuver force, with
the agility, reach, speed, stealth, payload, firepower, precision, and
persistence to achieve global effects. Dominance of air, space, and
cyberspace provides the essential bedrock for effective Joint
operations.
Today's Air Force provides the Joint Force Commander a range of
capabilities that set conditions for success. Our airmen currently fly
an average of over 300 sorties daily as part of Operations Iraqi
Freedom and Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF). These sorties include
Intertheater and Intratheater Airlift; Aeromedical Evacuation (AE);
Aerial Refueling; Command and Control (C2); ISR; Close Air Support; and
pre-planned strike.
Our airmen operate on a global scale every day; Air Force
engagement in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility
(AOR) is only the ``tip of the iceberg.'' The complete picture of Air
Force engagement includes airmen deployed to contingencies outside of
the Continental United States (OCONUS), forward deployed in Europe and
the Pacific, and employed from their home stations as they execute
global missions.
Furthermore, the Air Force is the only Service flying Operation
Noble Eagle (ONE) missions, which have been continuous since September
2001. America's airmen fly fighters, tankers, and Airborne Warning and
Control aircraft during daily Air Sovereignty Alert operations.
America's airmen also command and control these aircraft, maintaining
vigilance and protection of America's air corridors and maritime
approaches in defense of our Homeland.
Since 2001, the Active Duty Air Force has reduced its end strength
by almost 6 percent, but our deployments have increased over 30
percent--primarily in support of global war on terror. Approximately
26,000 airmen are deployed to over 100 locations around the world to
fight in the global war on terror at any given moment--fighting our
enemies in their own backyard so they cannot come to ours. In addition,
approximately 208,000 airmen--178,000 regular Air Force airmen plus
30,000 Guard and Reserve airmen--fulfill additional combatant commander
(CCDR) requirements, missions, and tasks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
In other words, approximately 41 percent of our Total Force airmen--
including 54 percent of the regular force--are globally contributing to
winning today's fight and are directly fulfilling CCDR requirements
everyday.
Whether controlling satellites, flying unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), standing strategic missile alert, or analyzing intelligence
information, airmen directly engage America's adversaries and affect
events worldwide every day.
3.1.1 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
ISR is the foundation of Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global
Power. It cuts across all domains and affects almost every mission
area. Today, ISR efforts make up the majority of the operations
required to achieve our security objectives. These operations range
from finding the enemy, to deconstructing its network and intentions,
to making it possible to deliver weapons or other effects on target, to
subsequently assessing the results of those efforts.
ISR is the linchpin of our Effects-Based Approach to Operations
(EBAO). It is impossible to accurately predict the effect of operations
on an enemy system without good intelligence; nor can one assess the
outcome of delivered effects without detailed surveillance and
reconnaissance. Intelligence requirements for an EBAO and effects-based
assessment (EBA) are much more demanding than the old attrition-based
model. The increased intelligence detail necessary for EBAO/EBA makes
focused reconnaissance and persistent surveillance operations ever-more
crucial.
The Air Force has demonstrated its commitment to the importance of
ISR by establishing a 3-star Deputy Chief of Staff for ISR, the Air
Force ISR Agency, and formed a global organization for the processing
of ISR data from a variety of sources. These initiatives demonstrate
the Air Force has shifted the way it manages ISR capabilities from a
Cold-War platform perspective to a 21st century holistic capability-
based approach.
3.1.2 Strike
In addition to our ONE missions over the Homeland, America's airmen
fly daily OIF and OEF missions, keeping a watchful eye on America's
adversaries and providing lethal combat capabilities that take the
fight to our enemies. In 2007, America's airmen conducted nearly 1,600
strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq alone, Air Force strikes
increased by 171 percent over the previous year, while in Afghanistan
strikes increased by 22 percent. These increases clearly demonstrate
the applicability, flexibility, and prevalence of Air Force combat
options in ongoing OIF and OEF counterinsurgency operations.
Engaging directly is only a small portion of what the Air Force
provides. To meet current and future challenges, we must maintain a
credible deterrent that convinces potential adversaries of our
unwavering commitment to defend our Nation, its allies and friends. One
prominent example is our ICBM force--the U.S. nuclear arsenal continues
to serve as the ultimate backstop of our security, dissuading opponents
and reassuring allies through extended deterrence. Besides continuing
the recapitalization of our fighter force, we must also modernize our
bomber and ICBM forces.
3.1.3 Space
Space superiority, like air superiority, has become a fundamental
predicate to joint warfighting. Indeed, America's space superiority has
completely transformed the way America fights. America's airmen
currently operate 67 satellites and provide command and control
infrastructure for over 140 satellites in total, providing the Nation
persistent global communications; weather coverage; strategic early
warning; global Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT); signals and
ISR capabilities--all vital to joint success.
Space superiority relies on assured access to space, and Air Force
launch programs continue to provide this capability. In 2007, we
extended our record to 56 straight launch successes, including
deployment of two new Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites. Also
in 2007, we successfully launched the first operational Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle heavy lift rocket. This rocket deployed the
final satellite in the Defense Support Program constellation of
ballistic missile warning satellites.
3.1.4 Airlift
Airlift is an Air Force core competency, and our airmen prove it
everyday. Air Force airlifters--both Intertheater and Intratheater--
have become absolutely indispensable to Joint Forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as to crisis response planners and responders in
the wake of natural disasters both at home and abroad. The Air Force
gives America an air bridge--a strategic asset providing operational
reach--making possible the deployment and employment of joint combat
power and humanitarian relief.
Airmen provide the Nation's ground forces with the tactical,
operational, strategic, and logistical reach to rapidly deploy,
deliver, supply, resupply, egress, and evacuate via air anywhere in the
world. In Iraq, Air Force airlift delivers approximately 3,500
equivalent truckloads of cargo in an average month, taking more than
8,600 people off dangerous roads and providing the Army and Marine
Corps the flexibility to reassign those vehicles and associated support
troops to alternate missions and safer routes.
3.1.5 Aeromedical Evacuation
Air Force Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) is a Total Force, combat-
proven system contributing a unique, vital capability to the joint
fight. AE and enroute care are built on teamwork, synergy, and Joint
execution, providing soldiers, sailors, marines, coast guardsmen, and
airmen the highest casualty survival rates in the history of warfare.
Casualties treated in our deployed and joint theater hospitals have an
incredible 97 percent survival rate.
Since late 2001, we have transported more than 48,500 patients from
the CENTCOM AOR to higher levels of care. We continue to refine this
remarkable capability and the enroute care system built upon our
expeditionary medical system.
3.1.6 Joint Force Land Component Tasks
Of the approximately 26,000 airmen currently deployed in the
CENTCOM AOR, over 6,200 are performing tasks and missions normally
assigned to the land component--also known as ``In Lieu Of'' (ILO)
tasks. Airmen currently fill other Services' billets in some of their
stressed skill areas and are taking on tasks outside Air Force core
competencies. Since 2004 we have deployed approximately 24,000 airmen
in support of such ILO tasks, and we expect a steady increase in that
total.
In addition to the 6,200 airmen currently deployed supporting ILO
taskings, over 1,000 airmen are ``in the pipeline'' for ILO Task
training at any given time. Within the Joint Team, airmen provide the
Joint Force Commander distinctive skills. While complementary, these
skills are not interchangeable amongst the team, thus airmen require
ground-centric combat training to accomplish ILO taskings. This
training increases personnel tempo for our airmen, but, more
importantly, ILO tasks and training consumes critical training time,
resources, manpower, and in some cases reduces overall proficiency in
Air Force core mission areas. In many cases, Air Force career fields
already at critical manning levels are further affected by unit
deployment rates of as high as 40 percent, primarily filling ILO
taskings. Such high deployment rates from units cannot be absorbed
without putting at risk the critical missions and capabilities the Air
Force provides our Nation. This situation creates additional risk to
the critical missions the Air Force performs and capabilities the Air
Force provides our Nation.
3.2 Strengthen Global Partnerships
Fighting and winning the global war on terror requires commitment,
capability, and cooperation from our allies and partners around the
world. We depend on them 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.
So America's strategic partnerships are more important than ever.
Our Air Force will strengthen and broaden international relationships,
capitalizing on the global community of like-minded airmen while
attending to interoperability between allies and partners. Building
these relationships not only expands, extends, and strengthens Global
Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power, but also leverages the Air
Force's value as an engine of progress and, thus, as a potent
instrument of America's diplomacy in an increasingly interconnected
world.
The Air Force strives to develop synergistic, interoperable air
forces utilizing a capabilities-based approach. Foreign Military Sales
and Direct Commercial Sales allow our partners to operate common
systems with the Air Force while providing a vehicle to expand
relationships with our international partners. Some recent examples of
mutually beneficial agreements include Australian, Canadian, and
British selection of C-17 Globemaster III airlifters; international
participation in the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
program and the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite
communications program; British Royal Air Force procurement of MQ-9
Reaper UAVs; and Australian participation in the Wideband Global SATCOM
(WGS) system. Future opportunities for partnerships--with platforms
such as UAVs, C-17s, C-130Js, and the new C-27--can open doors for
greater interoperability, personnel exchanges, common doctrine, and
training.
In addition to integrating international partners into the most
robust combat training scenarios, we maintain our commitment to the
pursuit of partnerships for greater global cooperation, security, and
stability. We recently held the 3rd Global Air Chiefs Conference in
Washington, DC, which gave over 90 international air chiefs the
opportunity to learn, understand, and share concerns and issues with
fellow airmen from around the world. We are also making strides to
improve language expertise and cultural understanding through
deliberate development of airmen in the International Affairs
Specialist program, expanding Military Personnel Exchange Program, and
cultivating skilled and knowledgeable attaches.
The Air Force's approach to operations, interoperability, and
training exemplify our global, international, and expeditionary
perspective--built on the shared traditions of airmanship that
transcend geographic boundaries.
4.0 take care of our people
Any organizational renaissance begins with people. We must prepare
our airmen for a future fraught with challenges, fostering their
intellectual curiosity and ability to learn, anticipate, and adapt.
Because our expeditionary airmen must be prepared to deploy and ready
to fight, we are revitalizing the world's most advanced training system
and expanding their educational opportunities. While we enrich our
airmen's culture, leadership, training, education, and heritage, we
will also continue to care for their families and provide for their
future.
Our airmen are our most precious resource. They must be well-
trained and ready for expeditionary warfighting responsibilities.
Fiscal constraints dictate that we continue to carefully shape the
force. Additionally, within the context of rising costs, we remain
committed to providing the highest possible quality of life standards
and charting out a career full of education and training for each
airman. We will continue our emphasis on recruiting and retaining the
world's highest quality airmen. Additional Air Force high priority
efforts serve to reinforce a warrior ethos throughout our Service,
provide proactive force health protection, and encourage Air Reserve
Component (ARC) volunteerism.
Spanning six decades of Air Force history, particularly over the
past 17 years, our airmen have proven themselves as the global first
responders in times of crisis--taking action anytime, anywhere. The
foundations for this well-deserved reputation are the quality and
frequency of the training and education we provide and our commitment
to the highest possible safety and quality of life standards.
4.1 Shape the Force
Ultimately, we must produce a Total Force that is sized and shaped
to consistently meet current and future requirements--balanced against
the compelling need to maintain high quality of life standards--to meet
the global challenges of today and tomorrow.
During the 1990s, while engaged in continuous combat, the Air Force
suffered a 7 year ``procurement holiday.'' Today, fiscal constraints
have tightened as energy and health care costs have continued to
increase dramatically.
In late 2005, the Air Force reduced its end strength by 40,000
Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian Full-time Equivalents (FTEs)
in order to self-finance the vital re-capitalization and modernization
of our aircraft, space, and missile inventories. End strength reduction
by 40,000 FTEs over a 3-year period was our only viable alternative to
preserve the required investment capital.
Our Force Shaping efforts have placed us on a path to meet our end
strength targets. However, personnel changes of this magnitude come
with a degree of uncertainty and difficulty for our airmen and their
families. We are making every effort to use voluntary measures to shape
the force with the right skills mix, increase manning in stressed
career fields, leverage new technologies, and refine our internal
processes to reduce workload and reduce or eliminate unnecessary work
through Air Force Smart Operations 21.
We have reduced our Air Force end strength using a methodology that
has preserved a strong expeditionary capability. Our AEF construct
provides an enterprise view of Service risk that synchronizes our
resources and assets to support our global requirements. However,
reducing Air Force end strength further, coupled with ILO taskings for
the foreseeable future, carries considerable risks of ``burning out''
our airmen in several critical expeditionary career fields as well as
limiting our future national options to meet global mission
requirements in an increasingly volatile world.
4.2 Ensure Highest Quality of Life Standards
Our ``People'' priority demands we ensure the quality of life we
offer our airmen meets the highest possible standards. Because the
nature of our Air Force mission demands a highly educated, trained, and
experienced force, we recognize the direct linkages between quality of
life issues and their impact on our recruiting, retention, and,
ultimately, our mission capability.
4.2.1 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 higher quality
homes faster than ever. With the fiscal year 2009 funding, we will
revitalize more than 2,100 homes through improvement or replacement. We
are on track to meet our fiscal year 2009 goal of eliminating
inadequate housing at overseas locations.
MILCON is an essential enabler of Air Force missions; however, due
to fiscal constraints, we must reduce funding and accept greater risk
in facilities and infrastructure in order to continue our efforts to
recapitalize and modernize our aging aircraft and equipment. However,
our new construction projects are state-of-the-art, incorporating
energy efficient features and sustainable designs. We have prioritized
the most critical requirements to support the Air Force and the
Department of Defense (DOD) requirements. Our MILCON plan supports
these priorities by focusing on new mission beddowns, training, and
depot transformation, as well as dormitory and child care center
upgrades.
4.2.2 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. To guarantee success, each Joint Base should be
required to provide a suitable setting to all of its assigned
personnel, their families, and other customers within the local
communities our bases support.
To accomplish this, we advocate establishment of a common Joint
Base quality of life standard. Our airmen, soldiers, sailors, marines,
DOD civilians, and their families will benefit from efficient,
consistent installation support services. Such 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 the Office of the Secretary of Defense and our sister
Services, we will ensure all Joint Basing initiatives contribute to the
DOD's ability to perform its mission. We will also safeguard against
potential negative impacts to the Joint and Air Force approach to
mission performance.
To do this, we will have to work through the transfer of TOA and
real property without eroding the local installation commander's
prerogatives relative to satisfying mission and training requirements,
optimizing installation resources, tailoring installation services to
local needs, and prioritizing MILCON funding. We will also have to work
through the transfer without reducing the combat capability our bases
generate, installation service support standards, or the quality of
life for servicemembers, their families, and other customers of these
Services.
We look forward to establishing a base realignment and closure-
envisioned executive agency agreement involving local leaders and the
local unit commander. Such an agency, combined with elimination of
duplicate offices and administration of centrally agreed standards,
would improve efficiency while safeguarding mission requirements and
quality of life for families and servicemembers. We believe the
natural, direct feedback and tension between a service provider and a
paying customer is the best model to drive efficiency and cost savings.
The Air Force remains committed to ensuring that all bases, joint
or otherwise, maintain their capability to perform their missions and
meet our quality-of-life standards. We want joint bases to be so
efficient and effective that an assignment to a joint base would be a
highlight for every servicemember.
4.3 Recruit, Train, and Retain Highest Quality Airmen
The Air Force is the ``Retention Service''--we recruit, train,
develop, and retain the best America has to offer. Our emphasis on
retention stems from the high technical and operational expertise
required of our personnel. The high morale, cohesiveness, and
capability of the Air Force are due to our efforts to retain a highly
experienced, educated, and skilled force.
The Air Force has never lowered its recruiting standards. We
continue to recruit and choose the best America has to offer from our
diverse population. Our recruiting and retention figures remain
impressive, clearly indicating our success to date and the
effectiveness of the Air Force's holistic approach to quality of life,
recruiting, and retention. This success reaffirms our commitment to
long-term family support efforts, education, and training.
While we recruit airmen, we retain families. We believe our airmen
should never have to choose between serving their country and providing
for their families. Quality of life and family support are critical
elements of our overall effort to retain high quality airmen. As part
of our efforts to maintain high quality of life standards, we are
concerned with the hardships facing our Air Force families resulting
from the frequent moves our airmen and other servicemembers make
throughout their careers. We applaud ongoing congressional and
interstate efforts addressing such issues as transfer of educational
credits for military members and dependents, professional
certifications for military spouses, and economic support for military
families coping with spousal income disadvantages.
Additionally, Air Force training initiatives continue to evolve,
improving our ability to develop and retain the world's best air,
space, and cyberspace warriors. We are concentrating our efforts to
reprioritize Air Force professional education opportunities to reflect
a balance between winning today's fight and preparing for tomorrow's
challenges.
Tuition assistance continues to be a strong incentive that helps
ensure we meet our recruiting and retention goals. We believe voluntary
education, facilitated with tuition assistance, not only aids in
recruiting and retention, but further reinforces national strength and
richness by producing more effective professional airmen and more
productive American citizens for the Nation, both during their
enlistment and their eventual return to civilian life.
Within the last 2 years we have taken several initiatives to
``intellectually and professionally recapitalize'' our airmen. We are
developing leaders with the management acumen, cultural sophistication,
international expertise, and language skills to successfully lead a
diverse, globally engaged force. Air Education and Training Command and
Air University are leading our efforts to reinvigorate the world's most
advanced educational system for airmen by expanding our full-spectrum
educational opportunities.
Finally, we optimized and expanded our training regimes to take
advantage of more modern methods and broader scope in our live
exercises. Red Flag exercises now offer two venues, Nevada and Alaska,
with varied environments; take advantage of Distributed Mission
Operations technologies; include Total Force airmen from the Regular
and Reserve Components; and offer the full range of integrated
operations, offering realistic training for warriors from across the
Services, Components, and our international partners.
5.0 prepare for tomorrow's challenges
In addition to taking care of our airmen and training them for the
full-spectrum challenges we expect this century, it is also our
responsibility to ensure our airmen have the weapons and equipment
necessary to provide for our Nation's defense.
The U.S. cannot take advantages in air, space, and cyberspace for
granted. Today, we are already being challenged in every warfighting
domain. The Air Force is actively formulating innovative operational
concepts to anticipate, adapt to, and overcome future challenges. We
are transforming our thinking from considering the space and cyber
domains as mere enablers of air operations to a holistic approach that
recognizes their interdependence and leverages their unique
characteristics. We will continue to push this conceptual envelope and
expand the boundaries of existing tactics, techniques, and procedures
to fully exploit the synergies of cross-domain dominance.
But we cannot hone America's edge without modernizing the Air
Force's air, space, and cyberspace capabilities. We are therefore
pursuing the biggest, most complex, and most important recapitalization
and modernization effort in Air Force history. These programs will gain
and maintain militarily important advantages for our Nation for the
coming decades.
5.1 Top Acquisition Priorities
The Air Force's top acquisition priorities begin to address our
critical recapitalization and modernization needs--the new Tanker (KC-
X); the new CSAR-X; modern space systems to provide capabilities vital
to our joint warfighters; the F-35A JSF; and a new bomber we plan to
field by 2018.
Additional high-priority acquisition programs include F-22 5th
Generation fighter production; C-17 production; continued production of
the C-130J and introduction of the C-27 intratheater airlifter; and
expansion of the MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper, and RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV
inventories.
5.1.1 New Tanker (KC-X)
The KC-X is our highest procurement priority. It is critical to the
entire joint and coalition military team's ability to project combat
power around the world, and gives America and our allies' unparalleled
rapid response to combat and humanitarian relief operations alike. KC-X
tankers will provide increased aircraft availability, more adaptable
technology, more flexible employment options, and greater overall
capability than the current inventory of KC-135E and KC-135R tankers
they will replace. 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 KC-135E tankers--to ensure future
viability of this unique and vital U.S. national capability.
5.1.2 New Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter
The Air Force organizes, trains, and equips dedicated forces for
the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) mission. The Air Force must
recapitalize our CSAR forces to maintain this indispensable capability
for the Nation and the Joint Team. Purchasing the entire complement of
programmed CSAR-X aircraft will relieve the high-tempo operational
strain placed on the current inventory of aging HH-60G Pave Hawk
helicopters.
The CSAR mission is a moral and ethical imperative. Airmen are
responsible for safely securing and returning our airmen and members of
the joint and coalition team. The CSAR-X helicopter will provide a more
reliable, more responsive capability for rapid recovery of downed,
injured, or isolated personnel in day or night, all weather and adverse
conditions, as well as support non-combatant evacuation and disaster
relief operations.
5.1.3 Space Systems
Air Force communications, ISR, and geo-positioning satellites are
the bedrock of the Joint Team's ability to find, fix, target, assess,
communicate, and navigate. While many of our satellites have outlived
their designed endurance, they are generally less durable than other
platforms and sensors. Over the next 10 years we must recapitalize all
of these systems, replacing them with new ones that enhance our
capabilities and provide mission continuity, maintaining the asymmetric
advantages our space forces provide our Nation.
The WGS system, AEHF, and the Transformational Satellite
Communications program will assure a more robust and reliable
communications capability designed to counter emerging threats and meet
expanding joint communications requirements.
The GPS II-F and III programs will add a more robust PNT capability
to America's established GPS constellation. GPS III will utilize a
block approach to acquisition and will deliver enhanced civil and
military PNT capabilities to worldwide users.
The Space Based Infrared System will enhance the Air Force's early
warning missile defense, technical intelligence, and battlespace
awareness capabilities through improved infrared sensing, missile
warning, and data processing.
The Air Force will continue to develop space situation awareness
(SSA) capabilities to help protect space assets from future threats. We
are also pursuing more robust space protection measures to warn of
attacks, provide redundant command and control, harden electronics, and
defend against direct attacks. The Space Based Space Surveillance
system will be the first orbital sensor with a primary mission of SSA.
This system, along with other developments such as the Rapid Attack
Identification Detection and Reporting System will improve our ability
to characterize the space environment--the friends and foes operating
in it, and the objects traversing it.
5.1.4 F-35A Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)
The F-35A Lightning II will be the mainstay of America's future
fighter force, providing an affordable, multi-role complement to the F-
22 Raptor. In addition to fielding advanced combat capabilities, the
Lightning II will also strengthen integration of our Total Force and
will enhance interoperability with global partners.
The F-35A Lightning II boasts 5th Generation, precision engagement,
low-observable (stealth), and attack capabilities that will benefit not
only the Air Force, but also the Navy, Marines, and our international
partners involved in the program. The F-35A is the Conventional Take-
off and Landing variant, and it will replace, recapitalize, and extend
Air Force F-117, F-16, and A-10 combat capabilities. The F-35A also
serves as the recapitalization program for our international partners'
aging F-16s, F-18s, and other 4th Generation fighter aircraft.
Complete dominance of the air and freedom of maneuver for the
entire joint force demand the complementary capabilities of the F-22
and F-35A 5th Generation of fighters. Together, they promise the
ability to sweep the skies, take down the enemy's air defenses, and
provide persistent, lethal air cover of the battlefield. The leading
edge capabilities of the F-35A, in development and low rate production
now, will provide an affordable, Joint Service, international
complement to the F-22.
5.1.5 New Bomber
Range and payload are the soul of an Air Force. These capabilities,
along with precision, lethality, survivability, and responsiveness are
fundamental to modern strategic military deterrence, and apply across
the full range of military operations--from tactical to strategic,
kinetic to non-kinetic. Yet our Nation has just 21 bombers currently
capable of penetrating modern air defenses. Even these B-2 Spirit
stealth bombers have limitations and will become relatively less
capable and less survivable against advanced anti-access technologies
being developed and fielded around the world. Furthermore, our current
bomber inventory is becoming more costly to operate and maintain.
Indeed, some suppliers for spare parts no longer exist.
The Air Force is therefore pursuing acquisition of a new bomber by
2018 and in accordance with Quadrennial Defense Review goals for long
range strike capability. This next generation bomber will feature
stealth, payload, and improved avionics/sensors suites, and will
incorporate highly advanced technologies. It will also bring America's
bomber forces up to the same high standard we are setting with our F-22
and F-35A 5th Generation fighters, and ensure our bomber force's
ability to fulfill our Nation's and the CCDRs' global requirements.
5.2 Improve our Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power
Because Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power constitute
America's edge, we must continually hone our ability to provide them.
Our acquisition programs aim to broaden Global Vigilance, extend Global
Reach, and strengthen Global Power advantages for America.
5.2.1 Broaden Global Vigilance
The Air Force provides 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 cyberspace domains around the clock and around the
world. The information collected through surveillance and
reconnaissance, and converted into intelligence by exploitation and
analysis, is used to formulate strategy, policy, and military plans; to
develop and conduct campaigns; guide acquisition of future
capabilities; and to protect, prevent, and prevail against threats and
aggression aimed at the U.S. and its interests. It is relied upon at
levels ranging from the President and senior decisionmakers to
commanders in air operations centers to ground units engaged with the
enemy to pilots dropping precision-guided munitions.
The future vision of all the U.S. military Services is information-
driven. Success will hinge on America's integrated air, space, and
cyberspace advantages. Air Force assets like the E-8C Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, E-3 Airborne Warning and
Control System, RC-135 Rivet Joint, RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-1 Predator,
and our constellations of satellites contribute vital ISR capabilities
and networking services that are integral to every aspect of every
joint operation. Our recapitalization and modernization plan aims to
dramatically increase the quantity and quality of ISR capabilities,
products, and services available to the Joint Team and the Nation. Our
recapitalization efforts are focused on extending the lifespans and
capability sets of our workhorse platforms, such as the RC-135 Rivet
Joint and several space-based assets. We are also working to find and
leverage previously untapped ISR capabilities such as those on fighters
carrying targeting pods. Finally, we have made a concerted effort to
ensure the viability of Air Force space communications, PNT, early
warning missions, and SSA capabilities to provide uninterrupted mission
continuity for America and our allies.
5.2.2 Extend Global Reach
America's airmen provide the long legs and lift for joint
warfighters' rapid global mobility as well as the long arms for global
strike and high endurance for global persistence and presence. On a
daily basis, Air Force intertheater and intratheater airlift and
mobility forces support all DOD branches as well as other government
agency operations all over the world. Yet the increased demand for
their capabilities and their decreased availability underscore the
critical need for tanker recapitalization and investment to ensure the
long-term viability of this vital national capability.
5.2.3 Strengthen Global Power
The U.S. Air Force provides the ability to achieve precise,
tailored effects whenever, wherever, and however needed--kinetic and
nonkinetic, lethal and nonlethal, at the speed of sound and soon at the
speed of light. It is an integrated cross-domain capability that rests
on our ability to dominate the air, space, and cyberspace domains.
The Global Power advantages the Air Force provides the Joint Team
ensure freedom of maneuver, freedom from attack, and freedom to attack
for the Joint Team. However, failure to invest in sufficient quantities
of modern capabilities seriously jeopardizes these advantages and risks
the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
5.3 Retire Aging, Worn-Out Aircraft
The Air Force has been in continuous combat since 1990--17 years
and counting--taking a toll on our people and rapidly aging equipment.
While we remain globally engaged, we recognize the imperative of
investing in the future through recapitalization and modernization.
Beyond fielding new aircraft, we must also retire significant portions
of our oldest, most obsolete aircraft if we are to build a modern, 21st
century Air Force. Our aircraft inventories are the oldest in our
history, and are more difficult and expensive to maintain than ever.
They require a larger footprint when deployed, and are significantly
less combat-capable in today's increasingly advanced and lethal
environment. In the years ahead they will be less and less capable of
responding to or surviving the threats and crises that may emerge.
Since 2005, we have attempted to divest significant numbers of old,
worn out aircraft. However, legislative restrictions on aircraft
retirements remain an obstacle to efficient divestiture of our oldest,
least capable, and most costly to maintain aircraft. Lifting these
restrictions will alleviate considerable pressure on our already
constrained resources that continue to erode our overall capabilities.
5.4 Preserve America's Aerospace Industrial Base
America's public and private aerospace industrial base, workforce,
and capabilities are vital to the Air Force and national defense. The
aerospace industry produced the brainpower, innovations, technology,
and vehicles that propelled the U.S. to global leadership in the 20th
century. The aerospace sector gave birth to the technologies and minds
that have made the information age a reality. This key industrial
sector continues to lead and produce the technologies and capabilities
America needs to safeguard our future.
Yet this vital industry has deteriorated over the last decade. We
have witnessed an industry consolidation and contraction--from more
than 10 domestic U.S. aircraft manufacturers in the early 1990s to only
3 prime domestic aircraft manufacturers today. Without funding, in the
coming decade production lines will irreversibly close, skilled
workforces will age or retire, and companies will shut their doors. The
U.S. aerospace industry is rapidly approaching a point of no return. As
Air Force assets wear out, the U.S. is losing the ability to build new
ones. We must reverse this erosion through increased investment.
We must find ways to maintain and preserve our aerospace industrial
capabilities. We must maintain national options for keeping production
lines open. Complex 21st century weapons systems cannot be produced
without long lead development and procurement actions. Additionally, we
must continue our investment in a modern, industrial sustainment base.
Air Force depots and private sector maintenance centers have played
vital roles in sustaining our capabilities and have become models of
modern industrial transformation. We are fully committed to sustaining
a healthy, modern depot level maintenance and repair capability.
Furthermore, we must recognize that these industry capabilities
represent our National ability to research, innovate, develop, produce,
and sustain the advanced technologies and systems we will continue to
need in the future. This vital industrial sector represents a center of
gravity and single point vulnerability for our National defense.
5.5 Extend C-130J Production Line
Acquisition programs set the stage to field future capabilities. So
we must make prudent decisions to maintain current production of
advanced systems in order to reach required force structure goals and
provide a hedge against future uncertainty. We must maintain and extend
the existing production lines for C-130J intratheater airlifters. This
aircraft represent America's best technology and capability.
We strongly recommend taking action to ensure these vital
production lines remain open. Maintaining current production lines will
be critical to revitalizing our force structure, setting conditions for
future success, and providing America with the option--should
conditions dictate--to produce additional modern, advanced technology
aircraft without having to start from square one.
5.6 Strengthen Total Force Integration
The Air Force is dedicated to ensuring our States and Nation get
the most combat effective, most efficient force possible to accomplish
our mission faster and with greater capacity, around the world and at
home. We believe integrating our Total Force is the best way to do
that.
America's airmen set the DOD standard for Reserve component
integration. The ARC--comprised of the Air National Guard and the Air
Force Reserve Command--is an operational Reserve and an essential
element of the U.S. Air Force. We are developing concepts, strategies,
force management policies and practices, and legal authorities to
access sufficient ARC forces without the need for involuntary
mobilization. Though the Air Force is already the model for melding its
Guard, Reserve, and civilians with its Regular Air Force elements, we
can and will push this synergy to new levels.
A distinguishing hallmark of the Air Force is the ease with which
Total Force airmen work seamlessly together at home and abroad. From
the first Reserve Associate unit in 1968 to the full integration of
Guard and Reserve units into the AEF in the 1990s, the Air Force has a
well-established history of employing airmen from all components in
innovative and effective ways.
TFI represents a long-term Air Force commitment to transformation.
TFI maximizes the Air Force's overall joint combat capability, forming
a more cohesive force and capitalizing on the strengths inherent within
Regular, Guard, and Reserve elements. Including the ARC in emerging
mission areas increases the Air Force's ability to retain critical
skills should airmen decide to transition from the Regular Air Force to
the ARC. We will continue to review policies and practices--through our
Continuum of Service initiative--to optimize sustainment support to the
warfighting force and further integrate personnel management across the
Total Force. TFI will be critical to meeting the challenges of
competing resource demands, an aging aircraft inventory, and
organizing, training, and equipping for emerging missions.
We are leveraging our Total Force to the greatest extent ever. We
expect the Total Force to produce the vanguard elements we will need as
we expand our leading role in cyberspace and explore new cyber
technologies. Many of our most experienced cyber warriors, having
attained the high level of expertise required to excel in this domain,
are found in our Guard, Reserve, and civilian ranks.
5.6.1 Total Force Roadmap
As an integral element of our procurement efforts, we have built a
global Total Force Roadmap for acquiring and basing new aircraft and
equipment. Just as our AEF construct seamlessly draws upon all of the
Total Force components, the beddown of future Air Force aircraft and
equipment integrates Regular, Guard, and Reserve airmen beginning with
the first phases of production and basing through Full Operational
Capability.
The Roadmap represents a more efficient and flexible force
structure. Although the Air Force will have a smaller total aircraft
inventory compared to our current inventory of aircraft, overall Air
Force capabilities will increase with each next-generation weapons
system. In numerous instances, the potential locations will capitalize
on TFI efforts, creating innovative organizational arrangements among
Regular, Guard, and Reserve components. This effort takes advantage of
the inherent strengths of each component.
The Air Force Roadmap provides a planning construct for the future
which, if adequately resourced, will result in the required force
structure that will give our Nation the best capability for Global
Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power across the globe; to reassure
allies, to dissuade, deter, and defeat adversaries; and to protect the
Homeland.
5.7 Secure the Future
To maximize the potential advantages of our programs in the future,
the Air Force is engaging in multiple initiatives to better organize,
train, and equip our forces. Whether harnessing the complementary
capabilities of the F-22 and F-35A programs to provide Air Dominance
for the Joint Team; strengthening our National Security Space
Enterprise; leading efforts to acquire interoperable UAS; developing
Cyber Warriors; or pursuing alternative energy solutions with
environmentally safe production processes, the Air Force continues to
investigate and embrace opportunities to secure Global Vigilance,
Global Reach, and Global Power for our Nation's future.
5.7.1 Strengthen Joint Air Dominance
America's airmen are understandably proud of their contributions to
the joint fight. Airmen have prevented enemy aircraft from inflicting
any U.S. ground force casualties for over 50 years, and our Nation must
maintain the required capability advantages to continue this record in
the future. With advancing technology and proliferating threats, the
Nation also needs the right equipment for the Homeland Defense mission
to protect civilians on American soil.
The F-22 Raptor and the F-35A Lightning II JSF are leading-edge,
modern, 5th Generation fighters. They are not modernized versions of
old designs. These aircraft reap the benefits of decades of advanced
research, technology development, open architecture design, and
operational experience. These fighters are furthermore designed to be
complementary--the F-22 being superior in speed and maneuverability,
and the F-35A being optimized for ground attack and multi-role
capabilities. These fighters will provide the advanced warfighting
capabilities, aircraft system synergies, and the flexibility and
versatility required in future environments and engagements.
Currently in production and fully operational with Total Force
units in Virginia and Alaska, and with units planned for New Mexico and
Hawaii, the F-22 is the newest member of the Air, Space, and Cyber
Expeditionary Force. Airmen are putting the Raptor through its paces--
flying and deploying the world's first and only operational 5th
Generation fighter. Its attributes of speed, stealth, maneuverability,
internal weapons carriage, advanced sensors, and adaptable, integrated
avionics will meet our Nation's enduring national security requirements
to gain and maintain joint air dominance in anti-access environments;
provide powerful sensing capabilities and battlespace situational
awareness; and precisely engage a broad range of surface targets.
It is vital to our National interests that 5th Generation fighter
production capability be preserved. This year the F-35A will continue
development and begin its ramp-up to full rate production in 2014.
Continuing production ensures the aerospace industry keeps its
technical edge, maintains an able workforce to respond to
uncertainties, and preserves critical skills and production suppliers.
Uninterrupted production in sufficient numbers of 5th Generation
fighters remains the lowest risk strategy and best future guarantee for
homeland air sovereignty and Joint air dominance.
5.7.2 Lead Joint Unmanned Aircraft System Operational Development
The Air Force is the world leader for successful, innovative, and
effective development, acquisition, and operation of Unmanned Aircraft
(UA) and the UAS that incorporate UAs and the C2 networks and equipment
to employ them. Future successful Joint UAS acquisitions and operations
hinge upon execution of three critical elements, which align cohesively
with joint doctrine:
Develop Joint UA Concept of Operations (CONOPs). UA operators serve
the global Joint mission through interoperability and interdependence.
Globally and jointly integrated UAS operations and capabilities--from
strategic to tactical--are necessary for joint success. CONOPs
development must focus on accomplishing the joint mission as opposed to
serving functional components.
Standardize and Streamline UAS Acquisitions. We must develop an
affordable joint acquisition strategy for future UAS development,
organization, and employment. Air Force acquirers and operators
pioneered UAS development and application in joint warfare, and have
established best practices for organizing, training, standardizing, and
equipping the world's most effective UAS operations squadrons.
Ensure Airspace Control and Awareness. Presentation of UA forces
and capabilities must meet Joint Commander requirements and objectives.
``Organic ownership'' of UAS capabilities is irrelevant in the context
of the Joint fight and the Joint Forces Air Component Commander's
authority and responsibility to control Joint airspace. Homeland
operations are also becoming increasingly important. We are working
with all the Services and the Department of Transportation to establish
Federal Aviation Administration Certifications for UA operations within
approved civil airspace.
5.7.3 Lead the National Security Space Enterprise
Our Nation depends on its space capabilities as an integral part of
its military strength, industrial capability, and economic vitality. As
DOD Executive Agency for Space, the Air Force will continue to ensure
mission continuity in critical areas of communications, PNT, early
warning, SSA, and ISR. We will also continue efforts to strengthen
National Space integration and collaboration across DOD, with the
Intelligence Community, our interagency partners and our international
partners.
Of particular note are our efforts to strengthen America's space
professionals and science and engineering workforce. These
professionals will form the fundamental corps who will lead our space
efforts to success in the future by integrating enterprise level
architectures; designing, developing, acquiring, and fielding new
systems; and operating in a dynamic and potentially contested
environment.
Additionally, the Air Force is developing capabilities to quickly
respond to the urgent needs of CCDRs. Operationally Responsive Space is
a tiered capability consisting of spacecraft, launch vehicles, and
terrestrial infrastructure employed in concert to deliver a range of
space capabilities to responsively meet CCDR requirements in times of
war, conflict, or crisis.
Finally, the Air Force is committed to improving its space
acquisitions, focusing on flexibility and affordability. Success in
this endeavor depends on achievable requirements, appropriate
resources, disciplined systems engineering, and effective program
management. We focus all of these efforts through a disciplined block
delivery approach tying together basic science and technology (S&T),
technology development, systems development, and system production
efforts so concepts first evaluated in S&T will enable a systematic
transition from development to operations.
5.7.4 Lead Cyberspace Operational Development
Current and potential adversaries already operate in cyberspace,
exploiting the low entry costs and minimal technological investment
needed to inflict serious harm in and through cyberspace. State and
non-state actors are already operating within cyberspace to gain
asymmetric advantage.
In April 2007, Estonia was the victim of a barrage of cyber attacks
which brought its technologically sophisticated government to a virtual
standstill. Insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere exploit
electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to kill and maim through
improvised explosive devices and propagate their message of hate to the
world. Thus, the ability to inflict damage and cause strategic
dislocation no longer requires significant capital investment, superior
motivation and training, or technological prowess.
We seek to deny our adversaries sanctuary in cyberspace while
assuring our access to and freedom to operate in this domain. Our
Nation's ability to achieve effects in air, in space, on land, and at
sea depends on control of and freedom of maneuver in the cyber domain.
As part of a larger effort to address this need, the Air Force
stood up a Provisional Air Force Cyberspace Command (AFCYBER) on 18
September 2007. Our current plan is to activate the AFCYBER MAJCOM on 1
October 2008. The newly designated AFCYBER will consolidate and
integrate Air Force cyber capabilities to prepare them to function
across the spectrum of conflict. These capabilities will include, but
are not limited to: electronic warfare; network warfare; global C2
integration, and ISR enhancement.
We will continue to develop and implement plans for maturing cyber
operations as an Air Force core competency. Our objective is to provide
flexible options to national decisionmakers to deter, deny,
disrupt, deceive, dissuade, and defeat adversaries through destructive
and non-destructive, lethal and non-lethal means.
5.7.5 Assure Sustainable Energy
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 continue to
pursue a variety of programs aimed at reducing our use of fossil fuels
and controlling cost growth. Our vision emphasizes a culture in which
all airmen make energy-conscious decisions. 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, vehicles, and aircraft.
Following Presidential direction to reduce dependence on foreign
oil, the Air Force is aggressively pursuing a broad range of energy
alternatives. 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. We have certified the
B-52 to fly on a synthetic fuel blend, and are on track to certify the
C-17 and B-1 in 2008, the F-22 in 2009, and the remainder of all of our
aircraft expected to be certified by early 2011. In fact, on December
17, 2007--the 104th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight at
Kitty Hawk, NC--a McChord AFB, Washington-based C-17 flew the first
transcontinental flight on synthetic fuel (a 50/50 blend). The Air
Force goal is to acquire 50 percent of its continental United States
aviation fuel via a synthetic fuel blend utilizing domestic sources.
Our intent is to require synthetic fuel purchases be sourced from
environmentally-friendly suppliers with manufacturing facilities that
engage in carbon dioxide capture and effective reuse. In addition, the
Air Force is testing renewable fuel resources that will lower CO2
emissions significantly compared to petroleum. Other Air Force
technology efforts continue to explore high-efficiency aerodynamic
concepts, advanced gas turbines, and variable cycle engines providing
higher performance and greater fuel efficiency.
The Air Force is the renewable energy leader, and we seek to expand
our portfolio through innovative public-private partnerships and
evaluations of a wide range of energy proposals at several bases. Last
year, the Air Force received the Presidential Award for Leadership in
Federal Energy Management. The Air Force also continued to lead the
Federal Government in green power purchases, with 37 bases meeting some
portion of their base-wide electrical requirements from commercial
sources of wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass. We reached full
operating capacity--14.5 megawatts--of the largest solar photovoltaic
array in the Americas at Nellis AFB, NV. At Edwards AFB, CA; Kirtland
AFB, NM; and Luke AFB, AZ; we are exploring additional commercial-scale
opportunities for solar power. On under-utilized land at Malstrom AFB,
MT, we are exploring the potential for a privately financed and
operated coal-to-liquid plant. Finally, as a result of congressional
interest, we have begun considering the potential for small-scale
nuclear power production on Air Force property. As energy leaders, the
Air Force is engaging with allied and coalition air force partners to
share best practices, identify common issues and concerns, and ensure
future, sustainable energy interoperability.
5.7.6 Maintain Science and Technology Leadership
True to our heritage over the past century of powered flight, the
Air Force continues to maintain the most complex, diverse, and
ambitious 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 of these
efforts include aerospace technology and propulsion, materials science,
advanced computing and communications, atmospheric science, remote
sensing, medicine, precision timing, weather forecasting, 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
produce the future warfighting capabilities needed to ensure America's
continued technological preeminence and military flexibility. Major Air
Force S&T efforts include hypersonics, composites, propulsion,
nanotechnology, small satellite technology, directed energy, and
cybertechnology.
Additionally, Air Force S&T organizations work closely with the
other Services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
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 necessary leadership and
foundation for future joint warfighting capabilities, focusing on
dominance of the air, space, and cyberspace warfighting domains.
Continued Air Force S&T leadership will be critical to maintaining the
asymmetric military advantages and broad national benefits our Joint
Team and the Nation have come to expect and enjoy.
6.0 america's airmen
U.S. security and prosperity are best assured when all the
instruments of national power are orchestrated to work with other
states to promote a stable and prosperous international system. The Air
Force directly contributes to U.S. security by providing a unique array
of sovereign options for decisionmakers. These options maximize our
ability to assure friends and to dissuade and deter threats, large and
small, across the spectrum of conflict. When opponents cannot be
deterred, these options magnify the combat capability of joint and
coalition forces and provide a variety of alternatives for our
political leaders to choose from in pursuit of national objectives. We
provide the Nation with its most lethal and proven force for defeating
enemies across the broad range of threats we face.
By exploiting the synergies of air, space, and cyberspace, the Air
Force provides our Nation with the capability to dominate across
domains and expand the options available for our sister Services to
dominate their respective domains. Implementing our strategy requires
fielding a force of highly trained airmen with a commanding edge in
technology and a force structure with sufficient capacity to provide
the assurance of U.S. presence. So long as airmen maintain a global
presence and hold significant advantages over potential opponents, we
will continue to provide our Nation with the means to lead the fight
for global stability and prosperity.
Our emphasis on assurance, dissuasion, and deterrence reflects our
conviction that it is far better to convince potential adversaries to
refrain from the use of military force than to have to defeat them in
battle. Our success will be measured by conflicts averted as well as
conflicts fought and won. But we must never forget that our ability to
assure and deter ultimately flows directly from our unambiguous ability
to overwhelm swiftly and decisively any adversary who elects to test
us.
We are today honing America's edge. Our airmen have sworn an oath
to serve their country, and they are meeting and exceeding their
wartime commitments. We remain focused on our Air Force priorities of
winning today's fight, caring for our people, and preparing for
tomorrow's challenges. We are assessing threats in an uncertain world,
balancing our requirements within fiscal constraints, and managing
risks as we endeavor to strengthen the asymmetric advantages our Nation
and the Joint Team currently enjoy.
We will have neither the buffer of time nor the barrier of oceans
in future conflicts. The Air Force's Regular component is smaller in
February 2008 than the United States Army Air Forces was in December
1941. The character, tempo, and velocity of modern warfare already
severely test our ability to adapt. Therefore, redefining the Air Force
for the 21st century is an urgent national security requirement--not a
luxury we can defer.
America looks to airmen to provide dominance that spans the air,
space, and cyberspace warfighting domains. Our airmen are fighting
today's fight, while standing watch across the frontiers of technology
and the future. They need your support today to defend the Nation from
tomorrow's threats. Full funding and support for America's airmen will
ensure America's continued freedom of action; increase global
awareness; reassure America's allies and strengthen our partnerships;
reinforce our sovereign homeland defenses; and set conditions for joint
and coalition success across the entire spectrum of human conflict and
crisis.
We imperil our security, our people, and our way of life if we fail
to maintain and sharpen America's Edge--the Air Force-provided Global
Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power advantages which underwrite
the defense and sovereignty of our Nation.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Secretary.
General Moseley.
STATEMENT OF GEN. T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF,
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
General Moseley. Chairman Levin, Senator Warner,
distinguished members of the committee, instead of an oral
statement, allow me to introduce five great Americans that wear
the uniform of the United States Air Force.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Please proceed to do that.
General Moseley. Sir, first, let me thank you and the
committee for all you do for soldiers, sailors, marines, coast
guardsmen, and airmen. Thank you for the opportunity for my
boss, Secretary Wynne, and I to spend some time with you and
talk about the posture of your Air Force, and the vision for
the future, and the strategy to achieve it.
The face on those 670,000 airmen are seated behind me, and,
with great pride, I'd like to introduce them and tell you a
little bit about each of them.
First is Lieutenant Colonel Brian Turner. Please stand.
He's a Virginia Air National Guardsman who flies F-22s at
Langley AFB in the first of our classic associations with the
F-22 in the Air National Guard and the Reserve. He's a graduate
of the University of Virginia. He's a symbol of the Air Force's
ironclad commitment to total force integration. He's logged
over 3,600 flying hours in the F-16A, B, C, and D, and now the
F-22. He has over 300 combat hours in Operations Desert Storm,
Allied Force, and Iraqi Freedom, and one of his current roles
at Langley AFB is flying Operation Noble Eagle, which is our
air sovereignty and air defense of the country over the top of
Washington, New York, and the east coast, in the F-22, as he
defends the Homeland. So, that's Lieutenant Colonel Brian
Turner, sir, Virginia Air National Guard.
Next is Captain Kari Fleming. She's a C-17 pilot from
Charleston AFB. She's a 2003 graduate of the United States Air
Force Academy. So, Charleston is her first and only operational
assignment. Still, she's amassed over 1,200 total flying hours,
including 900 hours in the C-17, including 124 combat missions,
278 combat hours since 2005, just in Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom alone. Her missions have included not
only delivery of equipment and cargo, but aeromedical
evacuation for fallen airmen and operational airdrops. I was
having a chat with her the other day, and I asked her the last
time she landed the big airplane in the dirt, and she says
she's done that quite often, landed it on dirt roads and
riverbeds. So, sir, that's Captain Kari Fleming from Charleston
AFB.
Next is Technical Sergeant Jim Jochum. He's in the business
end of offensive air power. He's an aerial gunner on our
special operations AC-130 gunships out of Hurlburt Field, FL.
He joined the Air Force in August 1989, and spent 5 years as a
maintenance airman, then joined Air Force Special Operations.
Since November 1995, he's logged over 4,300 total flying hours,
2,500 of that being combat hours, 367 combat sorties in the AC-
130, which is more than anyone else in Air Force Special
Operations Command. He has 35 combat support hours on an
additional seven other sorties. But since October 2001, he's
accrued 892 days deployed; about 3 years. He wears an Air Medal
with 16 oakleaf clusters.
Mr. Chairman, next is Technical Sergeant Michelle Rochelle.
She's a lead operator for Joint Team of Cyber Operators. She's
under the tactical control of United States Strategic Command's
Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare. She's
the leading edge of this business of cyberspace. Her roles in
conducting computer network attack missions and exploitation
means she has direct involvement in the global war on terrorism
and supplying strategic intelligence to America's political and
military leaders. She truly represents the vanguard of the
forces that we are attempting to organize, train, and equip to
operate in cyberspace for the Nation's combatant commanders.
She also reminds us how critical the cyber-domain is, and that
it's the nexus of cross-domain dominance, with cyberspace,
space, and air. She's one of those professionals that you never
see, you never hear about, but you know they exist, and they do
this magic work every single day.
Next is Technical Sergeant Michael Shropshire. He's
currently the acting operations superintendent for the 12th
Combat Training Squadron at Fort Irwin, CA. That is our
embedded operation that we marry our operations at Nellis and
the National Training Center with the United States Army. He's
a tactical air control (TAC) party member. He enlisted in July
1992, as a battlefield airman. He's spent his entire career
associated with the United States Army; multiple deployments,
from Joint Endeavor, in Bosnia, to Iraqi Freedom. He wears a
Silver Star and a Bronze Star. His Silver Star is for
individual heroic actions while surrounded, cut off under hail
of enemy gunfire in the largest sandstorm in four decades,
alongside our Army comrades. He quickly coordinated close-air
support, putting 12 joint direct-attack munitions (JDAMs) on 10
Iraqi T-72 tanks, while constantly switching from his radio
handset to his rifle, personally engaging and killing three
enemy soldiers at close range. For that, he wears a Silver
Star. His Bronze Star is for exceptional performance as a TAC
party member during the 3rd Infantry Division's push on Baghdad
in March and April 2003.
So, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and distinguished
members, thank you for the opportunity to bring five of your
airmen to the hearing so you can put a face on the 670,000
airmen that Secretary Wynne and I are so proud to represent.
Thank you to the committee, again, for watching over soldiers,
sailors, marines, coast guardsmen, and airmen, and for
understanding that these folks make miracles happen every day.
[Applause.]
Chairman Levin. We thank you, General, for taking the time
to bring these airmen to this committee. We thank you for the
way you introduced them, for the passion that you show for the
men and women in the Air Force, as does Secretary Wynne. It's
an honor to be in their presence.
General Moseley. Sir, it's an honor to wear the same
uniform that they're wearing this morning.
Senator Warner. I think you should stop while you're ahead
now. [Laughter.]
General Moseley. Yes, sir, I'll just sit back.
Chairman Levin. Let Secretary Wynne answer all the
questions now, right? [Laughter.]
General Moseley. Sir, I'm ready.
Chairman Levin. Let me start with the issue of the C-17
procurement. The Air Force budget for fiscal year 2009 does not
include any funding to keep the C-17 production line open.
General Moseley, you've been quoted, though, as saying that
you'd like to buy more C-17 aircraft. The Air Force stopped
requesting C-17s when they got to 180 aircraft. Two years ago,
Congress then added 10 C-17s, the 2007 bridge supplemental.
That brought it up to 190. Last year, Congress authorized an
additional eight. The final supplemental appropriation for
fiscal year 2008 will likely provide an appropriation for at
least eight C-17s. That would bring us to a total of 198 C-17
aircraft.
The Commander of the Transportation Command (TRANSCOM),
General Schwartz, said late last year that he believed that
meeting the requirement for strategic airlift aircraft would
mean having 205 C-17s. So, assuming that the appropriations
process yields the eight aircraft that were authorized, we
would then need only to buy another seven aircraft to meet
General Schwartz's requirements. Nonetheless, this year,
General Moseley, you've requested 15 more C-17s on your
unfunded priority list, at a cost of about $4 billion.
Now, knowing that the TRANSCOM requirement totals
205 C-17s, my first question is: Why didn't the administration
include any C-17s? The second question is: Why would you want
to buy, on your unfunded requirements list, more C-17s than are
necessary to get to the 205 requirement of the TRANSCOM
Commander? I think you know these numbers well enough by heart,
so I won't apologize for throwing a bunch of numbers at you,
but there's two questions that are involved there.
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, thanks for that question.
Sir, I will tell you, the C-17 is performing magnificently in
the arena that we have it in. We're doing things with the C-17
that we've only previously done with C-130s, like landing it in
the dirt and providing forward resupply to land component and
special operations.
When we testified in 2006 that 180 is enough, it was
predicated on the requirement for strategic airlift remaining
constant and the C-5 capability being modernized. Mr. Chairman,
since then, the goal post has moved on us a bit, and we
continue to struggle with defining that requirement.
The Army's grown, and the Marines have grown, close to
100,000. The Future Combat System vehicle that we have counted
on being able to fit in the C-130, we're told now that it
likely won't fit in a C-130; we'll have to put it into C-17s
and C-5s. Africa Command has stood up, which will be an
incredibly mobility-intense operation, to be able to move
humanitarian relief and disaster relief equipment and people
around that huge continent.
Sir, as we look at the difference in uparmored Humvees and
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, and to be able
to move those, it takes us away from the C-130 capability.
Then, on top of that, every month we fly as much as we can
off the roads to avoid improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and
insurgents, and we're averaging somewhere around 3,500 convoys
a month, and close to 9,000 people a month that we get off of
the roads, away from IEDs and convoys.
So, as we support the President's budget and support the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in these tough
decisions on resourcing and affordability, we continue to
struggle with the notions of: How do we meet those growing
demands as the goal post moves on us? Those are the discussions
we have inside the Department as we attempt to come to closure
on this.
Chairman Levin. Did you request those additional C-17s of
DOD?
General Moseley. Sir, we had those discussions as we put
the budget together, but it's simply an affordability issue.
Chairman Levin. But, you did make the request.
General Moseley. We did talk about it, yes, sir, in the
unfunded requirements list, as we replied to a request from
Congress, our desire was to be absolutely open and transparent,
and to show you where the next dollar would go, if we had an
additional dollar.
Chairman Levin. I'll put it this way. Did you argue for it
in the budget?
Secretary Wynne. We could not overcome the fact that
the MCS-05 capped us at 300 strategic airlifters. There was a
law basically restricting us from retiring C-5s, so we had to
use all 110, and the debate over the Nunn-McCurdy was still
there, so we were not well received with any increase in the C-
17s, and we knew that.
Chairman Levin. Does that mean your argument for it wasn't
well received?
Secretary Wynne. We did not offer it after we received the
analysis back.
Chairman Levin. All right.
By the way, we'll have a 6-minute first round, if that's
all right with everybody. On the F-22 issue, there is a
difference of opinion here between the Air Force and DOD, as
well, about how many of these planes should be acquired. One of
the issues, as I understand it, is whether the currently-
planned 183 aircraft would be sufficient to meet wartime
requirements. We can't talk about the specific differences in
an unclassified setting, but it does appear that the Air Force
and the Office of the Secretary are using different estimates
for the threat. My understanding is that the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) is responsible for publishing
coordinated threat estimates, against which the whole
Department fields capability. So my question, General, to you
is: Is the Air Force using the DIA-approved threat estimates in
arriving at its conclusion that you need more F-22s?
General Moseley. Sir, we use all threat information that we
can get. Of course, inside DIA, each of the Services
participate aggressively in understanding those threats.
Sir, I would tell you, we completely support the
President's budget, and the Secretary of Defense's budget
submission, but this is also an affordability issue, and that's
where the discussions really come down as to what we can
afford, as we have these discussions about meeting our top
line.
Chairman Levin. I can understand that, inside of DIA, when
you have these discussions, there are differences, but there is
a final threat estimate that is issued by DIA after that
discussion takes place. Is the Air Force using the final DIA-
approved threat estimate in arriving at your conclusion that
you need more F-22s?
General Moseley. Sir, we use the DIA threat estimate, yes.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. My time is up.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Following on the chairman's line, the questioning on the C-
17, I wonder if you could put a little more emphasis on the
fact that when we go into a big aircraft program like this, we
try to set the end-number limit based on what we perceive, at
that time, to be the challenges for that aircraft over its
lifetime. I would dare say that the challenges that the C-17
has met far exceed those projections, in terms of flying hours
in these operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are
remote places on the globe, and that should be considered as a
basis for the additional C-17s. Would I be correct, General?
General Moseley. Sir, you are. Inside the affordability
discussion is still the notion of another mobility capability
study that we're working on now, which will be due, I believe,
in January 2009, to try to capture that movement of the goal
posts on a larger Army, on vehicles that will or won't fit, and
on what we're doing with these aircraft, as far as over-flying
the program flying hours to take convoys and people off the
roads.
Senator Warner. So, that has been very substantial.
General Moseley. Yes, sir, and we're working our way
through that next mobility capability study to try to better
define that requirement.
Senator Warner. From an engineering perspective, is the
airframe holding up under these stressful conditions?
General Moseley. Sir, it is. It's a wonderful airplane. I
won't speak for the pilot back here, but we've not found
anything that we can't do with the airplane that we couldn't do
with the C-130, and that's a strat-lifter that we're using in
the tactical environment.
Senator Warner. I remember when we worked on this airplane,
from the congressional perspective, we asked you to make sure
you make one to do short landing, takeoffs, and drive around on
the dirt. The captain testifies that they work well on the
dirt.
Captain, is that correct?
Captain Fleming. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much. [Laughter.]
On the tanker contract, the Secretary spoke to his strong
affirmation of the procedures that were followed, and I'd like
to have your perspective on how the winning contract prevailed.
In my understanding, we have five criteria; was it four out of
the five that the winning contract, in your judgment, exceeded
the other contract?
General Moseley. Sir, since I'm not in the acquisition
business, I would ask the professionals inside Secretary
Wynne's world to provide that information for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Air Force made a best value determination based on an
integrated assessment of the following five evaluation factors: mission
capability, proposal risk, past performance, cost/price, and an
Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment. Specific information on
the assessments of the proposed aircraft, and the comparison of these
assessments, is source selection sensitive. At this time, such
information can only be provided verbally in a closed session; we are
ready to provide a briefing, when requested by the chairman or ranking
member of the committee.
General Moseley. I will tell you that we were very
stringent on the requirements that we laid down for either
airplane to meet. We made sure we could take these airplanes
into the 21st century, fight with them, and provide refueling
for the entire joint team.
Senator Warner. But, there were clear criteria. In meeting
the criteria, it appears that the winning contract had the
stronger aircraft for a number of those criteria.
Secretary Wynne. Senator Warner, if I could relieve the
Chief of his anxiety, I can tell you this. There were nine key
performance parameters. Across that spectrum, all evaluated,
the Northrop Grumman airplane was clearly a better performer.
In the area of the proposal factors, there are factors that
are reviewed, and, in that area, the Boeing proposal was judged
to be just a little bit more risky, primarily because of the
complexity of their offering.
In the area of price, the Northrop Grumman proposal was
judged to be less, across the board, narrowing slightly at the
total life-cycle estimate. I think they're going to be
debriefed on Friday. I have been advised, by lots of folks,
that if I go into any more depth than that, I have to have it
in a private session, because it gets into proprietary
information. But, sir, it confirms your view.
Senator Warner. At this point, this committee is not going
to be involved until all those procedures have finished. It's
the appropriate time for Congress to review how you reached the
contract and determine if it's consistent with the law. I think
it's just important, as this debate is beginning to build up,
to have some facts out there which show that this aircraft is
the best performer. I'll just close on that.
On the question of the cyberspace, it was quite interesting
that you had one of your outstanding airmen here today on that
subject. Tell us a little bit about the cyber command. This is
an area in which I've had a lot of interest.
Secretary Wynne. We stood up a provisional command down in
Louisiana last September, in order for it to shape itself and
become organized. There are elements around the country that
have an interest, and a continuing interest. We have, so far,
been solicited by 16 States for the location of the final
command. We are going to communicate with the point of contact
in each of those States on or about mid-month, this month.
We're going to cut off the supply of information, so we can do
an evaluation, between July 4th and November. We intend to
down-select to four of the prime candidates in November, and
then down-select to a single candidate in December, and try to
do it in as fair and unbiased manner as we can.
We've also asked the command to become virtual. In other
words, we've said, ``We don't want you to be a standard pro-
forma command, as you might see from the Napoleonic era.'' We
think we should go into the information age, so we asked them
to look at Accenture and Amazon and companies like that, see
how they operate, and minimize the headquarters. By the way,
the units that are already located in the various States around
the country; our first inclination is to leave those in place.
Senator Warner. Let me turn to my last question, on the
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program. Congress, in its
infinite wisdom, and I had a hand in this, laid down some goals
that by 2010, one-third of the aircraft in the operational
deep-strike force should be unmanned. Now, I have to tell you,
at the time we did that, it was to try to push your Department
into more forward thinking on this. However, the Unmanned
Systems Roadmap for 2007 to 2032, just delivered to Congress,
did not describe how it plans to achieve that goal, nor does it
include striking targets as key UAV role missions in the
future.
UAVs are really performing magnificently, particularly on
the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's becoming an
essential component of our overall Armed Forces. We were
privileged, yesterday, to have the CENTCOM Commander before the
committee, and the Commander of the Special Operations Forces.
He reiterated his growing dependency on the UAV for Special
Operations and various programs across the board.
Secretary Wynne. We're extremely proud of the partnership
we have with the Special Operations Command. By the way, the
reachback activities that you cannot find in country, you have
to come to Beale AFB, or you have to come to Nellis, or
sometimes you have to come to areas here in Washington, DC, to
find the actual operators who are doing that. Sir, you may look
in the budget this year and find that we are asking for 92
airplanes, of which half of them are unmanned. That's one of
the reasons that we're running into a little stress, if you
will, on our manned fleet. Our unmanned fleet is burgeoning,
and deliberately so. We're actually running into a little bit
of buildout constraints, if you will, in being asked by the
suppliers to add to their capacity, to make sure that we can
order more.
That having been said, we're also asking our Army
colleagues if we can show them, and use their resources,
because they have a lot of Shadow aircraft that we think we can
press into the fight, and maybe meet some of your larger goals.
As we go forward in our unmanned long-range strike, we're
actually thinking about having that aircraft be a manned and
unmanned variant, because we see the manned as, in fact, a
constraint. He can only go for 11, 12, 13 hours, as we have in
the U-2, and SR-71 programs. Absent the individual, we find
Global Hawks can go 24 to 27 hours.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My time is up.
General Moseley. Senator Warner, that number is 93
airplanes, and 52 are unmanned, that the Secretary talked
about. Our Reapers, our MQ-9s, that we're using, that you
talked to Admiral Fallon and Admiral Olson about, we have those
in strike squadrons, not reconnaissance squadrons. The vector
we got from the committee awhile back on moving into strike,
that version of the UAV is a strike platform, not a
reconnaissance airplane.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Just for the information of Senators, on this question of
the tanker contract, the committee staff is going to schedule a
briefing after your briefing of the parties.
Secretary Wynne. Excellent.
Chairman Levin. They, and we, will be notified of the time
and place of that briefing, in case any Senator might want to
attend, personally. Senators, of course, may ask for individual
briefings. That'll be up to each Senator.
As a matter of timetable, if there is an appeal to the
Comptroller General, which the law apparently allows, what is
the timetable for that?
Secretary Wynne. I think it's shortly after they get
debriefed, which will be this Friday.
Chairman Levin. Is there a 10-day, 20-day, 30-day?
Secretary Wynne. Sir, I'd have to get that back to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Code of Federal Regulations covers the timetable for an
unsuccessful offeror to file a protest. According to 4 C.F.R.
21.2(a)(2), protests shall be filed not later than 10 days after the
basis of protest is known or should have been known (whichever is
earlier), with the exception of protests challenging a procurement
conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a
debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required. In such
cases, with respect to any protest basis which is known or should have
been known either before or as a result of the debriefing, the initial
protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the
protester, but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on
which the debriefing is held.
Secretary Wynne. I thought it was 10, but it could be 30, I
don't want to misspeak.
Chairman Levin. Very good. Thank you very much.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General, thank you. Thanks, to all those who
serve under you, who are behind you today and in many other
places around the world to protect our security and our
freedom.
I would like to talk to you for a moment about the Multi-
Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP). This
extraordinary, next-generation X-band radar that has been
developed for airborne surveillance systems can provide
unprecedented situational awareness to the warfighter of both
ground and air targets.
There's a history here, obviously, which is that this was
being developed for the E-10A. That plane was canceled by the
Air Force. At one point, the work on the MP-RTIP was stopped,
even though we had spent over $1 billion on it. Then, I think,
quite correctly and wisely, the Air Force realized that was not
the right way to go, and began to come back to developing MP-
RTIP, because it is a unique capability. You've listed MP-RTIP
as one of your unfunded priorities, for $285.5 million. The
description is, ``Accelerates MP-RTIP development while the Air
Force determines the most viable platform to carry the future
MP-RTIP sensor.''
I want to make a pitch, and then ask you what you think. I
know there's consideration of doing this radar system on a
smaller variant to be used on a Global Hawk. That's obviously
positive, but I hope that you're also considering using it on
the E-8, the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS) platform, because of the additional capabilities that
the larger version of MP-RTIP gives you that can be put on the
JSTARS. I'm thinking, particularly, about the increased ability
of the larger system to detect and track targets with a much
smaller radar signature. Here I include cruise missiles because
of the ability to protect our forces in the field. But as the
chair of the Homeland Security Committee, my concern is the
potential for a cruise-missile attack by terrorists or enemies
on the U.S. Homeland.
So, my question is whether the larger platform and
a larger MP-RTIP are under consideration as part of this
unfunded priority list?
General Moseley. Sir, it is. If you remember the reason we
had to cancel the E-10 was because of cost growth on it, and we
couldn't see our way clear to spend that kind of money on a
single demonstration airplane. But, the concept of the
technology is still most attractive. We've looked at versions
to put on the 707 airframe, but we're limited on the 707
airframe, just from the distance from the belly to the runway
on the size of an antenna that you can put on it.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
General Moseley. So, there is a version of it that will fit
on the existing 707 airframe, and we've worked with the
contractor for that.
We've also kept it alive to put it on the Global Hawk which
addresses Senator Warner's question about unmanned vehicles and
persistence.
So, sir, I think there is a future for this capability,
because of the need to be able to see things small, both on the
unmanned and on the manned side of this.
Now that we have a tanker contract with another type of
aircraft that is bigger, we have options to go back to the
bigger antenna, to create a bigger aperture, so that we can
take a look at that.
We've had the conversation amongst ourselves about: How do
we start that program, now that we have an airframe that is big
enough, the distance from the runway to the belly of the
airplane, that we can put the bigger antenna on it? So, it's
very much alive.
Senator Lieberman. You might put the antenna on the
tankers?
Secretary Wynne. Sir, all of our derivative aircraft are
707s.
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Secretary Wynne. What we're looking at now is, thinking
about going to the systems houses and asking them to,
essentially, design their product for a platform that's in the
Air Force inventory, and give them the right to come back to us
with: What does it fit on? I think that would put the impetus,
if you will, on the electronics instead of the platform.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that. That's very
encouraging, even exciting, so long as we can find a way to
acquire that larger MP-RTIP piece of this.
Secretary Wynne. Sir, in your chairmanship of the Homeland
Security Committee, you might think about the reason that the
National Guard is so excited about the F-22, frankly, is that
it also can chase down cruise missiles.
Senator Lieberman. Hear, hear. Although I think its
capacity, as great as it is, will be amplified by the MP-RTIP.
Secretary Wynne. If it gets cued, it's much easier.
Senator Lieberman. That's the key.
Briefly, on the fighter programs. First, on the JSF, you do
not fund the alternate engine for the JSF in your budget
request. During hearings last year on this issue, you
characterized it as unnecessary and a potential cost that could
delay fielding of the JSF. Is that still your position, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary Wynne. I think the issue really is affordability.
It fails the business case. I would note that Senator Warner
emphasized reliability. If you go to a single airplane for 8,
9, 10 nations, then the question is: Does it have to pass a
business case in order to just be an investment in uber
reliability? Recognizing it doesn't pass its business case, as
Senator Levin pointed out on the C-17, we don't get much
support for putting it forward. We do agree with the
President's budget, as it sits, but we also look at it and
think: What should America take responsibility for in the area
of reliability?
Senator Lieberman. Understood.
General Moseley. Senator Lieberman, if I could piggyback my
boss.
Senator Lieberman. You sure can.
General Moseley. The holding of the F-35-series aircraft,
F-35 A, B, and C, timeline to the original requirement is
something we're very sensitive to. Being able to deliver that
airplane on time, for not just the Air Force, but the
international community, as well as the Marines and the Navy,
is a concern to all of us about being able to bring that
aircraft online, in the numbers that we need, on time.
Senator Lieberman. I agree, and appreciate the answer.
My time's up. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was going to start off with my concern over the number of
the F-22s, but I see that Senator Chambliss is here, and I'm
sure he'll cover that in enough detail, I won't have to use my
time to do it.
A lot of discussions are taking place about the aging
equipment. I know that you guys have tunnel vision, you're
concerned mostly about the Air Force, but this could be a
hearing of the Army, the Marines, and the Navy. All of them
have this same problem. We had a conversation a couple of days
ago with General Wurster, the Air Force Special Operations
Command Commander, and he told me about a refueling mission
with a KC-135, where they had problems transferring gas from
one of its wings through the boom; instead of aborting the
mission, the crew devised a workaround, offloading gas from the
good wing, and then pumping it over to replace it and maintain
the balance all at the same time. So I know this is happening.
Things like this are going on.
Going into Baghdad, they always put me in the oldest C-130s
they can find. [Laughter.]
I'd say, ``You know, I'm convinced. You don't have to do
that with me.'' [Laughter.]
We actually lost two engines going in once. Not one, but
two engines. Then, of course, the last time, we were about 8
minutes out, we were shot at, and if we had had something that
performed better, we would have been out of range by that time.
So, I don't have to be convinced. I know that's a problem. But,
I wonder how many people in this room know that, in the case of
the lift vehicles, that Tinker has a reverse engineering
facility, where it reverse engineers parts of our aging
aircraft, because there just aren't the parts available. Is
this a program you're familiar with, General Moseley?
General Moseley. Yes, sir. Also in our wings, when the old
aircraft go through phased maintenance, we work very closely
with the depot teams associated with that mission design series
so that we're actually manufacturing parts for aircraft that
there's no supply for. Even in phased maintenance, not just in
depot, we are supplying things down to the wing level to be
able to keep the old airplanes flying.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I know it's true in Georgia and Utah,
and in Oklahoma, that the Air Logistics Centers are really
doing a great job, much better job than they used to do. We had
occasion to take a team around to all of them and compare as to
how it's being done. It's being done very well.
I am glad that people are now talking about the overall
problem. I can remember 7 years ago when Donald Rumsfeld was up
for confirmation, asking him the question about the overall
problem: How can we assure that 10 or 15 years from now, we're
going to have the best of everything? We went through this
thing where we didn't have the best of everything. Certainly
John Jumper was very courageous in the late 1990s to point that
out. He said, ``Well, we went through the entire 20th century,
for 100 years, averaging 5.7 percent of gross domestic product
(GDP) for military.'' This was 7 or 8 years ago, he said,
``It's down now to about 2.7 percent.'' Now it's up to about
3.4 percent. So, I said, ``Where should it be?'' A lot of
people have done a study on this thing, and it's somewhere
around 4 to 4\1/2\ percent. Well, nothing happened for about 6
years. Now people are talking about it.
I noticed, General Moseley, in February 29th's Early Bird,
you were quoted that you are looking at that, too. You came up
with something, probably off the top of your head; 4 percent. I
would like to hear any comments the two of you might have right
now about this, where we should be, and then make a request.
Go ahead.
Secretary Wynne. Actually, we have swung in to support the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who looked at it, conducted what
I would say is probably a short assessment, and felt that 4
percent was an appropriate floor. But when you fall below that,
you really begin to build up a bow wave because you begin to
shut things down. If we were to shut down a shipyard or an
aircraft line, these things just do not start back up again on
their own initiative. That's where you begin to really build a
bow wave forward and cause yourself to really think about
getting back into the 4s and 5s. Whereas, if you a had a nice,
steady rate, I think it wouldn't have gotten us there.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
General Moseley. Senator, my analysis takes us to that 4
percent number, which allows us, whether it's shipbuilding or
aviation or space, to be able to lay in the capital investment,
in the long term, to be able to recapitalize aging systems, and
to stay ahead of obsolescence on the inventory, whether it's
ships or whether it's aircraft. If you could stabilize the
contractors and lay that in, then you can also get economic
order quantities that you can deliver the systems much faster,
at lower cost, and you can field the capability much faster for
the entire joint team. Less than that, we are making
fundamental decisions based on affordability, not on notions of
protecting the industrial base and delivering capability.
Senator Inhofe. All of that affects the risk that these
guys over here to your left are facing on a daily basis.
I saw something in your written statement that surprised
me, and it pleased me. Each of us up here is on two standing
committees. Of course, this is the Senate Armed Services
Committee. My other one deals with the crisis that we have in
terms of energy. I'm quoting now out of your statement, it
says, ``Finally, as a result of congressional interest, we have
begun considering a potential for small-scale nuclear power
production on Air Force property.'' Could you elaborate a
little bit on that?
General Moseley. Sir, the Secretary and I have discussed
the opportunity to put a small nuclear reactor on an AFB or on
a military installation because you can protect it, you can
secure it, and you can also generate the power from it in a
very clean way.
We've asked the question: What would it look like, and how
would we efficiently ask the question? But, I think it merits
some discussion.
Secretary Wynne. Right, you can't terrorist-proof it, but
what we want is something that is not dangerous to the
community.
Senator Inhofe. Sure.
Secretary Wynne. They have, now available, interesting
designs which we can put on parts of our base. You can actually
almost bury it, but it takes up about a football field, and
produces about 50 megawatts, which would take the military off
the grid, which I think might be valuable in the event of a
grid catastrophe. It could also provide the surrounding
community with a maintenance amount. It's one of those things
that I've been worried about since we stood up Cyber Command
and people began to tell me about what the threats are. I said,
well, maybe we ought to make sure that we're protected, in
several ways.
General Moseley. Senator, we've pushed the limit about as
far as we can on geothermal, on wind, on renewable energy, and
alternative energy sources. We run most of our bases west of
the Mississippi on alternative energy. We've also flown
airplanes with synthetic jet fuel. With the Secretary's
leadership, we've pushed very hard into that world of renewable
and alternative energy, but there's a limit to wind and
geothermal and solar that seems to be an opportunity to begin
to ask the question: What can we do next?
Secretary Wynne. Right.
Senator Inhofe. My time is expired, but I applaud you for
that, and encourage you to pursue that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Ben Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here, and thanks to our men
and women in Air Force blue, for your commitment and your
service, as well.
Senator Levin was talking about the unfunded request that
you're looking at to recapitalize and modernize the fleet. As I
understand it, we're talking in terms of $20 billion this
budget cycle, but it's also my understanding that you're
thinking in terms of $20 billion for each of the next four
budget cycles after this one. Is that correct?
General Moseley. That's correct.
Senator Ben Nelson. We've gotten ourselves into a situation
where the budget really is never a budget, it's maybe not even
a blueprint at times. My concern is that, when we continue to
put requests outside the budget, we're creating a bypass of the
process, in part, but, also, we're skewing what the budget
really looks like. So, what we should be thinking about is,
whatever comes here next year, if it doesn't include that $20
billion, just begin to automatically add $20 billion in our
thinking, because that's what's going to automatically happen?
I'm not trying to pin you down, as much as I am raising serious
questions about the process, not suggesting you don't need the
money.
Secretary Wynne. Senator, I think one of the best ways to
look at it is, we have been below 4 percent now for several
years. We have been actively engaged in a war for 17 years. We
went through a procurement holiday, and we have built up a bow
wave. Now, the American taxpayer can tell us that, ``You know,
we don't want the kind of defense you all are offering. We
would rather that you were smaller or that you just let
yourself grow old.'' I think there's enough of a democracy out
in the world that we owe you what we believe it takes. However,
when the die is cast and the gavel comes down, this is America
and we follow direction.
Senator Ben Nelson. Is the theory that it might be easier
to convince us than it is to convince the administration?
General Moseley. Sir, I wouldn't say that. Remember the
unfunded requirements list was a request from Congress as to
where we would put the next dollar.
Senator Ben Nelson. I know. I know. I just wonder why it
comes to us in that situation, as opposed to coming through the
regular budget.
General Moseley. Sir, the last budget that we submitted,
the Air Force spent 2.2 million manhours on submission of that
program objective memorandum (POM) inside the Department. So,
we do spend some time trying to get it right, given the fiscal
guidance that we're given by the Department. We have those
discussions inside the Department, and we salute smartly when
the Secretary of Defense makes a decision and submits that
budget to the President. I have no problem with that; I support
that fully. But, when asked, ``Where would you put the next
dollar?'' I think the right way to answer is to be absolutely
transparent and honest.
Senator Ben Nelson. I don't want to put a penalty on
candor.
General Moseley. We did the same thing last year, sir. The
last 2 years, we've told Congress exactly where we would put
the next dollar, if we had an extra dollar.
Senator Ben Nelson. If we could move to cyber for a moment,
as we look toward the high-tech requirements that protecting
cyberspace is going to require, are we in a position to be able
to recruit young people and/or people from industry with the
right technical background for that kind of command?
Secretary Wynne?
Secretary Wynne. Sir, first of all, we can't afford not to
because it is a warfighting domain, and we consider ourselves a
net-centric operation. I would also tell you that my
interaction with industry is, they are ready, willing, and able
to help us in that, and many of them have constructed some
network operations centers on their own, that they're willing
to share with us, as to where they're going and what their
innovation is. We have, in our own Air Force Institute of
Technology, a master's degree program in cyberspace, in aspects
of technology relating to cyberspace, and we're establishing,
actually, National Guard squadrons, in the Silicon Valley and
in Seattle, Washington, that are very well attended. So, we
find that this is an area whose time may have come. The
question is: How do we organize, train, and equip correctly,
and how do we make sure that we maintain the right kind of
leadership to get this done?
Senator Ben Nelson. The importance of a public/private
partnership is fairly obvious because we can certainly acquire
a great deal of technology and information that can help us
from the private side. Is there any effort to try to make this
a three-party arrangement so that you have the private side
together with Homeland Security, as well as the Air Force?
Secretary Wynne. I want to be sure that we can organize,
train, equip, and present forces where we are asked to do it.
So I am working very closely with Strategic Command, as the
combatant commander, and making sure that we have the right
attributes to support him. When it comes to the Director of
Homeland Security, the mission is a little bit different. When
it comes to some of our partners in the Intelligence Community,
the mission is a little bit different. We see it as a cross-
domain exercise. In fact, we have a warfighter school set up at
Nellis, that the Chief set up, so that we could show if you can
synchronize a cyberdefense together with an air attack and a
ground attack, it is a remarkable, remarkable difference.
Senator Ben Nelson. So, you think that there is a
possibility of synchronizing what happens with the requirements
from Homeland Security, together with the Cyber Command
component?
Secretary Wynne. I think we will all learn from each other,
but the missions are a little bit different.
General Moseley. Senator, I think we have to do it that
way. I think we have to look at ways to capture those
synergies. I would offer that the two of us, as we've stood up
this provisional command and looked for a full command, we're
just now beginning to understand how to ask the question about
cyberspace. So, I'm not sure we have the answers yet.
So, the first steps are to understand the domain, get our
professionals, like our Technical Sergeant here, involved in
that, and look for ways to partner with both the academic world
and the industry and the other departments to see how to even
ask the right questions.
Senator Ben Nelson. The assets of the private sector are
considerable, and if they can be made available to assist, that
certainly would provide not only synergy, but I think it would
provide compatibility, to bring all of our interests in
protecting the cyber area together.
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say, General Moseley, that a good friend,
Chuck Larson, U.S. Attorney in Iowa, sent me a book by his son,
Major Chuck Larson, who served in Iraq, about heroes, people
who won Silver Stars. This individual, who won the Silver Star,
gave great credit to his tactical air traffic controller, who
was under fierce fire, as your airman, here, and he said, when
that was over, he had one goal; that was to go find those guys
and hug them, because they would not have survived without
them. Those soldiers, who were in very desperate situations,
made a reference to their ability to call in air support that
was critical in saving the lives of Americans. Of course, we
have a lot of airmen in Iraq and Afghanistan, serving in all
kinds of different circumstances today. We thank you for that.
I thought I would mention the tanker. Mobile is a strong
Air Force town. Brookley AFB had 40,000 people working there at
one time, and it was just closed in the 1960s, and the town
endured 30 years of struggling. Now, the Northrop Grumman team
searched the world over and selected that as the place to
construct a new tanker, if they were able to win the contract.
They have been able to do so. I just have never seen anything
like the excitement that our people feel for the opportunity to
once again be a part of the Air Force community, to see the
revitalization of that fabulous old runway and the engineering
building they have already constructed. They intend to move
forward.
I just want to share a few thoughts about that process.
This committee became engaged in it. The lease proposal that
turned out to be an embarrassment for us all was raised.
Senator McCain, in the Airland Subcommittee that I chaired at
the time, long before Mobile was ever considered a site for
this, objected to the lease agreement. He made a number of
valid points. We had analyses of alternatives, that formal
procedure, and Government Accountability Office reports. It
came up to full committee, and Senator Warner, as he noted, and
Senator Levin, as ranking member at that time, believed that
this was not the way to go, and that we should have a
competitive bid process. Congress voted on that. We said, ``No,
we're not going to do a sole-source lease. We're going to have
a competitive bid process.''
Now, Secretary Wynne, if you're going to buy a large
aircraft transport plane, and you're going to have a
competitive bid process, you need more than one bidder, don't
you, to have the benefits of bidding?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir, you do.
Senator Sessions. In the world, how many companies produce
major large aircraft?
Secretary Wynne. Right now there are three. We are actually
running MRAP vehicles back on Antonovs, and then there's EADS,
and then there is Boeing.
Senator Sessions. Yes, there were basically two at the
time, and so, you had the two bidders. They bid, and did you
make a commitment, implicitly and explicitly, that you would
fairly evaluate those bids, and that, when it was over, you
would award the contract to the best bidder?
Secretary Wynne. We made a commitment that we would be
transparent, that we would apply the laws of the land in a fair
way, and be very communicative to Congress, as well as to the
companies. I think we've done that.
Senator Sessions. Did anybody claim and object, at any
time, that the Northrop Grumman lead responsible bidder and the
EADS partner was unqualified to bid and shouldn't be allowed to
bid, and didn't meet the standards for bidding, that you're
aware of?
Secretary Wynne. Not that I'm aware of.
Senator Sessions. I didn't hear that either. So the
complaints have come now from some who didn't win. I think
that's a bit late. We can discuss the bidding process, if we'd
like, and what kind of changes we'd like, but it's not
acceptable to change the rules in the middle of a game. It's
certainly not acceptable to change the rules after the game is
over and the winner has been declared. So, I think politicians
really need to be more circumspect than what I've been hearing
from some; not on this committee, but others.
I would just note a couple of things about that contract,
because it is important to me, and I've watched it. There will
be 25,000 new American jobs created in 49 States; 230 companies
will participate in this process. The Commerce Department has
said, despite some different numbers being floated, they
estimate that the Boeing plant would amount to 25,000 jobs,
also. So, it was the same number. I would note that we have
gotten an aircraft that I think, in all the major criteria, is
superior.
Let me just ask you, Secretary Wynne, my time has run out,
but with regard to the criteria, that includes how far the
plane can fly, how long it can stay in the air, how much fuel
it can carry, and life-cycle cost, and other factors. Those are
fairly objective criteria.
Secretary Wynne. We had nine key performance parameters
(KPPs). We actually allowed the competitors to trade off
anything that was not a KPP. So, you're right, those were
actually contributions to the warfighting mission.
Senator Sessions. I thank you for your leadership, and I
believe the Air Force conducted the most transparent and open
bidding process, perhaps in the history of this kind of
procurement, perhaps setting a model for the future. You did it
on an objective basis, I believe, and came out with one
conclusion, which was that this aircraft, that was selected
according to your professionals who analyzed it, was clearly,
clearly was the word they used, superior. I don't think
politicians should now seek to alter a process we've approved
all along.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, good morning. Thanks again, I enjoyed the visit
yesterday. Thank you all for your service to our country.
One of the things in our private meeting that I didn't
bring up, that we've talked at length about, is, back a year
ago, the National Defense Authorization Act directed the Air
Force to produce two reports on the future of the test and
evaluation wing at Eglin AFB. We've gotten one of those
reports. We have another one that's coming. As I understand,
it's coming pretty soon. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask you, is
the Air Force planning restructuring of test and evaluation
that will affect Eglin by reducing manning or capacity?
Secretary Wynne. Remember, sir, we were waiting for the two
reports to come in, and I understand that OSD is also looking
at the Defense Test and Readiness Management Center. We'll have
to wait to see what they say, but as far as I know, it appeared
to me the capacity was held.
Senator Bill Nelson. If you will make your decision on a
comprehensive analysis and a coordination with DOD and the
other Services before you come to a conclusion, then I feel
confident. As the first RAND study has already shown us, what
was originally planned by the Air Force was certainly not in
the interest, not only of the Air Force, but not in the
interest of DOD. For example, in that first attempt to try to
squeeze money out of the Air Force Materiel Command, you were
shutting down the climatic lab. It's one resource in the world.
You can't duplicate it. You could say, ``Well, we can send
people to Greenland to simulate cold, then we can send them to
the desert to simulate hot.'' But, what about if you want a
combination of sleet with the snow, or what if you want a
combination of wind from a certain direction coming in with a
certain temperature? You certainly can't simulate what we can
do in that climatic lab.
Secretary Wynne. I think, sir, you've hit upon a stress
point across our Nation, frankly, that affordability can't
always be the rule.
Senator Bill Nelson. Here's where the problem is. This is
the nub of the problem. DOD said we have to cut X number of
billions of dollars. The Comptroller of DOD allocates it out to
the various Services. The Services allocate it out to the
various commands. Materiel Command got a cut of $1.7 billion,
and it tries to figure out how it's going to do it, and it
says, ``Well, we can get $800 million by shutting down these
things in test and evaluation, and squeezing it together with
Edwards AFB.''
Now, that's wrongheaded decisionmaking on the basis of an
artificial number imposed by a comptroller of DOD, allocated
out, because that's not considering the mission of the entire
DOD. The mission of DOD, in this case, is to be able to test
and evaluate all of our systems, highly sophisticated weapons
systems, so that they will work when we call on them to work.
So here's the wrongheaded budgetary thinking, ``Well, we have
to impose this much cuts.'' I appreciate the drill that you all
have to go through, and I know the discomfort. But, when it is
an artificial number given to certain commands, and they're
looking at it through a tunnel, they don't see the big picture
of how it's going to affect DOD.
Now, the reason I get so worked up about this that I had to
get into it, and I had to put an amendment on the authorization
bill to stop it, because it was going to happen by my amendment
causing the studies. The RAND study came out and basically
corroborated a lot of what I've said, and we're waiting on the
second study right now. I just want to make sure that behind
the scenes, that suddenly this guy with the green eyeshade up
there in the Comptroller's office who is saying, artificially,
for you all to cut a certain amount, that this is not
happening, and it becomes a fait accompli, to the detriment of
the defense of the United States.
Secretary Wynne. I think there is some support, without a
doubt, for the climatic laboratory and some other facilities
there at Eglin in the RAND report, and as I remember, even in
the second one that's still being reviewed.
Senator Bill Nelson. I'm just using the climatic lab as one
example. There are other unique facilities there, and a unique
mission of test and evaluation. That's why we have almost the
entire Gulf of Mexico off of Florida that is restricted
airspace, so you all can go out there and test and evaluate
those weapon systems.
General, I didn't ask you any questions, but do you want to
comment?
General Moseley. Sir, test and evaluation is a big deal for
us, because the Air Force lives on technology, the Air Force
lives on fielding technology to make the warfight quicker with
less losses. We live at the leading edge of technology, whether
it's altitude, speed, lethality, precision, or efficiencies of
being able to deliver ordnance. Eglin is an important part of
that for us, as is China Lake for the Navy, as is Fallon for
the Navy, and Edwards is. The synergy of all of this is a big,
big deal for us. Getting it right is a big deal for us.
Sir, having said that, it wouldn't surprise you for a
Secretary or a Chief to say, ``But, we're still living inside
the world of what's affordable and what's our top line.'' Those
are the decisions that we're struggling with every day. But,
sir, rest assured, test and evaluation and fielding systems is
at the top of our list.
Senator Bill Nelson. I don't want this to happen in the
dead of night. It almost did, 2 years ago. I was just fortunate
that this little country boy happened to be in the right place
at the right time before it happened. As the Good Book says,
``Come, let us reason together.'' I hope you will be mindful of
that in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just make a few observations about the tanker
replacement announcement last week. The chairman mentioned this
in his opening remarks, and I'm glad to know that there will be
further opportunity for information, Mr. Chairman, on the basis
for the award, which, of course, is information that should be
provided after the competitors are debriefed. But, I would just
note, for those who might not have been in the room, that the
Air Force has been commended for the special efforts toward
transparency in this particular process. Those are not my
words, those are the words of the chairman of this committee. I
would echo the words of my chairman, in that respect, to our
two witnesses today.
Of course, the assembly of these aircraft will occur in
Mobile. That's right next door to Jackson County, MS. I expect
a lot of Mississippians will be among the 25,000 Americans who
will participate in the new jobs created by this program. So,
as a Mississippian, and as an American, I am very pleased about
this.
It has been mentioned, also, that the KC-135, which was
about a decade old when I was in field training at Grissom AFB,
and got to take a flight and lie in the boom, there, and watch
a refueling, is now 48 years old, and time is wasting on the
new tanker replacement. We've already lost a lot of time in
this regard. Those are not my words today, those are the words
of our esteemed colleague, Senator Warner. I would just, again,
say to our two witnesses and to our colleagues, that I
appreciate Senator Warner's statement that Congress should not
get into the business of rewriting contracts. Certainly, we'll
be debriefed about it, as I've already said.
Had the award gone to the competitor, I would, no doubt,
have been disappointed. But, I do think that we should not lose
sight of the central question, and that is producing the best
aircraft for our service men and women, and for the mission. I
also appreciate other Senators today pointing out that, on the
categories of mission capability, proposal risk, past
performance, cost, and integrated fleet aerial refueling
assessment, the Northrop bid did come out first in four of the
five key areas, and tied in the other key areas.
Ms. Payton, the Air Force Acquisition Executive, has stated
publicly that this decision had to do with the requirements the
warfighter needed. We need to keep that in mind. I'm glad these
jobs are coming to the Gulf Coast. I'm glad that it's going to
an aircraft that's 60 percent U.S. content, as compared to the
other proposal, which was only 57 percent U.S. content. But,
that wasn't part of the criteria that the Air Force was asked
to look at; they were asked to look at the requirements.
General Arthur Lichte, Commander of the Air Mobility
Command, has stated about the Northrop Grumman proposal that
this is an American tanker. It's flown by American airmen. It
has a big American flag on the tail. It will be saving American
lives every day. He went on to say that it can be summed up in
one word, more: more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to
offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability,
more flexibility, and more dependability. The KC-135, according
to the information I have, will have 22 percent more fuel
offloaded, 30 percent more booms on station time, 68 percent
more cargo capacity; and more aircraft fly-by-wire and state-
of-the-art avionics.
An independent aerospace analyst, Loren Thompson, said of
the award, mentioning four of the five key areas where Northrop
bested the opposition, that the outcome and victory by Northrop
Grumman was not even close.
I would also point out to the committee that the KC-45,
which was chosen by the Air Force in this transparent process,
has won the last five international competitions against the
other competitor; the United Kingdom, Australia, the United
Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, and now, of course, our own
United States Air Force.
I would just hope that the disappointment by people who
have worked real hard on the other project has subsided, that
we won't lose sight of the main objective; that we're already a
little bit behind on this, we've lost some time, and we need to
get on with it.
So, gentlemen, I haven't asked a question, either. If I've
stated anything that's factually incorrect, I'd invite you to
comment on that.
I thank the chair for indulging me.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Wynne, I just want to say, from my point of view,
you've done an outstanding job of leading the Air Force. I know
you've had some tough issues to deal with over there, but
you've been a straight shooter, and we really appreciate what
you've brought to the table.
General Moseley, I've known you for a long time. I really
appreciate your service and leadership. I'm not going to talk
about the tanker deal; I guess because none of it is in South
Carolina. But, from a 30,000-foot view of the Air Force, the
question for Congress is: Do we need more money for the Air
Force and the Navy as we grow the Army and the Marine Corps?
When you add the supplemental budgeting with the baseline,
Secretary Wynne or General Moseley, what percentage of GDP have
we been spending?
General Moseley. Senator, I believe that's 4.6 or 4.7
percent. But, if you'd allow us to get the exact number, we'll
provide that for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
The National Defense Budget Estimates For Fiscal Year 2009 Office
of the Secretary of Defense ``Green Book'' provides the following
information with respect to DOD funding as a percent of GDP.
Senator Graham. The point is, for my colleagues, whether
you believe defense spending should be 4 percent of GDP. We're
spending more; we're just not doing it in a very wise way. I
think we could baseline 4 percent and probably get what we
need. So, I hope the committee and Congress will look at trying
to avoid all these supplementals, and get a baseline that
works.
For the last 17 years, we've been in states of undeclared
war, in terms of the Air Force. Is that correct, General
Moseley?
General Moseley. Yes, Senator, that's right.
Senator Graham. We've been flying 2.2 million hours per
year for the last 17 years.
General Moseley. Averaging about 17 years, yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Of that, how much is combat time?
General Moseley. Sir, I've asked them to get those numbers,
and we'll provide that for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Information previously provided to Senator Graham. (In response to
questions from Senator Graham on the FHP, we [A3] provided a full
breakout on Operations (Combat and Combat Support) and training hours
from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 2007.)
General Moseley. Combat, combat support, and the rest of
the training time.
Senator Graham. Now, for a military lawyer, that sounds
like a lot. Is it?
General Moseley. Sir, that's a lot.
Senator Graham. Okay. For 17 years, we've been in some form
of combat somewhere, flying 2.2 million hours, and doing it
with 30 percent less airplanes. Is that correct?
General Moseley. That's correct, sir. From the baseline of
1989 and 1990, Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, to where
we are now, we have a little over 30 percent fewer aircraft.
Senator Graham. A lot more challenges.
General Moseley. They're over 40 percent older.
Senator Graham. So, let me get this right. We've been
flying the wings off these things for 17 years, performing
missions in combat. The air fleet is 30 percent less than it
used to be. The age of the planes have grown 40 percent during
this period of time. Is that correct?
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Now, we're going to grow the Army and the
Marine Corps. Do you support that?
General Moseley. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. We need more boots on the ground, right?
General Moseley. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Now, tell me what happens to the Air Force
when you grow the Army and the Marine Corps.
General Moseley. Sir, first off, when the Army grows, we
grow--a certain percentage, because, like our TAC party
member--behind me here, we have members of the Air Force
embedded into Army formations. So, when the Army grows the
brigade combat teams that we see now, that's at least 1,000 or
so more airmen that live inside the Army formations. When the
Army grows to those larger numbers of brigade combat teams,
same with the Marine regimental combat teams, the mobility
requirement obviously goes up, to be able to support either
forces in the field or force rotation modules.
Senator Graham. So, the workload of the Air Force is going
to grow as the Army and the Marine Corps grow. Is that correct?
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Tell me about the C-17, the assumptions we
had a few years ago about its utilization and reality now. How
has the C-17 mission changed?
General Moseley. Senator, we're using the C-17 a lot like
we've used all our strat airlifters, but also like we've used
our theater airlifters. We're using C-17s like we have C-130s
when we take convoys and people off the roads.
Senator Graham. How much of that are you doing?
General Moseley. Sir, somewhere around 3,500 to 3,600
convoys, and around 9,000 people a month that we take off the
roads, away from IEDs or insurgents.
Senator Graham. So, in-theater airlift allows us to take
9,000 people off the roads.
General Moseley. Rough numbers, yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Tell me about how the C-130 utility has
changed, given the new needs of the Army.
General Moseley. Sir, the C-130 is still a wonderful
airplane. The C-130J is the gold standard for intra-theater
airlift. That's why we continue to support that program, and
the numbers that we see to replace the old C-130s, which we're
obviously flying the wings off of.
But, sir, as we look to support a modernized Army, as the
Army moves into the future with their digital system, we're
told now that the baseline vehicle that they're looking at
won't fit in a C-130. So, to move the new Army around, we're
going to have to use C-17s or C-5s to be able to do that.
Senator Graham. So, the assumptions we had a few years ago
about the C-17 have changed, because the Army is changing.
General Moseley. The Army is modernizing, changing, and
growing. I support all of that.
Senator Graham. Now, your son's an F-15 pilot. Is that
correct?
General Moseley. That's correct, sir.
Senator Graham. Is he flying the same plane you flew,
basically?
General Moseley. Sir, he's flown several airplanes that I
flew.
Senator Graham. I don't know how old you are, but that's a
pretty old plane. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. Do you want to tell us, off the record, how
old you are, General? [Laughter.]
General Moseley. Sir, a pretty old fighter pilot.
Sir, he's flown several airplanes that I've flown, and he's
flown several airplanes that I flew as a captain. So, not just
because I have a son that does that, but because they're all
sons and daughters to all of us, I think we owe it to them, to
the folks behind me here, to have the best flying machine and
the best satellites that we can field for the joint team.
Senator Graham. Some people say, ``Why do you need
fighters? We don't have any enemies out there anymore.'' Tell
me about China and their fighter aircraft.
General Moseley. I believe, in the world of modernization
out there, we're not the only ones that are modernizing the
systems. I think there are threat systems out there that as the
DIA baseline reports, that Chairman Levin referenced, are not
just fighters, but they're surface-to-air missiles (SAMs),
integrated systems, early-warning radars, target-tracking
radars, as well as the fighters. There are countries out there
that are producing wonderfully capable, very lethal systems. To
be able to survive in that world, or better yet, to be able to
deter or dissuade, I believe we need the best systems that we
can possibly field.
Senator Graham. Can the F-22 and the F-35 meet those
threats?
General Moseley. Yes, sir, they both can.
Senator Graham. Finally, I believe the number that you're
talking about to put the Air Force in good shape is $20 billion
a year.
General Moseley. Rough number, yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, for $20 billion more, the
American public would have a modernized Air Force, where the F-
15 pilots would not be flying the same planes you flew; we'd
have a C-17 capable of supporting the Army; we'd have the
ability to suppress any new air defense systems out there and
continue to support the Army and the Marine Corps in their
missions. Is that correct?
General Moseley. That's correct, sir.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to add my welcome to the Secretary and to the Chief
of Staff, and thank you so much for your service to our great
country, and also thank all the personnel in the Air Force, as
well.
The Air Force is currently conducting operations, and this
has been mentioned here already, in the oldest fleet of
aircraft in its history. As chairman of the Readiness and
Management Support Subcommittee, I'm especially interested in
helping to maintain the air superiority that has protected our
military forces since the Korean War, which was the last time
an American soldier was attacked by an enemy air force. I look
forward to working with you and address the concerns that you
have.
Mr. Secretary, the Air Force continues to train and provide
airmen for ground combat duties in Iraq. They call it the ILO
program, where they are performing missions that have
traditionally been carried out by our Army personnel. I
understand the benefits these airmen have provided to our
overstretched ground forces, but what has been the impact of
the ILO program on Air Force readiness and ability to perform
its own core competencies?
Secretary Wynne. Sir, we've taken this for the most part
out of hide; meaning that most of our units operate with a
little bit less competent players.
I'm very proud of the service that our airmen have provided
in the ILO opportunities. I was a little bit surprised that we
haven't had the combat service support come up faster in order
to replace them. I've had a theory that I've advanced, that
every airman or rifleman doesn't work in the limit. I'm very
proud of what they've done, to date, and I tell my Army
colleagues that they love the innovation and imagination that
they bring. But, they have had an impact on our operational
readiness. We've stretched this out, and it has not impacted us
in a way we can highlight.
General Moseley. Senator, with our end strength headed for
316,000, we will have less capacity to offer up the magnitude
of the ILO tasking that we are performing now. We have a little
over 6,000 deployed this morning, and about 15,000 or so in the
pipeline; so, a little over 20,000 or so wrapped up in that. As
we go from 330,000, where we are now, to 316,000, we will have
less capability to offer up that magnitude of people outside
the career field or outside the workplace that they're involved
in, in their Air Force job.
That's the piece of this that we're working through with
Joint Forces Command to identify where we can continue to
contribute to the joint fight, the long war on terrorism, and
still not begin to influence or impact negatively on the units
that we have for the other combatant commanders. Because, on
any given day, 53 percent of your Active Air Force is committed
to a combatant commander, higher than any other Service,
because of space, because of mobility, because of command and
control. So, when you have 53 percent committed to the global
set of combatant commanders, and you're taking 20,000-plus
people out, I want to make sure we have that right. Those are
the discussions we're having now with Joint Forces Command and
the OSD staff.
Senator Akaka. My concern has been for the Air Force and
whether what's happening in this program takes away anything
from the Air Force.
General Moseley, the Army's shift to transform to a more
flexible, modular force will involve the use of many more
unmanned systems than is in use today. Even now, Army UAVs are
being piloted by Army personnel in conducting operations in the
global war on terrorism. As both the Army and the Air Force
transition to greater numbers of unmanned systems, I am
concerned about overlapping roles, missions of two Services.
The word joint Services, of course, is an important word, as it
is being used now.
My question to you is: What type of future integration will
be necessary between the Air Force and the Army to ensure unity
of effort when conducting close air support and reconnaissance
missions? How will the Services cooperate with their respective
unmanned systems in managing the battle space?
General Moseley. Sir, the Army Chief and I have been
friends for a long time, and we've worked this personally. In
fact, we have agreed to merge our two Concepts of Operations
(CONOPs) into a single CONOPs for looking at theater
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and
looking at fielding these systems.
On the tactical side, we effectively buy what the Army
buys, and they have a great operation in Alabama to do that. On
the strategic side, all the Joint Force leverages off of Air
Force strategic systems, be they Global Hawk, U-2, Rivet Joint,
or the other systems, manned or unmanned. The seam between the
strategic side and the tactical side, or the high altitude and
the low altitude, is that area that we're working now to make
sure we understand fully how to employ the maximum amount of
combat effectiveness with the minimum amount of friction. So,
sir, the Army Chief and I are working this very hard.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. I'll submit my other
questions for the record.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Wynne, General Moseley, thank you very much for
your outstanding service.
I, for one, believe that we do need to increase the top
line. I hate to see you robbing from Peter to pay Paul. I think
that the Air Force is at a pretty remarkable crossroads, in
terms of deciding what to buy next, and how many to buy. We
have aircraft that are getting older and flying more than
expected. I appreciate your focus on modernization, and I think
we have to stay ahead of our adversaries out there. But, the
facts are pretty daunting, and they're evident in my State of
South Dakota, just like they are everywhere else in the Air
Force. You look at the 114th Fighter Wing, an Air National
Guard unit in Sioux Falls, the F-16s there are F-16s that were
built in 1985, they're 23 years old, they have an average of
5,000 hours apiece on the airframes, which is an astounding
measure, by any account. The B-1s that we have at Ellsworth AFB
are also showing their age, and they're being used much more
than was projected. Most of those aircraft are over 20 years
old. Due to the support of the operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan last year, the 28th Bomb Wing flew 171 percent more
than normal.
So, I guess I want to hone in a little bit on a couple of
the questions with regard to replacing those.
Secretary Wynne, as you look at the roadmap for future
sites and potential bed-downs of some of these new aircraft, I
was pleased to see that the Sioux Falls Air National Guard Base
at Joe Foss Field was on the Air Force's future weapon systems
roadmap. By replacing some of the F-16s and A-10s and F-15Es in
our inventory, the F-35, of course, is going to be critical to
our Nation's Air Force. I was also pleased to see that
Ellsworth AFB was on the roadmap as a potential bed-down for
the next-generation bomber.
I guess I'd be interested in getting your comments on the
status of the roadmap, maybe some insights into potential
timetables for when the Air Force is going to begin analyzing
potential bed-down sites and initiating those environmental
impact statements that go with it.
Secretary Wynne. Sir, first of all, we are pleased to tell
you that we work closely with the Adjutants General across the
United States to do our total force, because we are becoming
increasingly reliant on our Reserve component as the Air Force
gets smaller. We look at the roadmap that has been devised, as
a guiding tool, because the timing of all of our product that
we can replace, we're not replacing at a rate that causes us to
run around to try to figure out where the roadmap goes. Even
with the long-range strike airplane, we're talking about an
initial operational capability (IOC) of 2018. We're not backing
off of that, but we recognize that you're not going to have a
squadron of those. You're going to have a flight-ready system
of that ability in the 2020 timeframe, which is going to
require sitting and everything else in around the 2012-2013
timeframe to get that started.
We're a little bit surprised that, every time we move a
fighter squadron to a fighter squadron base, we would have to
do an environmental impact study, but that's the way it is.
That will come, I think, on the roadmap, with enough time to
allow us to do it, maybe in 2, 3, or 4 years, right in that
range.
But, we are excited about the prospects for maintaining the
funding profile, maintaining the level of competition we have.
We'll probably be back here, as we can declassify our ongoing
pursuit of the next-generation bomber. I think the committee's
going to be extremely pleased with the way we've integrated
technologies that are available to us across this great
country, to make this happen, and make it, not really a
revolutionary vehicle, but, in fact, an evolutionary vehicle.
It gives us hope that we can maintain our timelines.
General Moseley. Senator, I would also add, with the
Secretary, that when we look at having some definition by 2012
or 2013 to be able to do the environmental work to look at
bedding down the new bomber, we're working the 2010 budget
right now, so we're there. We're beginning to look at the bed-
down and the fielding and the criteria, not only for the total
force, but also the new systems. The budget for 2010 is not
that far from a set of activities in 2012, so I would say we're
there.
Senator Thune. Mr. Secretary, you noted in your prepared
testimony that the Air Force is already the model for melding
its Guard, Reserve, and civilians into the regular Air Force
elements, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, and that you're
looking to push that synergy to new levels. One of the things
that you have done in the Air Force is use this concept of
active association units, which I understand is a program that
brings Active Duty airmen and mechanics to Air Guard bases to
receive training from the more seasoned Air Guard counterparts.
Could you just state for the record a few details about that
program, how many of those associations exist, what the process
is for an Air Guard base to obtain an active association unit?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, I'd have to get that for you for the
record, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
There are 22 Chief of Staff of the Air Force-approved Active
Associations (18 flying, 4 non-flying) on the current Total Force
Integration (TFI) List.
The objective of the TFI associations is to meet Air Force
operational mission requirements by aligning equipment, missions,
infrastructure, and manpower resources to enable a more efficient and
effective use of Air Force assets. While the desire for associations is
on the rise, proposed TFI initiatives require concurrence between both
gaining and associating MAJCOMs, and must satisfy an existing MAJCOM/
COCOM requirement. Headquarters Air Force, in close coordination with
MAJCOMs and the National Guard Bureau, develop missions and identify
potential integration opportunities that satisfy current and future
capabilities requirements that align with national security
requirements. Prior to making any TFI association decisions, the Air
Force takes into consideration factors such as facilities,
environmental impact, available manpower, usable airspace, and current
number of aircraft. Additionally, there is a prerequisite to craft and
submit a TFI Initiative Review Worksheet and Reserve MAJCOM/NGB legal
approval of the proposed initiative. The initiative must then be vetted
through the Air Staff, approved by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
and must ultimately compete for funding in the Air Force programming/
budgeting process. A summary of the complete TFI vetting process can be
found in AFI 90-1001.
Senator Thune. Okay.
General Moseley, one avenue for keeping the aircraft flying
is modernizing them. We had a briefing yesterday on some of the
things that are in the budget this year to modernize the B-1.
What's proposed is placing advance targeting pods on the B-1s,
and the question I have is: What kind of a capability does that
give to a B-1? Does it in any way obviate the need for fielding
a new bomber by 2018?
General Moseley. Sir, the answer to the second question is
no. To be able to bring the B-1 inventory up to the best
capability that we can, given the missions that we're operating
now in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting the targeting pods on
there, and being able to use that both as a striking platform
and a nontraditional ISR platform, just makes perfect sense.
The lethality and the precision that you get with the
Sniper, or the Littening pod on that airplane, to be able to
deliver ordnance is just an incredible capability. Who would
have thought a few years ago that we would be doing this to the
B-1? The airplane has proven to be an outstanding striking
platform in the scenarios that we have right now; supporting
Army and Marine and Special Operations Forces.
Senator Thune. Just one last question, if I might. One of
the things that you all have focused on, and I commend you for,
is pursuing alternative fuels to alleviate our dependence upon
foreign oil. The Air Force, in particular, is the biggest user
of fuels in the country. In the prepared testimony, you said
the B-1 is on track to be certified to fly on a synthetic fuel
blend sometime this year. My question would be: How helpful
would it be to the Air Force to be able to enter into multiyear
contracts, beyond the statutory 5 years, perhaps out to 10
years, when it comes to purchasing those types of fuels?
Secretary Wynne. It's really crucial to making a market,
because this is really about using the muscle of big government
to make a market in a marketplace that's not there yet. You
have to get beyond the timelines that the bankers require, to
make sure that there is a successful market out there. We can
take all of our payments, essentially, in fuel, but the fact of
the matter is, we're going to need, probably, 5- to 7-year
commitments out there, plus some options, to make sure that we
are convincing to the marketplace, that they should invest, and
it is a substantial investment, in these new alternative energy
products and processes, to make sure that we're still going to
be there as a consumer. It is my intent to be a consumer, to
make a market, and not to be a producer.
So, as we go forward in time, whether it's natural gas to
liquid, coal to liquid, biofuels to liquid, whatever it is, we
recognize that we have to have a long-term arrangement so that
they can build the facility, produce the facility, and then
we're still there to take the fuel.
General Moseley. Senator, if I remember the numbers right,
we burn a little over 4 billion gallons of fuel a year.
Secretary Wynne. Right.
General Moseley. Not all of that is jet fuel. We burn about
7 million gallons of jet fuel a day. So, 4 billion gallons
includes diesel and gasoline and jet fuel. Alternative energy
and synthetic fuels are a big deal for us.
Secretary Wynne. I will tell you, very proudly, that the B-
1 that we're about to qualify, the two-stage engines, is going
to get us into the supersonic realm, and that allows me to
branch out and now begin to qualify some supersonic fighters,
as well as supersonic bombers.
Senator Thune. Huge savings, I think, but also really
important, in terms of our getting away from that dependence on
petro dictators when it comes to our energy supply.
So, General, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your
service.
General Moseley. Thank you, sir.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you as always for your great service to
our country. To those men and women who are sitting in blue
behind you, thanks for the great job you do each and every day
to make this world a safer place, and a safer place for my
children and my grandchildren.
I had a chance to speak to about 500 of your chief master
sergeants earlier this week in Atlanta, and what a great bunch
of men and women they are. They're really, really great
leaders, and we all know they're doing a terrific job in
providing the kind of leadership that makes America a safer
place.
Gentlemen, Senator Levin asked if the Air Force was using
the DIA validated threat assessment, earlier, regarding how
many F-22s you need. I believe you said that you were. One key
issue regarding how many F-22s we need relates to how many
advanced SAMs countries like Iran may have in the future.
We just checked, and the DIA has those assessments and
projections for the short-term, for 5 to 10 years, but not for
any further. The OSD study assumes that Iran will have only a
handful of advanced SAMs in 2024. However, as far as I can
tell, there is no DOD assessment to support that number. If you
have any comment on this, I would appreciate it.
General Moseley. Sir, I would only say, relative to the
threat assessment, as a squadron commander, you only know what
you know. It's easy to build those systems, and it's easy to
proliferate those systems; and so, you don't really know what's
there until it shoots at you or you have the signature of it.
The notion of a capability is probably the more critical of the
opening arguments, equally to the numbers. The fact that the
SA-20 or the SA-15 or the SA-10 exists, and the fact that they
can be bought on the open market, and sold alongside the target
tracking radars and early warning radars, is the threat that we
worry about.
Senator Chambliss. Gentlemen, at the DOD posture hearing
earlier in February, Secretary Gates commented that we are
fighting two wars, but that the F-22 has not performed a
mission in either theater. Isn't it a fact that we have an
awful lot of expensive weapons systems in our inventory that
we've never used in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, but because we
don't know who the next enemy's going to be, it's important
that we have these weapons systems in our inventory, to make
sure that we're always the world's strongest military?
General Moseley. Yes, sir. If you'll let me defend my
Secretary of Defense for a minute, I think he was answering a
question about: Has the aircraft deployed, and have we got it
out into the inventory? We have it in the Air Expeditionary
Force rotation. We've used it for Operation Noble Eagle, but
we've not deployed it into the theater. So, he's correct.
However, the ability to have the capacity or the capability
to defend against the threats that you described is the
fundamental question.
Senator Chambliss. Is it correct that the F-22 is designed
to gain access and create and maintain air dominance?
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Senator Chambliss. Is it correct that the F-22 has
capabilities for gaining access and achieving air dominance by
countering other advanced aircraft and SAMs that the JSF does
not have?
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Senator Chambliss. Is it correct that the JSF is optimized
for the air-to-ground mission, and that, although it has some
anti-access capability, it is not optimized for the anti-access
mission?
General Moseley. Yes, sir, and that's why our requirements
are for both airplanes, and the requirements to have the
synergy of both airplanes to be able to field that for the
whole joint team.
Senator Chambliss. The vision of the Air Force is that
these two great weapons systems are to work hand in hand to
make sure that we never have to worry about air dominance.
General Moseley. Correct, sir.
Senator Chambliss. I understand that, in 2015, when we are
scheduled to be procuring 80 F-35s a year, that the cost per
plane is estimated to be $77 million per copy. Is it true,
however, that given all the uncertainties that go into weapons
procurement programs, we really don't know how much the F-35 is
going to cost?
Secretary Wynne. Sir, we're just not producing airplanes at
the rate of 180 a year, like we did the F-16. We're not
producing them at the rate of 100 tankers, that we used to. So,
our trend is definitely that our great plans for producing or
acquiring 100 of these fine F-35s may not come true. In other
words, if we reduce the manufacturing volume at any plant you
can assume that the price is going to rise.
Senator Chambliss. The F-15 has been a great weapon system,
and a great fighter. General Moseley, as you said, you've been
in that plane. Is there any value in purchasing any additional
F-15s today?
General Moseley. Sir, my personal opinion is no, because
you can make the airplane reasonably lethal, but you can never
make the airplane as survivable as the F-35 and the F-22. You
can get a missile off of it, you can increase the ability of
the radar to see a little bit, but you'd never make it as
stealthy, you can't reduce the signature; therefore, you can't
make the airplane as survivable.
Senator Chambliss. Are there comparable aircraft flying, in
the hands of other countries today, to the F-15?
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Senator Chambliss. PA&E's Joint Air Dominance Study states
that the Air Force only needs 183 F-22s, which is our current
projected buy. This study assumed that, in 2024, of the two
near-simultaneous major combat operations (MCOs) that the
United States must be prepared to fight, only one of those MCOs
would require the Air Force to defeat advanced SAMs. Do you
agree with that assumption?
General Moseley. Sir, we're working very hard to get those
baselines right. We're working very hard with PA&E, and with
the folks in OSD, to better understand those threat levels. My
personal opinion is, we have to be prepared to deal in a
variety of locations, in a variety of places, and a lot of that
is threat-dependent. Your opponent gets to choose where they
decide to fight, and in the numbers that they decide to fight.
I think we should be prepared to deal across that full
spectrum.
Secretary Wynne. An interesting fact there is that these
advanced integrated air defense systems are getting less and
less expensive, and as people who have a tendency to use them
are, in fact, accruing more and more wealth, it becomes just a
decision on their part as to whether they want to engage.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Chairman, I know my time's up. I
have a couple of more questions.
Chairman Levin. Go ahead.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much.
The PA&E study also assumed that it would take
approximately 10 days for the Air Force to achieve air
dominance in the most stressing MCO, and then swing to another
MCO. Do you agree with those assumptions? In your estimation,
does TRANSCOM have the logistical network to support such a
swing?
General Moseley. Sir, as a guy that's commanded two air
campaigns in combat, I would tell you that any projection on a
week or 10 days is still adversary-dependent. What we would
like to impose on an adversary and what actually happens may
not necessarily work that way. It's back to the notion of, what
can you afford, what capacity can you field, and what
contingencies and what depth are you looking for? Given ideal
circumstances, 10 days might work. But again, that's adversary-
dependent, and it's hard to bet the farm on something that is
adversary-dependent.
Secretary Wynne. I note that, in the Millennium Challenge,
it was a Marine Corps general, I think, that was in command of
the adversaries, and he did something so unusual that we
actually had to restart the game. So, planning on how the enemy
will react to you might not work out.
Senator Chambliss. Has the Air Force ever proposed any
reduction in the JSF to procure additional F-22s?
General Moseley. No, sir.
Senator Chambliss. The fiscal year 2009 budget request
contains $497 million in F-15 operation and maintenance (O&M),
presumably to fix the F-15s that are currently grounded due to
fatigue and cracked longerons. I understand that there are
currently nine F-15s that you've identified for longeron
replacement, at a cost of $235,000 per plane, for a total of
$2.1 million, and that these costs may be covered by fiscal
year 2008 funds. Is that correct?
General Moseley. That's what we understand, sir.
Senator Chambliss. I understand that, based on the current
funding profile, long-lead suppliers for the F-22 program will
begin shutting down in the fall of 2008, and that procuring
another four aircraft in the supplemental, as has been
suggested, will keep these suppliers operating for another 2 to
3 months. Again, is that what you've been advised?
Secretary Wynne. Sir, that's up to every individual
supplier. But, if you look at the profiles in which they are
funding, the amount of funding that is available from four
airplanes, and by the way, the cost of those airplanes will
probably rise fairly dramatically, we're just not sure of the
sufficiency.
Senator Chambliss. Okay. The projected buy of F-22s today
is 183. I understand that's a budget number, and it's what's
been proposed by the Air Force. From a personal standpoint,
General Moseley, do you think that number's enough?
General Moseley. No, sir.
Senator Chambliss. Secretary Wynne?
Secretary Wynne. Sir, not being the warfighter, my reliance
is on the outside agencies, and I think there's a study out
there that basically says about 277 gets you to the minimum
medium risk. So, that's what I would rely on. Otherwise, we're
driven by affordability.
Senator Chambliss. Okay.
General Moseley. Senator Chambliss, I would offer, this has
been a true affordability discussion inside the Department
about trying to meet our top line in the fiscal guidance both
for 2008 and the 2009 budgets. As we look at the POM10 budget,
it is all about trying to get as much capability as we possibly
can get into the budget, as we understand it, and the guidance
that we've been given.
Senator Chambliss. Let me just say to both of you
gentlemen, obviously we've had a number of conversations about
this particular weapons system, as well as others, including
the C-17, I think it's a mistake to shut down that line. But,
I've also had those same discussions with OSD and individuals
in that office, and I appreciate your frankness. This committee
operates somewhat independently, but yet dependent on what
comes out of OSD. But, we're the ones that ultimately are
charged with the decisions of how to spend the taxpayer money,
and how much of it to spend. We can't do that without your
being frank and straightforward with us. I want you to know I
appreciate your doing that, in spite of the fact that you can
have disagreements within the building over various issues. I
would hope that those who have an opinion otherwise will allow
us to continue discussion with them until we resolve this
between Capitol Hill and the Pentagon.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Thune asked about long-term arrangements for
synthetic fuels and alternative energy. Mr. Secretary, you
talked about the desirability of making a market for that by
entering into, potentially, long-term contracts. Is legislation
required to do that?
Secretary Wynne. As near as I can tell, sir, it is. The
Defense Energy Supply believes that they have only a 5-year
contract, and I think the companies are looking for 7 to 9
years.
Chairman Levin. Have you recommended to them that authority
be----
Secretary Wynne. We requested. Yes, sir, we have.
Chairman Levin. Of them?
Secretary Wynne. I've asked that they request the
authority, because I don't want to go into the buying business.
They should be in the buying business.
Chairman Levin. You've asked them to ask Congress for
increased authority?
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. All right. Any memos that you can give us
on that subject, we'd appreciate.
Secretary Wynne. Okay.
[The information referred to follows:]
No formal memorandum from the Air Force has been issued. The Air
Force expressed support for long-term contract authority for the
purchase of synthetic fuels to the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC)
in various meetings over the past several months. DESC was also
supportive of the long-term contract authority and drafted a
legislative proposal and we understand this proposal is in review at
the Office of Management and Budget.
Chairman Levin. I'll ask both of you, should we terminate
the JSF alternate engine program?
Secretary Wynne. Here's where we have to be very supportive
of the President's budget.
Chairman Levin. Why do you have to be supportive here, but
not on the F-22s and not on the C-117s?
Secretary Wynne. We're actually supportive of the
submission. If you were to ask us for a personal opinion, I
think we could perhaps offer you that.
Chairman Levin. Okay, let's try a personal opinion.
Secretary Wynne. On a personal level, we were very happy to
have the F-16 fighters available when the F-15s got stood down
because of cracking. To offer America reliability on the air
dominance fighter fleet, it was nice to have two airplanes.
One of the things we have here is the possibility of having
two airplanes, but with one being a very short fleet and the
other one supporting eight countries, you have to ask yourself:
What reliability should be there? So, we looked to high
reliability operations to ask the question. I'll note for you
that, on the Shuttle, there are quadruple redundancies that
would not make a business case; they only made a strategic
reliability case. You have to look at: What is America doing in
involving nine countries and essentially taking decisions on an
affordability basis, and not looking at the statistics for
reliability, and just pushing them all the way to the nines?
Right now, the Pratt & Whitney engine is making its mark,
and doing a great job. We expect that they will have problems
downstream, because this is an aircraft program, and this is an
engine program.
Chairman Levin. In your personal judgment, should we cancel
the alternate engine program?
Secretary Wynne. I would tell you that's a very tough
decision, but my personal opinion is, I would keep it alive.
Chairman Levin. General? Your personal opinion on whether
we ought to keep the program going or not.
General Moseley. Sir, we do support the President's budget
and the submission out of DOD. The issues on affordability,
though, take us to these other discussions on a variety of
levels.
To use the money that would perhaps slip the entire program
would not be advantageous to all of us. I believe there should
be a second engine. My personal opinion is, there should be a
second engine. We have had some problems with turbine blades on
the F-35B.
Sir, this goes back, again, to the affordability question,
and it goes back to: How much money do we have to put into
these programs to keep them online and on-time delivery?
Secretary Wynne. Right.
Chairman Levin. These issues always come back to
affordability. That's what budgets are for, and that's what
appropriations are for, and that's what priorities are for, and
that's what judgment is for, and that's what difficult
decisions are for, but nothing new about affordability being
the issue, at the end of the day, that you have to figure out,
what can you afford, what will you pay for, and what can't you
pay for?
On the readiness issues, on your list of unfunded
priorities you don't make reference to readiness at all. I
don't believe that the word appears there.
General Moseley. Sir, we have several entries in there on
modernization things, and on sustainment.
Chairman Levin. Right. But, on the readiness issue, in
terms of depot maintenance, 77 percent of the projected depot
maintenance requirements are met in this budget, so that leaves
a shortfall, on depot maintenance, of 23 percent. That's a
pretty significant shortfall. Perhaps not quite as big a
shortfall as last year; but, nonetheless, a shortfall. Is that
troubling to you?
Secretary Wynne. Depot maintenance is periodicity, as well
as usage. I would say that those folks have managed to use
productivity improvements and lots of things, but they have a
list of things, to make them better, and I think part of this
maintenance fee can be deferred, and that's what we're trying
to judge. When you come to affordability, you build it up,
section by section and level by level. We think that 77 percent
gives them exactly what they need to make their mission.
Chairman Levin. Are you comfortable with 77 percent,
General?
General Moseley. Senator Levin, I'd like to have it higher.
I would like to have it so that we could maintain the aging
systems until we can recap them with new systems. General
Corley gave me a note the other day that said every dollar he
spends on modifications to his existing inventory, 86 percent
of that goes to safety and sustainment, with only 14 percent
going to enhanced warfighting capability. I think that gives
you a rough gauge on what the depots are doing for us. The 77-
or-so-percent number is a true baseline. We can survive with
that, but we don't have the depth and the capacity, and we
don't know what part of this old inventory is going to break
next.
Chairman Levin. Now, another readiness issue is the flying-
hour program. In your testimony last year, Mr. Secretary, you
explained that the Air Force was increasing the risk in
readiness accounts in order to protect modernization accounts.
Your budget request last year included a 10 percent reduction
in flying hours, compared to fiscal year 2007.
General, you indicated last year that you had some
discomfort with that reduction in flying hours, and you were
trying to find ways to, as you, I think, put it, or we put it,
``migrate funds back into the flying-hour program.'' But, the
request for fiscal year 2009 included an additional reduction,
it's a modest one, but, nonetheless, a continuing reduction, to
the flying-hour program. We are concerned that the reductions
in the readiness account are, like you say, budget-driven
rather than driven by the operational requirements, safety
requirements, and risk requirements.
So, here's my question. Are you troubled, General, by this
additional reduction in flying hours?
General Moseley. Sir, there's two answers to that. I'm
always troubled by the reduction in flying hours; but, in this
budget, we also lose, I think, 270 aircraft out of the
inventory, so we have less airplanes to fly. We've also
restructured a bit of training command, so we take some of the
time out of the undergraduate pilot training and undergraduate
navigation training syllabus. So that particular piece, I'm
comfortable with.
The operational composite-force training, the preparation
for Afghanistan and Iraq, or whatever we have to go do next,
I'm less comfortable with that, and we work that, hard.
Secretary Wynne. Senator, I think there's a mismatch of
numbers here. What General Moseley's saying is that we think
it's the mix of the fleet that actually caused the appearance
of a reduction in flight hours; but per pilot, we have not
reduced flying hours.
Chairman Levin. Can you get us those figures, if we don't
already have them?
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. If we do already have them, just let our
staff know where they are because I think that's a very
important distinction.
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir, we will.
[The information referred to follows:]
In the Air Force fiscal year 2009 President's budget submission,
the active Air Force O&M flying hour program delta between fiscal year
2008 and fiscal year 2009 was programmed at 26,968 FHs (2.5 percent
reduction). Although all programs have minor changes, the major factors
driving this decrease are:
13,342 FHs for AETC T-38C - shift of student pilot production
from fighter to heavy aircraft to meet the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force's guidance to right size unit manning.
5272 FHs for AETC F-15C/D anticipated force structure
reductions.
5803 FHs for AETC F-16C/D - shift of student pilot production
from fighter to heavy aircraft to meet the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force's guidance to right size unit manning.
2638 FHs for ACC F-117A - weapons system retirement.
The programmed hours per crew per month (HCM) data:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
-----------------------
2008 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighters \1\.................................... 14.4 13.9
Bombers \2\..................................... 15.3 14.5
Tanker.......................................... 15.1 15.1
Airlift......................................... 23.0 22.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drivers of HCM change between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009
\1\ Fighters
(1) MAJCOMs had the option to decide which aircraft's flying hour
program to adjust and how many hours to adjust in each fiscal year to
meet their ``10 percent'' flying hour program funding reduction.
(2) DMO.
(3) Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP).
\2\ Bombers
(1) MAJCOMs had the option to decide which aircraft's flying hour
program to adjust and how many hours to adjust in each fiscal year to
meet their ``10 percent'' flying hour program funding reduction.
Note: There were no explicit programmatic actions taken to reduce
hours per pilot in fiscal year 2009. The HCM calculation used pilot
numbers as of the end of the forth quarter for each year. As the pilot
numbers catch up with the force structure drawdowns, the resultant
fiscal year 2009 HCM will be closer to the fiscal year 2008 levels.
Chairman Levin. I think you were, nope, almost made it.
[Laughter.]
General Moseley. We would be remiss.
Chairman Levin. We're delighted that Senator Warner got
here in the nick of time.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was privileged to join with our Senate leadership in
having a small meeting with His Majesty, the Prince of Jordan.
The question I would ask is just to recite the pros and the
cons, as you see it, of having a competitive engine process
continue for the F-35 aircraft. I recognize the position of
your Department. I respect that. But, just let's evaluate the
pros and the cons of that issue.
Chairman Levin. If I could interrupt, Senator Warner, when
you were out, they crossed the Rubicon on this issue, in terms
of their personal support for the second engine; they both
expressed their personal support for it. I did not ask,
however, your question, which is the pros and cons. I don't
want to interrupt that, but since you weren't able to be here,
I just wanted to bring you up to date.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman.
Secretary Wynne. Sir, as we start this, first of all,
supporting the President's budget, it was arrived at from
affordability. It was arrived at because the Pratt & Whitney
engine was, in fact, going along very well, and seemed to be
hitting its statistical levels. The impact on the program
appeared to be that it failed the business case. So it did not
get into the budget, and I think we, both of us, have that as
our starting point.
If I could, as Senator Levin said, cross the Rubicon once
again to offer you, from a professional standpoint and a
personal level, what the pros and cons could be, I would say it
this way. I was very pleased to have two airplanes when the F-
15 developed cracks. The reason I was very pleased to be able
to do that is, we swung a lot of F-16s in to support and
essentially accomplish the mission of the F-15 while they were
being examined for reflight. We were very pleased to have two
engines for the F-16, sometime back, when we had an engine
failure. Quite a few of our international partners had been
here, and General Moseley had to go to all of our international
flying partners on the F-15s to reassure them that America, in
fact, produced a very high-reliable craft. He has accomplished
that mission in a very good way. We have offered transparency
in the reflight characteristics for that airplane, because they
only have the single airplane as their air-dominant fleet. Here
in the JSF, we now have a partnership across nine air forces.
I would tell you that while it does not pass the business
case, the question of, ``How much reliability should you have
to ensure your air-dominance inventory is available to you'' is
a question that has not really been asked, and it is where I
came down on the side of continuing the investment, at this
point.
There is a secondary question: What kind of capability will
you have in the future to grow your engine, design and
manufacturing capability, and what kind of capability do you
have there now? I think having the competitive forces at work
allow you some mission creep, which is going to happen across
our air fleet, and maintains the competition out there, which
has proven itself to be somewhat apropos for the engine
companies. It also has really helped in the international
market, because the engine companies will compete.
So, after assessing all of that, I would tell you, from
where we are to look at the to-go costs versus a sum cost, I
think the to-go costs are appropriate.
Senator Warner. I thank you. So it really comes down
against an array of advantages; i.e., competition, reliability,
international partnerships; possibly, there's a variance in the
thrust which could affect the vertical and/or short takeoff and
landing aircraft versus the other plane. On the down side, it's
just the difficult question of the dollar budget.
Secretary Wynne. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Is that about a summary of it?
Secretary Wynne. I think you've hit it.
General Moseley. Senator, that question of the dollar
budget inside that program, we're all very sensitive to
fielding that airplane on time.
Secretary Wynne. Right.
General Moseley. Not just the A model, but the B model and
the C model for the Navy and the Marine Corps, to be able to
bring that airplane online so we can move into the 21st century
with the new capabilities. Any large programmatic cut inside
that program puts those IOC times at risk.
Senator Warner. In a few words, look elsewhere for the
money.
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
General Moseley. Or, sir, help us protect the IOCs on these
critical airplanes as we develop them and field them for the
joint team.
Senator Warner. I look forward to the challenges of working
with each of you. You're a great team.
I caught that little comment of yours when we started, Mr.
Secretary: this could be your last budget presentation. We'll
wait and see. But, in any event, I do know this will be my last
hearing with the Department of Air Force on the posture of your
Department. There will be others, I'm sure.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, gentlemen. We are adjourned.
[Additional information submitted for the record:]
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
energy development and range encroachment
1. Senator Reed. Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, the
Department of Defense (DOD) ``Strategic Plan for DOD Test and
Evaluation (T&E) Resources'' (September 30, 2007) identifies
encroachment threats which ``threaten the DOD's ability to conduct
realistic and safe T&E.'' Among the principal challenges faced by DOD's
test ranges, the plan identifies ``energy-related projects.''
Specifically, the plan identifies new energy production and
transmission infrastructure, including energy corridors and wind farms,
as range encroachment threats. The Air Force is actively pursuing the
development of new energy production facilities on Air Force
installations. Has the Air Force evaluated its drive for new energy
projects against the potential for such projects to exacerbate
encroachment issues at Air Force test and training ranges?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. Yes. Each proposed energy
project is evaluated through a rigorous planning process prior to
approval. Ensuring there is no impact to mission is the first hurdle
energy projects must overcome in the process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
f-22 fighter
2. Senator Akaka. General Moseley, the F-22 has come under
criticism of late for its lack of direct contribution to operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader global war on terrorism. In the
context United States Pacific Command, could you please outline the
unique capabilities and advantages provided by the F-22 in performing
missions, for example, in defense of South Korea or Taiwan that help us
understand why it is so critical to invest in this weapon system?
General Moseley. The F-22's primary mission is air dominance. It
was designed from inception to dominate in the air-to-air fight,
providing air superiority and targeting advanced surface-to-air missile
systems. Our current legacy fighters have reached parity with foreign
fighters and are unable to access high threat areas that contain
advanced surface-to-air missile sites. The Raptor's combined attributes
of integrated avionics, multi-role, stealth, advanced maneuverability,
and supercruise give the F-22 unprecedented lethality and
survivability. This allows the F-22 to access high threat areas that
are defended by advanced surface-to-air missiles on day one of any
conflict. In the defense of South Korea or Taiwan, the F-22 will fly
into environments where our F-15s and F-16s can no longer operate in
order to clear out the enemy fighters and begin to pick apart the
enemy's integrated air defense systems. This air dominance mission is
the Air Force's job number one--it enables all the other joint forces
to operate by allowing them freedom from attack, freedom to maneuver,
and freedom to attack.
The F-22 has not been requested by Combatant Command (COCOM)
commanders for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Air Force has
been operating over the skies of Iraq for the last 18 years and has
obtained air dominance. Sufficient numbers of F-22s are required to
meet the National Military Strategy requirements this Nation may face
over the next 20 years and beyond. The current program of record
provides the Air Force with 126 combat coded aircraft fielded in seven
combat squadrons. Based on normal attrition, this combat force will
steadily decrease over time and result in the Air Force closing an F-22
squadron by 2014--only 6 years from now.
f-35a fighter
3. Senator Akaka. General Moseley, the F-35A will primarily be
replacing the aging fleet of F-16 and A-10 aircraft, most of which were
acquired in the 1970s and 1980s to counter the Soviet air and air
defense capability. Large attrition was expected had the Cold War ever
turned ``hot'', which helped justify the large number of them procured.
It is my understanding that the current number of F-35s that the Air
Force wants to acquire will replace these aircraft on an approximate
one-for-one basis. Please comment on the nature of the foreseen threat
to American air operations over the operational life of the F-35 that
helps explain the need for this kind of replacement ratio, given the
technological capabilities of this new fighter.
General Moseley. The technological capabilities of the F-35 are
indeed greater than the legacy aircraft it will replace, but the threat
we face today and in the future is much more lethal than the threat in
the 1970s and 1980s when our legacy aircraft were designed and built.
Fifth generation capabilities are required to survive and be lethal
against the advanced threats that are both in development and in
production. Today we face increasingly sophisticated Integrated Air
Defense Systems (IADS) armed with significantly more lethal surface-to-
air and air-to-air missile systems. These systems possess far greater
lethal ranges, greater detection ranges, and use missiles with greater
maneuverability than in the past. We face enemy fighters with radar,
missile, avionics, and performance capabilities that exceed the
capabilities of our current systems and require us to field fifth
generation aircraft to retain our advantage.
The F-35 will be the Air Force's future core fighter for air-to-
ground strike operations. As such, the Air Force must build sufficient
force structure to provide persistent global attack across the spectrum
of air-to-ground missions against a large and diverse target set. The
Air Force's total buy of 1,763 F-35s resulting from previous
Quadrennial Defense Reviews (QDRs) was reviewed and remained unchanged
in the 2005 QDR. It's important to note that the 1,763 F-35s will field
and operate over a 47-year period (based on the planned procurement
rate of 80 aircraft/year starting in fiscal year 2015, the period of
operational service starts in 2013 and ends in 2060). This means that
due to the 25 year production period as aircraft steadily enter the
inventory, the peak number of 1,016 operational F-35s will not be
reached until 2032. This inventory number then begins to decrease
steadily 2 years later as early production aircraft enter retirement.
Bottomline: 1,763 Air Force F-35s are required to ensure adequate
force structure to meet national security requirements over the
extended life cycle of the F-35.
4. Senator Akaka. General Moseley, taking into account all the
priorities of the Air Force, is a reduction in the total number of F-
35s procured a reasonable solution that will meet fiscal constraints
and yet still protect adequate future capability?
General Moseley. Recapitalizing and modernizing the force is one of
the Air Force's three strategic priorities. The F-35A program is a key
element contributing to that strategic priority and as such ranks among
the Service's top five acquisition priorities. However, the F-35A
program is a decades-long procurement process that culminates with
1,763 aircraft in the 2030s. Reducing the total number of F-35As to
address fiscal constraints without other viable alternatives will force
the Air Force to a much smaller force structure resulting in a loss of
capability and capacity and not meet the National Defense Strategy or
National Military Strategy. The total number of F-35As with its
persistent attack capabilities complements the air superiority
capabilities of the F-22A, and their combined advanced combat
capabilities provide air dominance to the Joint Force for freedom of
maneuver, for enhanced interoperability with global partners, and for a
strengthened national security.
domain of cyberspace
5. Senator Akaka. General Moseley, the mission of the Air Force now
includes fighting in the domain of cyberspace. We've recently heard
testimony from the Director of National Intelligence and the Director
of the Defense Intelligence Agency about the grave nature of the cyber
threat now facing the data and infrastructure of American information
systems by nations with an increasing ability to target these
vulnerabilities. What do you feel are the inherent strengths of the
current Air Force that position it to be the lead Service to handle
cyberspace operations?
General Moseley. Cyberspace operations are inherently fast-paced
and dynamic, and require the capability to reach out anywhere across
the globe in a moment's notice. This is an environment where the Air
Force thrives, having developed the training, skills, and a culture of
global reach and global power to rapidly strike our adversaries
wherever they may hide. Cyberspace operations are not new to the U.S.
Air Force. We have executed non-kinetic operations with more
traditional kinetic operations and integrated them from the Air and
Space Operations Center for many years. We count on cyberspace
superiority for achieving both air and space superiority. We have also
fielded diverse capabilities to hold our adversaries at risk in and
through cyberspace across the globe. What is new, however, is the Air
Force's leadership in recognizing the importance of this domain in
modern warfighting, and our renewed emphasis in ensuring maximum
effectiveness in organizing, training, and equipping airmen to meet the
rapidly growing need of the warfighters. Our Nation's warfighting
combatant commanders regularly use Air Force cyberspace operations
capabilities. Air Force forces find themselves not only heavily engaged
in achieving cyberspace superiority for U.S. Central Command, but also
actively engaged with or in demand by all the other geographic and
functional COCOMs.
6. Senator Akaka. General Moseley, how will you and your successors
prioritize allocation of resources to maintain capability in the three
domains, given the very high capital costs of acquiring assets like
high technology aircraft and space systems?
General Moseley. The Air Force recognized that while pursuing air
dominance through focused investment of resources, it had become
increasingly dependent on space and cyberspace to provide desired
effects. Accordingly, the Air Force committed to the strategic
imperative of providing Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global
Power through cross-domain (air, space, cyber) dominance to underwrite
the security and sovereignty of the Nation. The standup of the new
Cyber Command, along with Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command, and
Air Force Space Command, provides an organizational structure to
support advocacy, awareness, priorities, and resource implications of
cross domain requirements. The Air Force understands that loss of
dominance in one could lead to loss of dominance in all and through
continual assessment of the strategic environment will allocate
resources to provide dominance in all three domains. The Air Force uses
a variety of end-to-end processes to determine and implement cross-
portfolio prioritization--to include strategic planning, senior leader
forums (e.g., CORONA and Blue Summit conferences), and the Air Force
Corporate Structure with its senior leadership oversight and direction
throughout the complete process.
next generation long range bomber
7. Senator Akaka. General Moseley, you have argued that the F-35
fighter will complement the advanced air-to-air capabilities of the F-
22, and that they are both needed to ensure a well-rounded 5th
generation air power structure that can dominate air and space in the
21st century. Given the proposed number of 1,763 F-35A strike aircraft
that are requested by the Air Force, with their enhanced survivability
and technology improvements over previous generations of multi-role
fighters, what arguments would you use to justify the cost expenditures
required for a next generation long-range bomber?
General Moseley. While providing significant capability advances
over the legacy fighters they'll replace, the F-35A is not optimized to
conduct long-range, persistent, deep-penetration strike operations
envisioned for the next generation bomber. The extended-range
characteristics of the next generation bomber permit it to be employed
from beyond the threat area thus mitigating anti-access and area denial
strategies. The next generation bomber's high survivability,
persistence in the threat area, and enhanced payload capacity of
precision munitions ideally suit the platform for operating in
environments beyond the capability of multi-role fighters and providing
truly global power projection.
Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
cost estimating on the f-22
8. Senator McCaskill. Secretary Wynne, the cost estimating systems
at Lockheed Martin Aerospace have come under attack several times in
the past few years. The cost estimating on the F-22 has been
particularly questioned and, for some, puts the extremely high cost of
the F-22 into question. I am aware that the Air Force, in a perfect
world, wants to buy 380 F-22s, but because of its cost and limited
budget room in DOD, you are being limited to buying about 180 F-22s.
Some say this reduced buy produces a national security risk. When you
pair the Air Force's desire for more F-22s with a potentially
questionable process that has been used to establish costs for its
development, one might conclude that perhaps we could buy more F-22s if
we hadn't let faulty systems drive its cost up.
Let me discuss some specifics that have me especially concerned. A
July 2007 Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit of Lockheed's cost
estimating systems (Audit Report No. 3711-2006A24010501) ``disclosed
eight significant deficiencies in Lockheed Martin Aerospace's
estimating system that result in the development of noncompliant cost
estimates,'' including vast noncompliance with DOD regulations and
Truth in Negotiation Act violations (as expressed in the audit
executive summary). The audit further found that, ``Lockheed Martin
Aerospace's contract negotiators are often not informed by estimating
personnel or the functional area of changes or updates to cost and
pricing data that should be disclosed to the Government prior to final
definitization of the contract price.'' The DCAA audit also noted that
the control environment and accounting at Lockheed was inadequate as of
April last year as well.
In a June 22, 1998, memorandum, Bill Bullock, then the President of
Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, stated, ``Lockheed Martin
Aerospace must have a measurement system that is capable of providing
the information and data we need to manage the company . . . our
current program and functional reviews are not capable of providing
what we need'' (underline in original).
Finally, I am informed that there was a February 19, 2008, meeting
between numerous senior Air Force and Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics officials to discuss Lockheed Martin's plan to get their
cost estimating system compliant. Such a high level meeting seems to
indicate that there are serious problems at Lockheed. How confident are
we that the cost of the F-22 is not based on faulty cost estimating by
Lockheed Martin?
Secretary Wynne. The Air Force is confident F-22 costs are not
based on faulty data. The contracts to procure F-22s are firm fixed
price contracts and were negotiated with Lockheed Martin. As part of
the negotiation process, the Air Force is required to have its own cost
position independent of Lockheed Martin. In addition, there is enough
historical data from previous lots, actual costs incurred, and enough
insight by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to assist in
driving overhead costs as low as possible that the Air Force is
confident it is receiving a fair and reasonable price for each lot of
aircraft. Because multi-year procurement authority was provided by
Congress, the Government receives the benefit of financial stability
and obtains most efficient use of Lockheed Martin's supply chain and
economic ordering.
9. Senator McCaskill. Secretary Wynne, what is being done to
address Lockheed Martin's cost estimating faults in general?
Secretary Wynne. The Air Force, in coordination with DCMA formally
notified Lockheed Martin Aerospace on August 7, 2007, of their
estimating deficiencies identified in DCAA Audit Report 3711-
2006A24010501 via a DCMA Level II Corrective Action Request (CAR). The
CAR listed the deficiencies and requested a formal, comprehensive
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) by September 10, 2007. Prior to the audit
being issued, the contractor had already started corrective actions
based on preliminary findings. Those early responses by the contractor
were captured in the CAP along with the detailed actions requested by
DCMA. Biweekly meetings among DCMA, DCAA, and Lockheed Martin Aerospace
took place in conjunction with those early responses. These meetings
continue to take place to address the contractor's progress.
Additionally, DCAA has begun its field work on their follow-up audit to
assess the contractor's implementation of the CAP and should issue a
report in July 2008.
10. Senator McCaskill. Secretary Wynne, how are they affecting
Lockheed's work on other Air Force programs, such as the JSF and C-5
RERP?
Secretary Wynne. The DCMA audit of Lockheed Martin's Earned Value
Management System (EVMS) highlighted some shortcomings that may be
impacting the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program office's ability to
accurately project future performance based on earned value data. The
JSF program office will continue to work with DCMA and Lockheed Martin
to correct the deficiencies in the EVMS.
11. Senator McCaskill. Secretary Wynne, what has the Air Force done
to address the issues raised in the DCAA audit discussed herein (Audit
Report No. 3711-2006A24010501)? Please be very specific.
Secretary Wynne. The Air Force, in coordination with DCMA, formally
notified Lockheed Martin Aerospace on August 7, 2007, of their
estimating deficiencies identified in DCAA Audit Report 3711-
2006A24010501 via a DCMA Level II CAR. The CAR listed the deficiencies
and requested a formal, comprehensive CAP by September 10, 2007. Prior
to the audit being issued, the contractor had already started
corrective actions based on preliminary findings. Those early responses
by the contractor were captured in the CAP along with the detailed
actions requested by DCMA. Biweekly meetings among DCMA, DCAA, and
Lockheed Martin Aerospace took place in conjunction with those early
responses. These meetings continue to take place to address the
contractor's progress. Additionally, DCAA has begun its field work on
their follow-up audit to assess the contractor's implementation of the
CAP and should issue a report in July 2008.
12. Senator McCaskill. Secretary Wynne, has the Air Force recovered
any payments made to Lockheed Martin where faulty cost estimating led
to overbilling? If not, why not?
Secretary Wynne. Lockheed Martin credited the JSF contract via a
voucher (invoice) for the $126,637,869.76 billing error. In addition, a
deposit of $28,346,781.00 was returned to the General Treasury for
interest. The amounts identified and returned to the Air Force were a
self-disclosed error that Lockheed Martin found within their award fee
arrangement with their subcontractors and not a result of any cost
estimating system issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
air refueling tanker fleet
13. Senator Collins. Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, there has
been much debate over the past few months about a split buy for the air
refueling tanker fleet, and it was reported recently that the Air Force
may be reconsidering its stance on its current acquisition strategy to
support a winner-take-all position. I would encourage you to explore
all options that will provide a best value capability and best value
solution for our service men and women and the American taxpayer.
Please comment on the current acquisition strategy for this program and
the capabilities that each proposal would provide the Air Force.
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The Air Force considered a
split buy approach when it developed the KC-X acquisition strategy in
2006. We decided against split buy because it was not affordable. Such
an approach would double the development costs and $3 billion annual
production costs and complicate manpower and logistics by creating two
production lines, two support networks, and two training systems. OSD
approved the winner-take-all acquisition strategy just prior to release
of the Request for Proposal (RFP) in January 2007; they reaffirmed this
approach during a review in preparation for the KC-X Defense
Acquisition Board in February 2008. The Air Force remains committed to
a winner-take-all strategy. A decision to direct a split buy at this
point would require termination of the awarded contract and a new
competition, delaying the recapitalization of today's 47-year-old fleet
at least 18 to 24 months.
Conducting a competition to select the KC-45 has served the
warfighter and taxpayers very well. Both competitors offered viable
solutions but Northrop Grumman was selected because their proposal
represented the best value solution based on an integrated assessment
of the evaluation factors. Since a protest has been filed with the GAO,
we cannot discuss specifics about the proposals or any issues under
review.
14. Senator Collins. General Moseley, based on the results of the
initial award for the KC-X program, size does seem to have mattered
apparently. Ultimately, the commitment to this aircraft will come at a
cost of some other capability that the Air Force needs to meet its
missions. It is my understanding that this award was to be a best value
solution, is that correct? If so, are you concerned about the increased
life cycle costs that logically come from supporting the KC-45 aircraft
as the air refueling choice for the tanker fleet?
General Moseley. The Air Force articulated requirements based on
capability, not on size. It was the offerors' responsibility to propose
a solution that met the requirements in the RFPs and provided the best
overall value to the government. They were free to offer a tanker of
any size. There was also nothing to preclude them from offering more
than one aircraft.
Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract because they proposed the
best value solution. We were concerned about life cycle costs, and in
fact, it was one of the five evaluation factors. Life cycle costs
include development and production costs as well as operation and
support costs. These were considered in making the best value
determination.
The RFP stated the contract would be awarded on a ``best value''
basis using the following factors:
(1) Mission Capability which included Key System
Requirements, System Integration and Software, Product Support,
Program Management, and Technology Maturity and Demonstration,
(2) Proposal Risk (evaluating potential weaknesses of an
offeror's proposal),
(3) Past Performance (recent and relevant),
(4) Cost/Price (based on a Most Probable Life Cycle Cost
(MPLCC) analysis), and
(5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA).
Factors 1 through 3 were of equal importance and individually more
important than Cost/Price and IFARA. Cost/Price and IFARA are of equal
importance. Factors 1, 2, 3, and 5 combined are significantly more
important than Cost/Price.
15. Senator Collins. Secretary Wynne, fiscal constraints need to be
considered over the life of the program to help in determining best
value. Where did life cycle cost factor into the evaluation criteria
for this program?
Secretary Wynne. Life cycle cost was one of the five evaluation
factors. It was of less importance than mission capability, proposal
risk, and past performance but it was equal in importance to the IFARA
which analyzed the offerors' aircraft in a wartime scenario.
16. Senator Collins. Secretary Wynne, based on the general
reactions that I am hearing about the award, I want to ensure, as do my
colleagues, that the process used for this evaluation was sound. Please
provide information on the process and evaluation criteria used for
this important competition.
Secretary Wynne. The Air Force had extensive dialogue with the
offerors through a Request For Information, Industry Days, and two
draft RFPs in 2006. This dialogue promoted a clear understanding of the
requirements and evaluation factors prior to the start of the
competition. During the source selection, we spent an unprecedented
amount of time to gain a thorough understanding of their proposals.
Through hundreds of formal exchanges, including three face-to-face
interim reviews, we provided the offerors feedback on the strengths and
weaknesses of their proposals. We also shared government cost estimates
during interim reviews; in the past, this typically was done during the
post-award debriefings. Near the end of the source selection, both
offerors praised the Air Force for the way the source selection was
conducted.
The requirements were fully vetted through the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council, which validated them in December 2006. The
requirements are still the same today. For the source selection, the
requirements were articulated in the System Requirements Document,
which was released with the final RFP. The DOD Inspector General issued
a report on May 30, 2007, that stated the requirements were properly
established and documented.
As mentioned above, a best value determination was made based on an
integrated assessment of the five evaluation factors: mission
capability, proposal risk, past performance, Cost/Price, and the IFARA.
The requirements and the five evaluation factors did not change
after the final RFP was released on January 30, 2007.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
active association units
17. Senator Thune. Secretary Wynne, you note in your prepared
testimony that the Air Force ``is already the model for melding its
Guard, Reserve, and civilians with its Regular Air Force elements,''
and I wholeheartedly agree. You also state that you are looking to
``push this synergy to new levels.'' One of the ways the Air Force is
doing this is through Active Association Units, which I understand is a
program that brings Active Duty airmen and mechanics to Air Guard bases
to receive training from their more seasoned Air Guard counterparts.
Please provide more details about this program, such as how many Active
Association Units currently exist, where they're located, and what the
process is for an Air Guard base to obtain an Active Association Unit?
Secretary Wynne. There are currently 22 Chief of Staff of the Air
Force-approved Active Associations on the Total Force Integration (TFI)
List.
The type of Association and their respective locations are:
F-16, Dannelly Field, AL C-130, Elmendorf AFB, AK
C-130, Peterson AFB, CO C-21, Petersen AFB, CO
A-10, Engine CIRF Bradley IAP, CT F-16, Homestead ARB,FL
F-22, Hickam AFB, HI KC-135, Hickam AFB, HI
C-40, Scott AFB, IL C-21, Scott AFB, IL
F-15, Engine CIRF NAS New Orleans, LA A-10, Barksdale AFB, LA
C-21, Martin State, MD A-10, Whiteman AFB, MD
RED HORSE, Seymour Johnson AFB, NC C-130, Pope AFB, NC
KC-135, Seymour Johnson AFB, NC RED HORSE, Charleston AFB,
SC
F-16, McEntire AFB, SC F-16, NAS Ft Worth, TX
C-130, Cheyenne MAP, WY F-16, Burlington AGS, VT
The objective of the TFI associations is to meet Air Force
operational mission requirements by aligning equipment, missions,
infrastructure, and manpower resources to enable a more efficient and
effective use of Air Force assets. While the desire for associations is
on the rise, proposed TFI initiatives require concurrence between both
gaining and associating MAJCOMs, and must satisfy an existing MAJCOM/
COCOM requirement. Headquarters Air Force, in close coordination with
MAJCOMs and the National Guard Bureau, develop missions and identify
potential integration opportunities that satisfy current and future
capabilities requirements that align with national security
requirements. Prior to making any TFI association decisions, the Air
Force takes into considerations factors such as facilities,
environmental impact, available manpower, usable airspace, and current
number of aircraft. Additionally, there is a prerequisite to craft and
submit a TFI Initiative Review Worksheet and gaining MAJCOM/NGB legal
review of the proposed initiative. The initiative must then be vetted
through the Air Staff, approved by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
and must ultimately compete for funding in the Air Force budget. A
summary of the complete TFI vetting process can be found in AFI 90-
1001.
total force integration initiative
18. Senator Thune. Secretary Wynne, could you comment on the Air
Force's ongoing TFI Initiative and how important it has been to you?
Secretary Wynne. TFI continues to be a fundamental element of Air
Force transformation. TFI creates efficiencies, retains invaluable
human capital, and, above all, increases the capabilities of all the
Air Force components. It encompasses new technology, new concepts of
operation, and new organizational constructs. The Air Force's
transformation to a more dynamic, integrated Total Force extends to all
areas of Air Force operations. Integration initiatives range from Rapid
Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadrons (RED HORSE) to
space and cyberspace operations. In order to produce a smaller, more
capable, more affordable Air Force, all areas of operations must be
reviewed for efficiencies and integration opportunities. The Air Force
is committed to recapitalizing the force by changing organizational
constructs in a way that defends against, deters, and defeats every
adversary in any future challenge to the American way of life.
To date, 130 individual initiatives are either being developed or
are under investigation by integrated process teams. Some are near
completion, such as the classic association of Regular Air Force and
Reserve personnel on F-16s at Hill AFB, UT and the classic association
of Regular Air Force and Air National Guard personnel on F-22s at
Langley AFB, VA, both outstanding success stories. TFI has led to new,
ground-breaking organizational constructs. The first ever Air Force
Reserve and Air National Guard association in the KC-135 at Tinker AFB,
OK, is bringing the inherent strengths of these two components together
into one organization. In the future, full integration of the Air Force
components at all levels of organizational construct should be one of
the going-in assumptions as we beddown future weapon systems.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roger Wicker
new tanker aircraft
19. Senator Wicker. Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, what is
the status of the current decision on where to locate the new tanker
aircraft?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The KC-45 program is still in
a very early stage of development, and analyses regarding future tanker
basing are not complete. The first beddown locations are Edwards for
testing and Altus for the Formal Training Unit. Beyond those two
locations, the phasing and basing of the KC-45 will be based on several
criteria, including objective operational requirements and
environmental studies in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act. As we make these decisions, the Air Force will optimize
timing and placement of weapons systems in the best interest of our
Nation's defense.
20. Senator Wicker. Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, could you
discuss if the Air Force plans to begin retiring the KC-135 before the
new tanker arrives in the field?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. Fiscal year 2009 President's
budget procures 44 KC-45A aircraft with 17 scheduled to be delivered by
the end of fiscal year 2013. Fiscal year 2009 President's budget does
not retire any KC-135R aircraft. There will be no KC-135R retirements
before the KC-45A arrives in the field. However, the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 allows the retirement of
48 KC-135E air refueling aircraft with provisions for more pending a
successful KC-45A contract award and the resolution of any contract
protest. The Air Force will retire 48 KC-135E air refueling aircraft in
fiscal year 2008 with the remainder retiring before the end of fiscal
year 2009.
air guard bases
21. Senator Wicker. Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, it is
critical to maintain the proficiency of our pilots, crews, and
maintenance personnel at our Air Guard bases, and we should ensure the
capacity and flexibility these bases provide the Air Force is not lost.
If some of the Air Guard bases lose their refueling mission, such as
the 186th Air Refueling Wing at Key Field, MS, what can we do to ensure
that these bases receive a new mission, such as a lift capability
mission?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The Air Force agrees that it
is critical to preserve the skills, experience, and proficiency of our
Guardsmen at locations where aircraft are scheduled to be reassigned
under BRAC. As such, we have worked closely with the National Guard
Bureau, the Air National Guard, and leadership at the other Major
Commands to identify future missions for all of these locations. In
addition, we have identified transition, or bridge, missions for Guard
locations scheduled to lose their aircraft before a new mission can
begin.
The 186th Air Refueling Wing in Meridian, MS, is one such unit. The
Air Force has identified Meridian as a location scheduled to receive
the C-27B (JCA) mission. Since the KC-135Rs are scheduled to be
reassigned in fiscal year 2011, the transition mission for the
Mississippi Air National Guard will be flying the C-17 aircraft
assigned to the 172nd Airlift Wing in Jackson, MS. This premier
airlifter has an identical crew complement and similar mission to the
C-27, and will serve as an ideal platform to develop the necessary
skills for transition, as well as preserve the experience and
proficiency of the Mississippi Air National Guard crews.
Meridian is also identified as a location for a Component Numbered
Air Force mission, or C-NAF, beginning in 2011. This mission will begin
after reassignment of the KC-135R aircraft. Some retraining will be
required, but the skills and experience of the Mississippi Air National
Guard will prove invaluable to this new, emerging mission. While some
details remain to be finalized, it is expected this mission will
require approximately 300 guardsmen.
c-17 and c-5 aircraft
22. Senator Wicker. Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, does the
current force of 301 C-17 and C-5 aircraft meet the Department's
strategic airlift requirements, and if so, is it the Department's
intent to allow the C-17 production line to shut down?
Secretary Wynne and General Moseley. The current fleet does not
satisfy the Department's strategic airlift requirements. The 2005
Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS 05) set the baseline for a strategic
airlift fleet ranging from 292 to 383 C-5 and C-17 aircraft. The study
concluded that 112 fully modernized and reliability enhanced C-5s were
required. The 2007 National Defense Authorization Act further refined
the low end of that range by directing the Secretary of the Air Force
to maintain a fleet of at least 299 strategic airlift tails. Of these,
111 fully modernized C-5s became the standard as the Air Force lost 1
aircraft in a crash at Dover AFB.
However, the C-5 RERP Nunn-McCurdy process reduced the programmed
number of fully modernized or RERP'd C-5s from 111 to 52. The capacity
shortfall left by excluding the remaining 59 C-5As from the RERP
program is equivalent to 8 C-17s. This shortfall is based on a Joint
Requirements Oversight Council validated organic strategic airlift
capacity of 33.95 million ton miles/day (MTM/D).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes C-5 and C-17 contribution only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional changes since publication of MCS 05 include Future
Combat System Manned Ground Vehicle growth beyond C-130 transport
capability, introduction of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
vehicle, a 92,000 increase in Army and Marine forces, and the stand up
of Africa Command. The next opportunity to gauge the effects of these
changes on the airlift fleet will be the Mobility Capability
Requirements Study 2008 (MCRS 08) due in summer 2009. Similar to MCS
05, MCRS 08 will include analysis of sealift and prepositioned
requirements.
Without additional procurement, the C-17 production will begin to
shut down in 2008. The last C-17 delivers in August 2009, which
includes Air Force and foreign sales. Although the last delivery is not
until late fiscal year 2009, the 34-month C-17 manufacturing span time
dictates that procurement must significantly precede delivery. Boeing
is currently protecting the manufacturing schedule by putting company
funds at risk; however, without additional orders (i.e., fiscal year
2008 global war on terror additions), it is anticipated that Boeing
will cease production.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND AND UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed,
Bill Nelson, McCaskill, Warner, Inhofe, Collins, Thune, and
Martinez.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
Majority staff members present: Evelyn N. Farkas,
professional staff member; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional
staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Thomas K. McConnell,
professional staff member; Michael J. McCord, professional
staff member; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; and William K.
Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw,
Republican staff director; William M. Caniano, professional
staff member; Robert M. Soofer, professional staff member;
Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel; and Dana W. White,
professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Fletcher L. Cork, Jessica L.
Kingston, and Benjamin L. Rubin.
Committee members' assistants present: Frederick M. Downey,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to
Senator Reed; Richard Kessler, assistant to Senator Akaka;
Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; M.
Bradford Foley, assistant to Senator Pryor; Gordon I. Peterson,
assistant to Senator Webb; Sandra Luff, assistant to Senator
Warner; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe; Mark
J. Winter, assistant to Senator Collins; Jason Van Beek,
assistant to Senator Thune; and John L. Goetchius, assistant to
Senator Martinez.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee
meets this morning to hear from two regional combatant
commanders with responsibility for the Western Hemisphere,
General Gene Renuart, Commander, U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM) and of the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD); and Admiral James Stavridis, Commander of the U.S.
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). We thank you both for your
service, your personal service, your family support. We're
particularly grateful, as we hopefully never miss saying, to
the men and women who you lead for their commitment and service
to this Nation, and also to their families, and we would
appreciate your extending our gratitude, this committee's
gratitude, to those men and women.
NORTHCOM was established in October 2002 after the
terrorist attacks of September 11, so it's a relatively new
command. It has the missions of Homeland defense and providing
military support to civil authorities for response to domestic
disasters, whether natural or manmade, including a terrorist
attack using conventional weapons or weapons of mass
destruction (WMD).
NORAD is a binational command with Canada, responsible for
protecting the approaches to the North American continent.
General Renuart assumed command of NORTHCOM and NORAD 1 year
ago. We look forward to hearing his report on what has happened
during the last year and what is planned for the future with
this dual command.
Last month we received the report of the Commission on the
National Guard and the Reserves. It contained a number of
findings and recommendations relative to NORTHCOM and the role
of the National Guard in domestic disaster response. Some of
these findings and recommendations were controversial and some
were critical of NORTHCOM. For example, the Commission
recommended that the Governors of our States should be able to
direct Active-Duty military forces in their States to respond
to emergencies. The Commission also recommended that NORTHCOM
be required to have a majority of its headquarters personnel
with National Guard or Reserve qualifications. The Commission
also suggested that NORTHCOM's planning and capabilities to
support a Federal response to a domestic attack involving WMD
are inadequate. We look forward to hearing General Renuart's
views on the findings and recommendations of the Commission's
report.
The committee also welcomes Admiral Stavridis, Commander of
SOUTHCOM, who's responsible for an area including Latin America
south of Mexico, the countries and territories of the
Caribbean, as well as the surrounding waters. The greatest
challenges here include State stability and illicit drug
trafficking.
We're now entering the 8th year of U.S. assistance to
Colombia in its fight against narcoterrorists. The Colombian
Government has made great strides regaining territory and
establishing a government presence in local municipalities.
Over 30,000 paramilitaries have been demobilized and the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) numbers about
9,000 fighters, down from an estimated 12,000 to 18,000.
The FARC, which is the captor of about 750 hostages,
including 3 Americans, remains a threat to Colombian society
and to human rights. President Uribe has again instituted a
one-time wealth tax to raise money for the fight against the
narcoterrorists and has committed his government to local
development and to improving Colombia's human rights record.
Our government is working with Bogota to assist them in
economic development, judicial reform, and human rights, and we
will continue to push for implementation of those aspects of
Colombia's plan.
The illicit drug problem that Colombia is fighting is one
that threatens the entire hemisphere. According to the
Department of State (DOS) 2008 International Narcotics Control
Strategy Report that was released last week, Colombia's
neighbor Venezuela ``is a major drug transit country with
rampant high-level corruption and a weak judicial system.''
Recent increases in the price of cocaine in the United
States have apparently been the result of the Mexican
Government's crackdown on drug cartels, not, for example, a
result of the millions of dollars that we have poured into
eradication into Colombia. In light of this, the committee will
want to hear what we can do to forge a counterdrug strategy for
the Western Hemisphere that applies U.S. assistance most
effectively.
We also hope to hear SOUTHCOM's perspective regarding the
leadership change in Cuba, and United Nations (U.N.)
peacekeeping operations in Haiti. With the direct
responsibility of the command, Admiral Stavridis, we would also
like to have your assessment of the ongoing detention and
interrogation operations at Guantanamo Bay.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I take note that we have a
vote at 10:50. Therefore, I'll ask to have my statement placed
in the record so that the committee can receive the testimony.
Chairman Levin. We appreciate that.
Senator Warner. I'd like to make a comment. General
Renuart, in our discussions yesterday I raised the issue of the
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, headed by Major
General Arnold Punaro. I said you'd be given an opportunity
this morning to reply to some of their observations. It is a
commission that this committee established and I think on the
whole they did some very constructive work. This happens to be
one of the more controversial elements and we welcome to hear
your testimony.
Admiral, I'm interested in how you have stressed the need
to include economic, political, and social developments as part
of your overall approach, just not heavy--well, heavy emphasis
on, the needed emphasis on the military, but you recognize that
in your area of responsibility that is a very heavy component
of what you achieve.
Your thoughts on Plan Colombia--that was a bipartisan
achievement of this committee some several years ago, that
seems to have worked.
Mr. Chairman, I felt your statement was very comprehensive,
so I'll just put mine in the record. But I also join you in
expressing our appreciation to our witnesses today and their
families and the men and women under their command for doing
such an outstanding job. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming our witnesses here
today. I would like to thank General Renuart and Admiral Stavridis for
their long and distinguished service to our Nation. I also wish to
convey my deep appreciation for the fine men and women serving in your
command. While much of our attention is focused in other theaters, we
cannot neglect our responsibility to protect the Homeland and our vital
national interest in the Western Hemisphere. As combatant commanders,
we value your insights on the challenges facing your respective areas
of responsibility. We also welcome your assessment of the fiscal year
2009 defense budget request.
We welcome General Victor Renuart, Commander of U.S. Northern
Command (NORTHCOM). NORTHCOM, stood up in 2002, has the important
mission of providing both Homeland defense and defense support to civil
authorities, drawing upon Active-Duty, Reserve, and National Guard
units. Over the past few years, NORTHCOM has experienced growing pains
associated with military planning, interagency coordination, equipment
shortages, and its relationship with the National Guard and Reserve.
On January 31, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve,
headed by Major General Arnold Punaro, submitted its report and
recommendations regarding the role and mission of the Reserve
components. The Commission generated some controversy with its
assessment that current planning for crises within the United States is
deficient and that the Defense Department is not prepared to play a
primary role, at the President's direction, in restoring order and
providing assistance in the aftermath of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) events and other incidents likely to produce mass casualties.
This committee conducted a hearing on the Commission's report on
February 7. I entered into the record at that hearing the official
response of NORTHCOM to the Commission's report, which stated: ``U.S.
NORTHCOM's primary mission is Homeland defense, and the command stands
ready to respond to any Homeland defense or civil support mission
requirement. . . . Americans can be assured the U.S. military is ready
and capable of responding to attacks within the United States.'' This,
along with Assistant Secretary of Defense McHale's public comments, was
reassuring. I'm aware that the Department is preparing a formal
response to the most recent report of the Commission, but I hope we can
learn more from you today about the Nation's readiness to deal with the
consequences of a WMD event that is likely to quickly overwhelm the
capability of local first responders.
We also welcome Admiral Stavridis, Commander of U.S. Southern
Command (SOUTHCOM) who has the awesome responsibility of fostering
peace and stability in our Western Hemisphere. We often forget how
vital Latin America is to our national interests. Our national defense
is intricately tied to the prosperity and security of our southern
neighbors. SOUTHCOM's area of responsibility, comprised of 32 nations,
represents a region full of diverse challenges and opportunities. It
requires a comprehensive approach--to include economic, political, and
social development. Under your command, SOUTHCOM has embarked on an
ambitious reorganization that embraces this concept. I am confident
your efforts will serve as model for other combatant commands. I look
forward to hearing about your progress integrating various components
of the interagency into your command.
SOUTHCOM is responsible for what is perhaps one of this committee's
greatest bipartisan achievements--Plan Colombia. For years, Colombia
teetered on the brink of being a failed state. Today, Colombia has
emerged from being a nearly failed state to one that has aggressively
disrupted narco-trafficking in the country and gained control over
regions and towns once controlled exclusively by the terrorist group,
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Today, Colombia is a
functioning democracy and our best partner in the region, but there is
still much work to do. Earlier this week, Colombian forces killed a
senior FARC rebel in Ecuador, which prompted Venezuela and Ecuador to
close their embassies in Bogota and send troops to their Colombian
borders--raising tensions between the three nations. I look forward to
hearing your assessment of this recent development and the role we
might play to enhance stability there and throughout the region.
In addition to recent troop movements in Venezuela and Ecuador, the
committee will be interested in your assessment of: the threat of
radical Islam, including violent extremists with ties to Hamas,
Hezbollah, and al Qaeda in the region; efforts to curb the flow of
illegal drugs into the United States from the south; the links between
violent regional criminal groups and gangs in the United States; the
effects of referendum defeat on Hugo Chavez's popularity; Cuba after
Fidel Castro; foreign influences on the Panama Canal, particularly the
Chinese influence; operations at the Guantanamo detention center; and,
to the extent you can tell us of the progress to locate our three
hostages held by FARC guerrillas in Colombia since 2003.
Again, I would like to express my deep appreciation to all of you,
and to the brave men and women of your commands, for all of their
efforts to provide for the Nation's defense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
General Renuart?
STATEMENT OF GEN. VICTOR E. RENUART, JR., USAF, COMMANDER,
NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND AND U.S. NORTHERN
COMMAND
General Renuart. Good morning. Thank you. Chairman Levin,
Senator Warner, and members of the committee. It is really a
privilege to be here this morning representing the men and
women of NORTHCOM and NORAD and truly, most especially, to sit
here with my very close friend, Jim Stavridis. Not only is our
personal relationship strong, but our professional relationship
between the two commands grows stronger every day, and I think
we do have the ability to answer some of the questions that you
have, both of you have mentioned with respect to drug
trafficking and mutual interest areas in the Caribbean.
I also want to take a moment to introduce and make note of
three members of my team who are critical to our success every
day. Major General Steve Villacorta is my advisor from the Army
National Guard. He serves in a key position within my staff.
We're also pleased to have with us a member of the National
Guard Bureau team, Brigadier General Fick, who is here again to
demonstrate the partnership that we have. Finally, to represent
the young men and women who wear the cloth of our Nation every
day in harm's way, Command Sergeant Major Dan Wood. I
appreciate them being here to witness the proceedings.
Chairman Levin. We welcome them and thank them.
General Renuart. Sir, you talked about the relationship of
these two commands in the hemisphere, and we have worked very
hard over the last couple years with SOUTHCOM, with Admiral
Stavridis' joint interagency task force, to begin to close the
seams that may be there as we move from one area combatant
commander to another. I'm pleased to say that that
collaboration is continuing to strengthen. We're finding new
ways to collaborate, and I know Jim and I are happy to talk
about those in the course of the day.
As Commander of NORTHCOM, I'm assigned two distinct and
critical missions: to defend our Homeland from attack, whether
it is an attack of a conventional nature or one of
unconventional nature, and then to support the Nation with
unique Department of Defense (DOD) capabilities during time of
crisis, the natural or manmade disaster.
We really can't prioritize one or the other because they
move across the spectrum almost simultaneously. So we put a
great deal of effort each day to both our Homeland defense and
to our support of civil authorities mission. As we move into
the hurricane season, for example, that mission of civil
support becomes very significant in terms of the weight of
effort, but those mission sets can move back and forth.
Our missions we believe are especially meaningful because
nothing is really more important than keeping our citizens, our
families, all safe. This requires a culture of anticipation. We
understand all too well that failure is not an option. In fact,
we rewrote our mission statement soon after I arrived and added
the keyword ``anticipate'' to emphasize this new standard of
preparedness. Over the past year we have substantially
increased our focus on planning, training, exercising, and
readiness.
We updated our Homeland defense and civil support plans. We
ensured our plans are consistent with the National Response
Framework and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) support
plans for those 15 National Planning Scenarios. All of this is
done in close partnership with DHS's Incident Management
Planning Team. In fact, we carry the lead DOD role for concept
planning across the Department.
We have successfully completed the Maritime Domain
Awareness Concept of Operation and the interagency investment
strategy to go along with that. These developments improve
situational awareness and provide a way ahead to rapidly assess
and respond to maritime threats. We have made historic progress
in both military and civil response collaboration with our
friends in Canada. On our southern border, the United States
and Mexico work more closely every day to confront the threat
of narcotics trafficking and we are hopeful Congress will
continue its support of the Merida Initiative as it provides a
real opportunity for meaningful progress in this area.
We train with over 50 Federal, State, and local partners at
all operational levels. As an example, we exercised our
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield
Explosives Consequence Management Response Force during
Exercise Ardent Sentry and Northern Edge not quite a year ago
and exercised a portion of that again this past fall in the
State of Oregon.
We have assisted the National Interagency Firefighting
Center in battling wildfires in the northwest and the
southwest, prepared for the worst when Hurricane Dean
threatened Puerto Rico and Texas, and we provided a broad range
of DOD capabilities to a lot of events around the country, such
as the I-35 bridge collapse, the Utah mine tragedy, and midwest
ice storms.
Supporting DHS and the Government of Canada during National
Special Security Events has also been one of our principal
tasks over the last year. We provide military support to
Federal law enforcement partners along the borders as they
continue to counter transnational threats.
At the same time, we provide civil assistance and
continually watch intelligence indicators, early warning
information, and the operational picture. Specifically, we
monitor, assess, and evaluate 12 to 20 potentially dangerous
events affecting the Homeland every day, every day. This
includes such things as vessels of interest, suspicious
aircraft activity, missile launches around the world, and
myriad manmade and natural disasters.
As an example, we worked closely hand-in-hand with the
State of Florida during the recent power losses to ensure that
if there was a requirement that could be met by DOD we were
ready.
Every day we see the benefits of this collaboration in so
many ways. Our officers sit side-by-side with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the Joint Terrorism Task Force
and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), all to ensure
that we have the same threat picture. This allows us to
routinely collaborate and assess information. We've built a
high degree of confidence with our partners and I'm happy with
that.
We also rely on the information expertise provided by our
Joint Interagency Coordination Group. This group synchronizes
and integrates the activities of over 40 Federal and regional
support agencies, including a private sector cell which allows
us to tap into the private sector for areas of Homeland
response.
We recognize there's plenty to do. There's still more
improvements that can be made. But we spend a great deal of our
effort trying to anticipate the threats to our security, to
improve Homeland defense and our global support plans, and
strengthen relations with our mission partners both at home and
abroad.
Mr. Chairman, before I close I'd like to briefly comment on
the final report of the Commission on the National Guard and
Reserves. It is clear that a great deal of effort went into the
report. In conjunction with the DOD, we are continuing our
review to provide Congress a thorough assessment of each of the
recommendations in that report.
I agree with the Commission that we need to increase
support to our Nation's Active-Duty and Reserve Forces, to
build and enhance the Nation's capability to provide chemical,
radiological, biological, and nuclear incident consequence
management capabilities. I am leading the DOD charge to do just
that and have received strong support from both the Chairman
and the Secretary.
My Integrated Priority List to the Secretary of Defense
supports recapitalizing and equipping our National Guard to
support domestic missions. I firmly believe that our Nation
needs a strong and well-equipped Guard and Reserve Force. That
said, some of the findings in the final report I believe are
incomplete and can be misleading. I disagree with the
Commission's assessment of a so-called ``appalling gap'' in our
capabilities to respond to a WMD attack. Let me assure you
there are plans in place and there are forces available and a
range of capabilities across the government to respond to these
events, and we are ready to respond today.
The Commission also suggests that the Governors should have
complete command and control of Title 10 forces in certain
circumstances within their State. I disagree. I believe current
command provisions allow the Governors to have the authority
they need to direct all efforts within their States. Upon
taking command, I made relationship-building with each of these
Governors a high priority. I'm pleased to say that I've visited
now over 30 States and in those visits I've met now with 19
Governors and Lieutenant Governors, every State Adjutant
General, and most of their emergency management directors.
My message is clear and consistent: NORTHCOM is here to
support you. These Governors and Lieutenant Governors with whom
I have spoken are confident in their adjutants general and
their ability to lead State efforts in times of crisis, and
they know they can count on NORTHCOM for the support when it is
requested.
I believe it's more important to ask the Governors, are
they receiving the support they need, than to have a struggle
over the lines of command and control. They are the supported
elements in their State and our role is to make sure that they
have all they need.
Finally, let me set the record straight on the Commission's
comments regarding the need for State-level experience within
NORTHCOM. Today 46 percent of my staff has Guard and Reserve
experience and, as you see General Villacorta here, 6 of my 13
general and flag officers, my key advisors, are guardsmen and
reservists. I rely on them daily and they are integral members
of my team. We're also doubling the number of full-time Guard
positions within our headquarters. I believe these statistics
stand on their own two feet and provide the right kind of
experience in our command.
In closing, our mission is to protect our fellow citizens
and the freedoms that uphold our way of life. We are proud to
be part of a combined Federal, State, and local team.
Coordination with international, Federal, State partners,
Governors, and the National Guard is paramount. General Steve
Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, said just
recently: ``The coordination and cooperation between our two
agencies has never been better,'' and I do agree.
By anticipating threats, exercising our capabilities, and
increasing information-sharing with our partners, we strengthen
our ability to protect each of you, your families, our
families, and our Homeland.
Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Renuart follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gen. Victor E. Renuart, Jr., USAF
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, distinguished members of the
committee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
and report to you on the state of our two commands, U.S. Northern
Command (NORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD). Together, these Commands protect and defend the United States
and Canadian homelands. I want to leave no doubt in your minds that in
the 5-year history of NORTHCOM and 50-year history of NORAD, the men
and women assigned to these Commands have never been more committed to
this no-fail mission--they are vigilant, prepared, and responsive to
threats that may harm our families and our countries.
Since standing up in 2002, NORTHCOM, partnered with our NORAD
teammate, has protected our Nation from attack. The NORTHCOM and NORAD
team has been successful thanks to the combined work of our Nation's
leaders, the Department of Defense (DOD), the interagency community,
and especially support from Congress. Additionally, since the Hurricane
Katrina disaster, NORTHCOM has re-defined readiness; we have made
landmark improvements in our planning, anticipating, communicating and
coordinating the Federal, State, and local response to natural
disasters and other events requiring civil support. The National
Strategy for homeland security states, ``as we face the dual challenges
of preventing terrorist attacks in the Homeland and strengthening our
Nation's preparedness for both natural and manmade disasters, our most
solemn duty is to protect the American people.'' This pledge
underscores the missions of NORTHCOM and NORAD, as we monitor 12-20
potentially dangerous events every day.
We continue to place strong emphasis on three focus areas:
anticipating threats to our continental security, improving our
homeland defense and civil support plans and capabilities, and
strengthening relationships with our mission partners. It is my
privilege today to report not only on the state of our commands, but
also on our goals for the future.
our missions--anticipate, prepare, and respond
NORTHCOM and NORAD are separate commands--neither being subordinate
to the other--with complementary homeland defense missions. We share
common values, understand the urgency and significance of our duties in
light of very real and present dangers, and operate in a dynamic and
uncertain security environment. A range of threats across all domains
represents an immediate and future challenge for both commands. Whereas
the enemies of yesterday were relatively predictable, homogeneous,
hierarchical, and slow to change, today's adversaries are agile,
unpredictable, diverse, increasingly networked, and dynamic. These
adversaries benefit from technologies and materials readily accessible
in world markets, to include disruptive systems or the ingredients
required to fabricate weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This potential
availability of WMD to terrorist groups is of vital concern, especially
as terrorists thrive in the ``gray area'' where notions of crime and
armed conflict overlap.
Our missions require a culture of anticipation. With every
potentially harmful event, through constant vigilance throughout
NORTHCOM's area of responsibility (AOR), we anticipate appropriate
levels of DOD response to provide capabilities that protect and defend
the American people to prevent and minimize loss of life, suffering,
and property damage.
NORTHCOM is prepared to support its Federal, State, and National
Guard partners in responding to a wide range of events. Natural
disasters such as major hurricanes, earthquakes, or pandemics can
quickly exceed the capabilities of local and State emergency response
assets and require significant allocation of military resources to help
mitigate the effects of and support for relief and recovery efforts.
Likewise, a terrorist attack, particularly one involving WMD, may not
only cause overwhelming numbers of casualties, but may also initiate a
multitude of cascading events which could require substantial defense
support of civil authorities. When needed, our military assets are
organized, trained, equipped, and immediately accessible to leverage
national, and as appropriate, continental strengths.
An essential element of NORTHCOM and NORAD success is our ability
to anticipate events that may require a military response. We work hard
to have global situational awareness of potential events that can
affect the safety and security of our homeland. Toward this end, in
2006, the commands began a project to build a single, integrated
command center that supports our requirements for global situational
awareness and interconnectivity with key homeland defense and civil
support partners. This remains a high priority for the commands, and we
are on track to begin initial operations out of the new, integrated
command center by May 2008. The NORAD and NORTHCOM command center will
provide a more efficient and effective means of executing homeland
defense against threats coming from all domains. In addition to an
increased capacity to coordinate defense activities with other
stakeholders, especially Canada command, the integrated command center
will provide a significantly enhanced capability to execute defense
support of civilian authorities.
We understand Congress' concerns with the Command Center
Integration project. In response, we provided the House and Senate
Armed Services Committees' leadership a cost-benefit analysis for the
integration and a summary of our actions to mitigate physical security
vulnerabilities in early December 2007. As required by the 2008
National Defense Authorization Act, we have completed a report to
Congress on command center integration and provided that report to the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for coordination and subsequent
submittal to Congress.
planning efforts--integral to our response
The number one priority for NORTHCOM is continuing to build Active-
Duty and Reserve component capabilities to support training and
readiness for response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
and high yield explosives (CBRNE) incidents. On behalf of DOD, NORTHCOM
is prepared to provide a rapid and effective Federal-level response to
a catastrophic domestic CBRNE incident, whether it is a deliberate
terrorist attack or an accident. Currently, our Nation has 53 certified
National Guard WMD Civil Support Teams, one in every State, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, ready to provide initial
detection and identification in a chemical, biological, radiological,
or nuclear event. Additionally, there are 17 regional consequence
response Joint National Guard CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Package
units, each consisting of nearly 200 trained people, as well as an
active-duty military response unit of nearly 450 marines which is the
gold standard for responding to a WMD attack. Should the event require
additional Federal forces, we have active duty units of over 3,000
members in each unit who are on a short recall to reinforce the initial
response teams.
We refined our CBRNE Consequence Management Concept Plan and led
efforts within DOD to identify, train and make ready the CBRNE
consequence management response capabilities the plan enumerates.
Although the DOD response force is intended to augment those of state
authorities, such as National Guard WMD-Civil Support Teams and CBRNE
Enhanced Response Force Packages, we strongly recommend robust Federal
response units, referred to as CBRNE Consequence Management Response
Forces (CCMRF). This capability is needed because local and State
capabilities will likely require additional DOD resources in the event
a CBRNE incident is catastrophic or multiple events occur
simultaneously. When operational, each CCMRF will deliver a range of
ready capabilities, including incident assessment, command and control,
medical, decontamination, logistics, transportation, mortuary affairs,
general support, and public affairs. In May 2007, NORTHCOM successfully
exercised the first-ever substantial CCMRF deployment to Camp
Atterbury, IN, during Exercise Ardent Sentry-NORTHCOM Edge 07; we will
exercise these CCMRF capabilities again in May and then annually to
maintain critical readiness.
Today, we have notional sourcing for the units we have been tasked
to build. This remains a high priority for our command, and we are
diligently working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Staff, U.S. Joint Forces Command, the Services, and the National
Guard Bureau to source the full CCMRFs. The Secretary of Defense has
directed a full-time, dedicated force be trained and equipped by the
end of this fiscal year. I appreciate Congress' direction to establish
an advisory panel to assess DOD's capabilities to provide support to
U.S. civil authorities in the event of a catastrophic CBRNE incident,
and look forward to providing input to the panel's assessment.
We worked hard to complete detailed plans that will guide our
operational response in the event of a catastrophic event. NORTHCOM's
homeland defense and civil support plans are vital to our Nation's
ability to deter, prevent and defeat threats to our security, and
assist civil authorities when called upon by the President or Secretary
of Defense. We continue to adjust these plans as we evaluate lessons
learned from exercises and real world operations. Since the inception
of NORTHCOM, our planning efforts with our mission partners,
particularly Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Guard
Bureau, and Canada command, have matured significantly.
Our Nation uses the 15 National Planning Scenarios as a vehicle to
shape nation-wide planning efforts for terrorist attacks and
synchronize planning for natural disasters such as hurricanes and
earthquakes. NORTHCOM plans, such as CONPLAN 3501, Defense Support of
Civil Authorities, address each of the National Planning Scenarios that
may require NORTHCOM support. We have established a close partnership
with the DHS's Incident Management Planning Team to ensure DOD plans
are integrated into the broader government-wide plans being developed
by DHS. These plans will address the range of activities across the
prevention, protection, response, and the recovery phases for each of
the National Planning Scenarios. In coordination with the Joint Staff,
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
and Americas' Security Affairs, and DHS, we have developed a yearly
civil disaster assistance Execute Order and 26 Pre-Scripted Mission
Assignments to put specific capabilities on alert in order to respond
to specific predetermined requests for assistance from designated
primary agencies, which streamline DOD response activation.
In preparation for a potential Pandemic Influenza, NORTHCOM is
leading the DOD effort to globally synchronize military efforts to
minimize contamination and prevent further spread of the pandemic. In
October 2007, NORTHCOM completed a DOD Global Synchronization Plan for
Pandemic Influenza. This plan provides guidance to all the geographic
combatant commands, functional combatant commands, Services, and DOD
agencies to assist in development of regional plans addressing
operations in a pandemic influenza environment.
Each year, NORTHCOM anticipates, prepares, and trains for
significant events that may require a DOD response. The command, in
partnership with NORAD, annually sponsors two large-scale exercises
(Ardent Sentry and Vigilant Shield) and participates in over 30
additional exercises. Our exercise scenarios have involved: air (civil
and military) incidents and attacks, maritime and port security,
maritime interception operations, missile defense, consequence
management in support of civil authorities, nuclear proliferation,
nuclear weapon accidents, weapons of mass destruction attacks, and
natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes.
Our exercises (in full partnership with Canada, primarily through
Canada command) arc integrated within the annual DHS-coordinated
national exercise program, wherein we participate in National Level
Exercises, and demonstrate our full response capabilities, including
the deployment of elements of the CCMREs. We enthusiastically support
and participate in the national level exercises, particularly those
with senior cabinet involvement, because they are tremendous
demonstration and training opportunities for the spectrum of civil and
military personnel who may respond to a real world event.
our operational response--helping americans where they live and work
We implemented many improvements following Hurricane Katrina that
make NORTHCOM well-prepared for seasonal natural disasters that occur
in our homeland, such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. For
example, in August 2007, Hurricane Dean threatened the United States
Gulf Coast as a Category V storm. In anticipation of the significant
threat posed by the storm and the possibility of a Presidential
Emergency Declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, NORTHCOM quickly responded,
including the following:
Established direct linkage to the Texas and Puerto
Rico State Emergency Operations Centers and the Adjutants
General Joint Task Force Headquarters.
Activated our Future Operations Center.
Pre-deployed Defense Coordinating Officers and their
staffs to St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Region II) and Corpus Christi, TX
(FEMA Region VI) in coordination with DHS (FEMA).
Coordinated with U.S. Transportation Command to
transport the FEMA Mobile Emergency Response Support vehicles
from Westovcr, MA, to Puerto Rico to provide emergency
communications support to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, if necessary.
Developed the first-ever validated transportation plan
for a pre-hurricane evacuation of citizens from Texas and
Louisiana.
Propositioned Mobile Aero-Medical Staging Facility
teams in south Texas, prepared to evacuate special needs
medical patients.
As Hurricane Dean advanced across the Western Caribbean and gained
strength, the State of Texas requested activation of the National
Disaster Medical System and the President approved a pre-landfall
Emergency Declaration for Texas. We had already anticipated these
developments and, in coordination with U.S. Transportation Command,
prepared to assist in the immediate general air evacuation of up to
26,000 people from the Rio Grande River Valley. As it turned out,
Hurricane Dean made landfall on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico on 21
August 2007 and did not reach the United States. However, if the storm
had made landfall in Texas or elsewhere along the U.S. Gulf Coast as
some storm models predicted, we were positioned to assist state and
local authorities in all aspects of disaster response.
Last fall, we quickly provided the DOD response to help fight the
fast-moving, Santa Ana-driven wildfires that threatened hundreds of
thousands of California residents. To help save lives and protect
homes, we:
Deployed a Defense Coordinating Officer and staff
element to facilitate Federal response efforts;
Deployed U.S. Army North's Operational Command Post to
command and control Title 10 forces engaged in assisting State
and local authorities, as well as a Mobile Air Staging Facility
to process any potential casualties, especially burn patients;
Tasked, in coordination with the National Guard and
Reserves, six Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS).
MAFFS-equipped, C-130 aircraft: flew a total of 76 sorties,
dropping retardant to help contain the fires;