[Senate Hearing 110-394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-394, Pt. 3
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 3
READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
__________
MARCH 12 AND APRIL 1, 2008
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-631 PDF WASHINGTON : 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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
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
______
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Military Installation, Environmental, and Base Closure Programs
march 12, 2008
Page
Arny, Hon. L. Wayne, III, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment)................................ 5
Eastin, Hon. Keith E., Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Environment)................................ 22
Penn, Hon. B.J., Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations
and Environment)............................................... 33
Anderson, Hon. William C., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Installations, Environment, and Logistics).................... 53
The Current Readiness of the Armed Forces
april 1, 2008
Cody, GEN Richard A., USA, Vice Chief of Staff, United States
Army........................................................... 125
Magnus, Gen. Robert, USMC, Assistant Commandant of the Marine
Corps.......................................................... 130
Walsh, ADM Patrick M., USN, Vice Chief of Naval Operations....... 152
McNabb, Gen. Duncan J., USAF, Vice Chief of Staff, United States
Air Force...................................................... 171
(iii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Readiness and
Management Support,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
MILITARY INSTALLATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND BASE CLOSURE PROGRAMS
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel K.
Akaka (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Akaka, Chambliss, and
Thune.
Majority staff members present: Peter K. Levine, general
counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: David M. Morriss, minority
counsel; and Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Ali Z. Pasha and Benjamin L.
Rubin.
Committee Members' assistants present: Bonni Berge,
assistant to Senator Akaka; Christopher Caple, assistant to
Senator Bill Nelson; M. Bradford Foley, assistant to Senator
Pryor; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; and
Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN
Senator Akaka. Good afternoon to our witnesses and to all
of you here. Today the Readiness and Management Support
Subcommittee meets to review the military installation programs
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the fiscal year 2009
budget request for those programs.
This will be the third year we have heard from the same
team representing the three military departments. Secretary
Eastin, Secretary Penn, and Secretary Anderson, it is good to
have all of you back here with us again. We have one new
witness and I want to personally welcome him.
Wayne Arny recently left his position in the Navy to become
the new Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment. Mr. Arny is new in this position but he is already
well known to this subcommittee. I congratulate you on your
appointment to this important position and I look forward to
continuing to work with you.
Mr. Arny. Thank you, sir.
Senator Akaka. We meet this afternoon to discuss DOD's
military construction, housing, and environmental programs as
well as the implementation of the 2005 Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) round. We have many challenges to discuss today,
as was the case last year. This year we have before us the
largest funding request for military construction and base
closure that any of us have ever seen. The fiscal year 2009
budget request for military construction, base closure, and
family housing programs is $24.4 billion. These funds represent
primarily the new investment in our facilities.
As our witnesses describe in their testimony, they are also
responsible for billions of additional dollars requested for
repair and maintenance, base operations, and environmental
programs to keep those bases running. It is my understanding
that additional construction funds will also be requested later
this year as part of an emergency supplemental funding request
for fiscal year 2009. Some of these funds will be requested for
operations in Iraq.
While that may well prove controversial, depending on
whether a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq is
negotiated, what the terms of that agreement are, and the
degree of consultation with Congress during the process, there
is another aspect of this future emergency funding request that
I wish to speak about now.
I am concerned to hear that this forthcoming supplemental
is expected to request additional funds to rebuild facilities
to house wounded soldiers in so-called warrior transition units
(WTUs) and to build additional soldier family assistance
centers. I had hoped that we all learned a lesson last year
that caring for our wounded warriors was of the highest
priority. Yet there are no funds in the fiscal year 2009 budget
request for this purpose.
I am also troubled to hear that additional funds may show
up later in a supplemental. Caring for our wounded warriors and
their families is a core, long-term requirement of this
government. As chairman of the Veterans Affairs' Committee as
well as a member of the Armed Services Committee, it is
certainly a top priority of mine.
I do not understand why funding for an issue of this
importance was not included in the base budget. I am concerned
that this may indicate the leadership of the DOD does not fully
understand how important this is. I hope that this is not the
case.
As was the case last year, the military construction budget
is at record levels for two reasons. First, the proposal to
increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Second,
continued growth in the estimated costs to implement the 2005
base closure round. With respect to the grow the force
proposal, I wanted to express the subcommittee's continuing
concern that growing the force should be done in a way that
gives our military personnel, certainly a top priority of mine,
and their families the quality of life they deserve.
I understand that current plans still envision the use of
temporary facilities. The use of temporary facilities should be
held to a minimum for two reasons. First, because we want all
our personnel to work in high quality, permanent facilities.
Second, because whenever we are using temporary facilities it
means the taxpayers are paying twice, once for the temporary
facilities and a second time for the permanent ones that
follow.
With respect to base closing, another unfortunate parallel
to last year is that the Department is sill waiting to receive
the full funding of their base closure request. I hope our
witnesses will discuss the impact of that funding shortfall
today. I hope we will also discuss joint basing today.
Deputy Secretary England recently signed out some guidance
on this matter, but that is only a first step. It is crucial
that the Services give their full cooperation to this effort so
that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, who are
assigned to joint bases such as Pearl Harbor-Hickam, a joint
base that will be created in Hawaii, receive the benefits that
greater jointness promises. If our leaders in the Pentagon fail
to cooperate and joint basing is not done properly it will be
our young men and women who will pay the price. We cannot allow
that to happen.
Turning to housing for our military families. We have all
gotten used to hearing mostly good news about how well housing
privatization is going. Without a doubt it has been a
successful program. We are now dealing with, perhaps, the
biggest failure this program has seen. That's a collapse of
four Air Force projects due to the failure of one company,
American Eagle, to meet its obligations.
I know several members of this committee have constituents
affected by this failure. Senator Nelson of Florida, who is not
a member of this subcommittee, has asked to attend today's
hearing specifically because of this issue. I share the concern
of my colleagues.
This problem must be corrected. But we must do so in a way
that preserves the benefits of a housing privatization program
that has done so much good at so many other bases. So we cannot
let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch. Secretary Anderson, we
will be looking to you to tell us today what steps the Air
Force is taking to get these projects back on track.
Finally, with respect to the environmental and energy
aspect of your responsibilities, we certainly have challenges,
but also, opportunities. I am pleased that the legal
impediments to basing the Stryker brigade in Hawaii appear to
be nearing an end. Yet legal challenges at other bases loom on
the horizon.
The Navy's use of sonar in its training exercises is also
before the courts. Clearly it is imperative that the Department
work as cooperatively as possible with the local communities to
resolve as many issues as possible without litigation, and that
you also do your homework in case litigation cannot be avoided.
I'm also a member of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. Like every American, I'm well aware that oil prices
are at record levels, and we need to conserve energy, increase
our use of renewable energy, and find other innovative ways to
reduce our energy consumption and dependence. I look forward to
discussing that with our witnesses as well.
Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN THUNE
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very
much for being with us today, and I thank you for calling this
important hearing to review an unprecedented budget request for
installation and environmental programs for 2009.
I do want to thank our witnesses for their dedicated public
service over the past 3 years. I hope for them this will be
last opportunity to have to appear before this committee. As I
review their testimony and this budget request I'm struck by
the sheer magnitude of the range and difficulty of issues they
wrestle with every single day. They deserve our gratitude and
sincere appreciation for serving our Nation in this capacity.
I also want to welcome Wayne Arny, who has recently assumed
this solemn responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of
Defense to clean out the extremely high inbox of his
predecessor, Mr. Philip Grone. [Laughter.]
Mr. Arny, who is appearing before us for the first time and
most likely the last as well, is no stranger to these halls
either. I see that you served on the staff of the Senate Armed
Services Committee back when Ronald Reagan was President. I
note that you are a former Navy pilot with a lifetime of public
service to your credit. So I thank you for your commitment to
taking on this daunting challenge.
Mr. Chairman, we've many issues to discuss with our
witnesses today as we review the largest President's budget
request for military construction in recent memory. I look
forward to a frank discussion about the progress of the 2005
BRAC round. Costs continue to rise, there's pressure to cut the
size of projects, communities are concerned that the Department
will not meet the mandatory 2011 deadline, and there's still
confusion about how many people and families will be moving. We
need to know from the witnesses how we can address these issues
for the benefit of our military personnel and the local
communities that support them.
I'd also like the witnesses to provide details on their
efforts to support the President's initiative to Grow the Army
and Marine Corps. I am concerned about the timing and intensity
of the construction required to support the new forces. I'd
also like to hear from Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn
their plans to ensure additional forces are not living and
working in trailers for the next 10 years.
I note that we may have a discussion today about the pros
and cons of the privatization of military housing and barracks.
I realize that among the more than 70 transactions conducted
over the past 8 years to eliminate 92 percent of the DOD's
inadequate housing, the Air Force has one company that is
failing to perform. Unfortunately, this failure is causing a
great deal of consternation and the Air Force has limited
options to correct the problem. I look forward to working with
my colleagues in ways to protect the government's interests
while preserving the basic tenants of an outstanding program
for military personnel and their families.
Turning to environmental programs during 2007, the Army,
Navy, and Marine Corps face significant challenges that cause
delays in major service initiatives that could impact their
ability to deploy and maintain readiness as a result of
environmental litigation. The Army's plan to transform units of
the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii to a Stryker brigade
combat team to support deployments in the Pacific region and to
the Central Command for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has
been frustrated by a lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the
Army Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and whether the Army
should have considered alternative sites outside of Hawaii.
The Navy's struggled with multiple lawsuits and
restrictions imposed by Federal courts on the Navy's ability to
train using both mid-frequency active (MFA) and low-frequency
active (LFA) sonar. In addition, public opposition and
environmental litigation forced the Navy to abandon years of
effort and planning to build an outlying landing field (OLF) in
Washington County, NC. The Navy considers an OLF essential to
preserve the ability to effectively train Navy and Marine Corps
aviators in the most difficult task in military aviation, that
of landing high performance jets on an aircraft carrier in the
dark of night.
Just last month a Federal court in San Francisco blocked
efforts by the government of Japan and the U.S. Marine Corps to
solve longstanding complaints about the impact of Marine Corps
aviation on civilians living in Okinawa. The court halted
development of a new offshore aviation facility because of
potential impact on a native species of marine mammal, the
Dugong, revered in Okinawa's culture. These are troubling
developments.
As a nation, we demand that our armed forces are ready to
fight when needed. For the last 6\1/2\ years, we've put them to
the test in combat. We need to understand how these impacts
came about and what we can do to solve or mitigate their impact
on readiness.
I also look forward to a discussion about the Department's
plans to relocate 8,000 marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam by
2014 and the impact of these environmental rulings on those
plans. I also have questions about enhanced use leases, family
housing in Korea, and use of alternative energy sources, among
others. I, too, have many issues to cover in today's session so
I'll be submitting some questions for the record and would ask
that the witnesses provide prompt replies.
Again, I thank the witnesses for their service, and I thank
the chairman for the opportunity of this hearing today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Thune. Now we
will hear from our witnesses. May I call on Secretary Arny for
your statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. L. WAYNE ARNY III, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
Mr. Arny. Thank you, sir. Senator Thune's statement about
my being here during the Reagan administration, I want to clear
up some things. I was dropped on the doorstep as an infant, and
raised by the committee, so I'm not quite that old. [Laughter.]
I want to thank you, Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. I'm honored to
appear before you this afternoon in my new capacity to discuss
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2009.
I don't need to tell you that I believe installations are
the foundation of America's security. They are critical assets
that must be available when and where needed with the
capabilities to support current and future mission
requirements. Our installations are the core of U.S. combat
capability. They are an inseparable element of the Nation's
military readiness and wartime effectiveness. Our 2009 budget
request supports a number of key elements of the Department's
efforts to maintain and manage these assets.
First, we continue to recalibrate our bases overseas and in
the U.S. through global basing and BRAC. To ensure the
flexibility we need to respond to our 21st century security
challenges, the budget supports our global restationing
efforts. We're continuing our efforts to transfer overseas
legacy forces, Cold War basing structures, host-nation
relationships, and forward capabilities.
We're requesting $9.2 billion for BRAC 2005 implementation,
and $393.4 million for prior BRAC clean-up to support the
stateside portion of our reconfiguration efforts. These amounts
are approximately $1.1 billion over the 2008 request. The $9.2
billion represents full funding for BRAC 2005 implementation
assuming the $939 million reduction to the 2008 appropriation
is restored.
Regarding that reduction, we greatly appreciate this
committee's action to provide authorization of the full amount.
We're still analyzing the consequences of the reduction. But we
believe that if it is not restored, it will be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to meet the September 15, 2011,
statutory deadline without extraordinary measures.
We're working very hard to continue our execution at an
efficient and effective pace. The point at which we find
ourselves right now in the BRAC implementation period
underscores that requirement because every delay makes it
increasingly difficult to complete implementation by that
deadline in a sane fashion.
Second, we continue to renew and take care of our own. Our
goal has been to achieve a recapitalization rate of 67 years,
and the 2009 budget request, if enacted, exceeds that goal by
funding recap at a rate of 56 years. This is an improvement
over the 76-year rate achieved in the 2008 budget and is due in
part to the impact of funding for BRAC and global basing
implementation.
It equates to an increase of $2.8 billion compared to the
2008 budget request. We have however, understood for years the
limitations of this metric, but it was better than what we had
before, and we've been working with the Services to change it.
Next year we will transition to a more comprehensive measure
that we hope will provide a broader, more meaningful index to
the Department and Congress and also less volatile.
For sustainment, this budget request reflects an additional
$796 million which results in the Department-wide funding rate
increasing from last year's 88 percent to 90 percent this year.
We'd like to hit 100 percent for obvious reasons, but we've had
to make difficult trade-offs with our budget.
Third, we continue to work to provide the best housing
available for our military members and their families
primarily, as you discussed, through privatization. We will
continue, however, to operate housing overseas and in a few
stateside locations on our own. To date, the military Services
have leveraged DOD housing dollars by 12 to 1 with $2 billion
in Federal investments, generating $24 billion in housing
development privatized installations. In military construction,
the appropriation for a significant source of facilities
investment funding totals $24.4 billion, which is an increase
of $3.235 billion over last year's budget request.
Bachelor quarters. The Department is also committed to
improving housing for our unaccompanied servicemembers. DOD
continues to encourage the modernization of all our bachelor
quarters to improve privacy and provide greater amenities. In
December 2007 the Navy executed its second unaccompanied
housing privatization pilot in Hampton Roads following the
success of the one in San Diego.
This project alone will construct 1,187 new apartment units
and privatizes 726 existing units at Naval Station Norfolk. The
Navy pilot projects enabled by use of partial allowance have
successfully improved the quality of life of our unaccompanied
personnel. We're considering how to use this more in the
future.
In 2007, the Army added bachelor quarters and senior
enlisted bachelor quarters to its existing privatization
projects at a number of installations around the country.
Energy Management. The Department continues to aggressively
implement energy conservation measures and avoid associated
costs while improving utility system reliability and safety.
Our efforts are beginning to pay off.
DOD is the single largest energy consumer in the Nation,
although we don't exceed 2 percent, but we're the single
largest. We consumed $3.4 billion in facility energy in 2007, a
modest, but significant savings of $80 million from fiscal year
2006. In our facility energy consumption intensity is down more
than 10 percent from the 2003 base line.
We've significantly increased our focus on purchasing
renewable energy and developing resources on military
installations. Renewable energy projects are consistently more
expensive than similar, conventional energy projects, resulting
in limited opportunities that are life cycle cost-effective. So
we are employing innovative strategies.
We are making continued progress in the area of geothermal
energy. A 270-megawatt power plant in Naval Warfare Center,
China Lake, CA, supplies enough electricity to serve 180,000
homes annually. The base gets a reduction in its energy bill.
The second geothermal plant is under construction in
Fallon, NV. Three additional plants are being planned. We're
doing the exploration for two in California, one at El Centro
and one at Twentynine Palms, and a third one at the Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in Yuma.
We are also examining ways with the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to exploit other forms of traditional and
renewable energy on our facilities. We have a number of
existing solar arrays set up at bases throughout the country,
and we're continuing that effort. The Air Force just brought a
15-megawatt solar array online at Nellis Air Force Base. We're
pushing into ocean thermal technology, ocean and tidal wave
technology, and working to set up wind farms wherever they make
sense for us.
Environmental management is critical to our stewardship of
what we own. Employing a strategy that goes beyond mere
compliance with environmental laws and regulation, the
Department's transforming its business practices by integrating
environment into our acquisition process, maintaining a high
level of environmental quality in all our defense activities,
and preventing pollution at its source. We're also working to
forecast the impact of emerging contaminants.
Last, but not least, we continue to fulfill our commitment
to work with communities and States affected by our closure and
growth initiatives assisting them in collaboration with other
Federal resources to respond to their needs.
Mr. Chairman, the Department is working hard to reposition,
to reshape, to take care of our installations for the future.
We need the items we've requested in this budget, especially
the $939 million for BRAC execution that was cut from last
year's appropriation. We're going to do all that we can to make
the Department successful.
We deeply appreciate all this committee has done for us
over the years. It has demonstrated repeatedly its support for
our installations, and we look forward to continuing to work
with you this year to advance our mutual interests. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arny follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Wayne Arny
Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, distinguished members of the
subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to address the President's budget request for fiscal year 2009 and to
provide an overview of the approach of the Department of Defense (DOD)
to the management of the Nation's military installation assets.
overview
Installations are the foundation of America's security--these
assets must be available when and where needed, with the capabilities
to support current and future mission requirements. As the enterprise
managers of the defense installations portfolio, we recognize the
importance of ensuring their capabilities are delivered--effectively
and efficiently.
America's military installations, including their associated
environment, must sustain the home station and forward presence of U.S.
forces and support training and deployments to meet the Nation's
defense needs. They must provide a productive, safe, and efficient
workplace, and offer the best quality of life possible for our military
members and their families, as well as the civilian and contractor
workforce.
The President and the Secretary of Defense challenged the military
to transform itself to meet current and future threats to America's
security. In addition to leading-edge weapon systems, doctrinal
innovation, and the employment of technology, this transformation also
requires a similar change in our approach to the fundamental
infrastructure business practices and to the infrastructure
``backbone'' of DOD.
The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations
and Environment) is a focal point in this transformation by fostering
the best management practices in our traditional areas and by extending
these practices as our force and base structures evolve.
global defense posture
Supporting the warfighter involves much more than episodic spurts
of support during combat and other operational missions. Supporting the
warfighter requires a long-term, day-to-day commitment to deliver
quality training, modern and well-maintained weapons and equipment, a
safe, secure, and productive workplace, a healthy environment, and good
living conditions for our members and their families. Our installations
are the core of U.S. combat power--and our installation assets are an
inseparable element of the Nation's military readiness and wartime
effectiveness.
The fiscal year 2009 request continues the Department's efforts to
strengthen foward U.S. military presence, including facilities,
personnel, infrastructure, and equipment. The Department continues to
realign U.S. global defense posture to better contend with post-
September 11 security challenges by transforming overseas legacy
forces, Cold War basing structures, and host-nation relationships into
a flexible, forward network of access and capabilities with allies and
partners. These efforts include:
Continued force posture realignments within and from
Central Europe which enable advanced training and lighter, more
flexible ground force capabilities to support NATO's own
transformation goals;
Shifting our European posture south and east by
transforming the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy and
establishing a headquarters and infrastructure support for
rotational presence in Romania and Bulgaria;
Setting conditions for future realignments in the
Pacific as part of U.S.-Japan force posture changes that will
have far-reaching, beneficial impacts for the U.S.-Japan
alliance;
Continued consolidation and reduction of forces on the
Korean peninsula to strengthen our overall military
effectiveness for the combined defense of the Republic of
Korea; and
Developing basic infrastructure and capabilities for
current and future operations in the U.S. Central Command area
of responsibility and other war on terrorism operating regions.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2009 request supports new
Departmental initiatives, including the establishment of U.S. Africa
Command, as DOD's global defense posture plans evolve and mature.
The Department continues to maintain and strengthen host-nation
partnerships supporting support for these posture changes. The fiscal
year 2009 global defense posture projects ensure continued
strengthening of forward capabilities for the global war on terror and
other expeditionary nontraditional missions, commitment to alliance
goals, and collective defense capabilities, and enhanced deterrent
capabilities for addressing future security challenges.
implementing base realignment and closure (brac) 2005
As previously discussed to before this committee, BRAC 2005 is the
largest round of base closures and realignments undertaken by the
Department. After an exhaustive examination of over 1,200 alternatives,
the Secretary of Defense forwarded 222 recommendations to the BRAC
Commission for its review. The Commission accepted about 65 percent
without change and its resulting recommendations were approved by the
President and forwarded to Congress. Congress expressed its support of
these recommendations by not enacting a joint resolution of disapproval
by November 9, 2005; therefore, the Department became legally obligated
to close and realign all installations so recommended by the Commission
in its report. These decisions affect over 800 locations across the
Nation and include 24 major closures, 24 major realignments, and 765
lesser actions. The BRAC Act requires that the Department begin
implementation of each recommendation within 2 years of the date the
President transmitted the Commission's report to Congress and complete
implementation of all recommendations within 6 years of that date which
is September 15, 2011.
Beyond the comparative size, it is important to note that BRAC 2005
is the most complex round ever. This complexity is not merely a
function of its magnitude, but is, to the largest extent, a function of
the original goal established for this round: that BRAC 2005 would
focus on the reconfiguration of operational capacity to maximize
warfighting capability and efficiency. Focusing on operational capacity
requires that we appropriately assess the increased military
capabilities we are achieving through these recommendations.
The BRAC program is substantial; it represents a $33.2 billion
requirement over 2006-2011 and $4 billion in annual savings after full
implementation (after fiscal year 2011). The Department originally
estimated BRAC 2005 investment using the Cost of Base Realignment
Actions (COBRA) model at $22.5 billion (adjusted for inflation) with
Annual Recurring Savings of $4.4 billion. When compared to our current
requirement there is a $10.7 billion or 48 percent increase in these
costs.
There are a number of reasons for this increase, and even though
the reasons have been discussed in previous hearings they deserve
repeating. The ``COBRA'' model used in arriving at the original
estimates is a tool for comparative analysis that ensures all
installations were treated equally as required by the BRAC law. As an
analytical tool it is dependent on the quality of the input, which is
based on the known conditions at the time the recommendations were
developed without the benefit of detailed site surveys and thorough
planning charrettes. As such, resulting estimates were never intended
to be budget quality.
As a consequence, the primary cost increase drivers were market
driven military construction (MILCON) factors and Army specific
investments. MILCON makes up approximately 70 percent of this BRAC
program (compared to about 33 percent in previous BRAC rounds).
Therefore, this round was particularly influenced by price growth in
the construction industry. Given the significance of MILCON on this
round's implementation, it is not surprising that 85 percent of the
cost growth is associated with construction.
Equally significant was the Army leadership's decision to invest an
additional $4 billion to recapitalize its total force, accommodate
larger Army units and a growing force, and address the inflation
addressed above. The Army leadership consciously chose to ensure that
its troops had improved warfighting facilities such as training ranges,
robust Reserve component infrastructure, and quality of life
facilities.
DOD also chose to make similar investments in other areas. For
example, acting on the recommendations of the Independent Review Group
that examined conditions at Walter Reed, the Department committed to
accelerate the closure of Walter Reed. In addition, DOD leadership
directed that the quality and scope of the new National Military
Medical Center and the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital incorporate
lessons learned from the current conflict. Investments in improvements,
such as more single patient rooms and wounded warrior support
infrastructure, increased costs. Similar cost growth has occurred for
largely the same reasons in the San Antonio Military Medical Center.
Other DOD components chose to recapitalize (build new) rather than
renovate and expand existing facilities to accommodate mission change
and incorporate lessons learned. For example, both the Missile Defense
Agency and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency determined that
increased costs to build special compartmental intelligence facilities
were worth the added investment to meet mission needs. The Army
originally intended to use existing space at Fort Knox, KY, for the co-
location/consolidation of its military personnel and recruiting command
with the Accessions and Cadet Command creating a Human Resources Center
(HRC) of Excellence. The Army determined the increased cost to build a
``new'' HRC complex was more cost effective than renovating 1950's era
facilities spread throughout the installation.
Finally, there were also increases in non-MILCON cost categories;
such as environmental cleanup costs. Theses costs were not included in
the original COBRA estimates by design. If clean up costs had been
incorporated in COBRA, the process would have had an artificial bias to
close only ``clean'' bases.
Congress provided $7.2 billion to the Department in fiscal year
2008 to continue implementation of the BRAC recommendations, $939
million less than what the fiscal year 2008 President's budget
requested. This cut compounds the problems already created from delayed
appropriations in the last 2 fiscal years. Delays and cuts adversely
affect construction timelines because approximately 70 percent of the
BRAC 2005 effort directly supports MILCON. Delays in funding and the
$939 million reduction present severe execution challenges and
seriously jeopardize our ability to meet the statutory September 15,
2011 deadline. This will mean sacrificing savings that could have been
achieved and delaying movement of operational missions.
If the $939 million reduction is not restored, or even if it is
restored late in the process, we will have to work, very, very hard to
meet the statutory deadline. The magnitude of the reduction requires
careful evaluation to support allocating the reduced funding within the
Department so that only those projects with the highest priority, as
determined by their operational and/or business case effects, go
forward on the schedule previously provided to Congress.
The $9.2 billion for BRAC 2005 implementation and $393.4 million
for continuing environmental cleanup and caretaker costs at previous
BRAC sites requested in the fiscal year 2009 President's budget is
approximately $1.1 billion more than the fiscal year 2008 President's
budget request. The $9.2 billion request represents full funding for
BRAC 2005 implementation assuming the fiscal year 2008 reduction is
restored.
As my predecessor previously testified, the Department recognized
the challenges for this BRAC round and responded by initiating a
process to develop Business Plans that establish the requisite actions,
the timing of those actions, and the costs and savings associated with
implementing each recommendation. The documentation of savings in
Business Plans directly responds to the observations made by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office in previous reports regarding the
Department's BRAC implementation process. Additionally, the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Office of the General Counsel has been a
key player in reviewing the Business Plans to ensure that they are
legally sufficient and to verify that the Department is meeting its
legal obligations.
During the past year of BRAC implementation, the Department has
several significant efforts that are underway. Specifically the award
of a $429 million (first increment) MILCON project for the National
Geo-Spatial Agency headquarters at Fort Belvoir, VA, and award of 17
MILCON projects at Fort Bliss, TX, to support Army Global Rebasing,
Transformation, and BRAC. At Fort Sill, OK, the MILCON project
supporting the establishment of the Net Fires Center that will improve
training capabilities while eliminating excess capacity at
institutional training installations is progressing. At Fort Bragg, NC,
two BRAC projects totaling $80 million were awarded and at Fort Riley,
KS, there are 6 BRAC MILCON projects that support Global Rebasing
currently ongoing. We continue to make great progress at Fort Lee, VA,
with the award of the projects that will support the creation of a
Combat Service Support Center of Excellence and at Fort Benning, GA,
with the consolidation of the Armor and Infantry schools. The Navy's
largest BRAC 2005 operational action is to close Naval Air Station
Brunswick, ME, and consolidate the east coast maritime patrol
operations in Jacksonville, FL. The Navy awarded contracts for the
final two increments to complete the contracting actions required to
build a new hangar ($123 million) for the P-3 squadrons that will move
to Jacksonville. When completed in fiscal year 2011, the Navy will have
streamlined east coast maritime patrol operations and expects to save
over $100 million per year.
assisting communities
The Department, through the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) and
the Defense Economic Adjustment Program (DEAP), continues to work with
States and the more than 175 communities across the country impacted by
the effects of BRAC 05, Global Defense Posture Realignment, Army
Modularity, and ``Grow the Force'' actions.
To date, the Department has recognized Local Redevelopment
Authorities (LRAs) for 110 BRAC sites, encompassing more than 47,000
acres of surplus property. These LRAs are expected to provide
leadership and develop a redevelopment plan at each location. In some
instances LRAs may also direct implementation of the redevelopment
plan. The Department is assisting these LRAs as they conduct homeless
outreach and seek to balance the needs of the communities in the
vicinity of the installation for economic redevelopment and other
development with the needs of the homeless as established by statute.
Efforts to date have yielded completed redevelopment plans at 62
locations. Once completed, a redevelopment plan is to be included as
part of an application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for that Department's review for compliance with the
statute.
Following HUD's review, the military departments work closely with
affected LRAs to tailor disposal actions that consider local
circumstances. The Department has an array of legal authorities by
which to transfer property on closed or realigned installations. These
include public benefit transfers, economic development conveyances at
cost and no cost, negotiated sales to State or local government,
conservation conveyances, and public sales, and the Military
Department's National Environmental Policy Act analyses give
substantial deference to the LRA's redevelopment plan.
The Department has disposed of approximately 481,290 acres, or 95
percent of the real estate made available in prior BRAC rounds (1988,
1991, 1993, and 1995). Federal assistance to these locations has
exceeded $1.9 billion to date, and local redevelopment efforts in turn
have resulted in the creation of over 137,500 jobs, more than
offsetting the 129,600 civilian jobs that were lost as a result of the
BRAC actions.
In addition to those communities that are affected by the closure
and downsizing of military installations, OEA is working with locations
experiencing a growth of missions and/or personnel. These locations are
in close dialogue with their local installations to understand the
timing and scope of this growth and many are developing growth
management plans for additional community services and facilities to
ease the absorption of the new DOD associated population. OEA hosted a
December 2007 ``Growth Summit'' in St. Louis, bringing more than 260
Summit participants from affected communities and their neighboring
military installations, where mission growth is expected, together with
cognizant Federal agencies. The Summit introduced communities and these
Federal agencies to each other and provided an opportunity for
participants to share their challenges, plans, and experiences
regarding a variety of specific community growth issues including
education, housing, transportation, workforce adjustment,
infrastructure, health care, and compatible use/sustainability.
The challenge for many of these locations is to respond to a myriad
of hard infrastructure (road, schools, houses, water and sewer) and
soft infrastructure (public services, health care, child care, spousal
employment) issues that directly bear on the quality of life for our
warfighters, their dependents, and the homeowners, businesses, and
workers in the surrounding communities. A primary concern is how to
blend and apply local, State, and private resources to address local
needs. Through this process, potential gaps in these civilian sources
are emerging and OEA is working with each affected State and locale to
understand these gaps and raise them with other Federal agencies for
consideration and action.
The ability to support States and communities affected by these DOD
actions goes beyond the Department's capacities, resources, and
authorities. Accordingly, the Department relies upon the Economic
Adjustment Committee (EAC) to implement the DEAP pursuant to Executive
Order 12788 (as amended). The EAC is comprised of 22 Federal agencies
to coordinate interagency and intergovernmental adjustment assistance
and serve as a clearinghouse for the exchange of information between
Federal Government, State, and community officials involved in the
resolution of economic adjustment concerns resulting from DOD actions.
To help facilitate this exchange of information, OEA has begun a major
initiative this fiscal year to develop an information portal to support
the mission of the EAC. By providing all stakeholders with a shared
understanding of planned drawdowns, increases, and other vital
information, the EAC will be able to best facilitate cooperation among
Federal, State, local and regional partners, in order to minimize
confusion, delay, and sub-optimal progress.
In response to BRAC 2005, approximately $300 million in Federal
grants, loans, and technical assistance has been was provided to date
to assist State and local governments, businesses, and workers to date.
Efforts under the auspices of the EAC are presently concentrated on
worker assistance, education and transportation support for ``growth''
communities, public benefit property conveyance issues, and economic
development assistance. For example, senior Defense and Education
officials have already visited some growth locations to better
understand the issues associated with changes in school age dependent
student enrollment and to develop an understanding of responses
necessary to assist local education efforts to adjust to these changes.
managing infrastructure
Along with continued improvement in business practices, the
Department is focused on improving the quality of military
installations as evidenced by the emphasis on more accurate Quality
Ratings, which are currently being collected by the military
departments. Managing DOD real property assets is an integral part of
comprehensive asset management. The Department currently manages over
545,000 facilities on approximately 30 million acres of land.
The Department's Real Property Asset Management plan, recently
published in the form of the 2007 Defense Installations Strategic Plan,
directly supports the President's Management Agenda by identifying
specific goals and objectives to improve the fidelity of inventory
reporting and tracking the metrics designed to monitor improvement
progress. This plan also focuses on improved asset management planning,
inventory submission and performance measure data, and the disposal of
unneeded assets. The Department's progress in meeting these goals is
monitored and reported quarterly through the President's Management
Agenda scorecard. As part of the Federal Real Property Council's
government-wide initiatives to improve real property inventory
reporting, the Department continues to provide inventory and
performance data to the Federal Real Property Profile annually.
One of the primary tools contributing to the improvement of data
integrity has been the implementation of DOD's Real Property Inventory
Requirements document. This document refines the quality of data
collected by improving the specificity of the data elements requested
for submission and by standardizing the data elements collected among
the Military Departments. Our annual data collection process is
currently undergoing a significant upgrade with the development of a
net-centric data warehouse that will soon directly interface with the
Military Department's native real property inventories and eliminate
the old painstaking manual data collection processes that had a high
potential for unintended errors.
Facilities sustainment is a key element of our approach to
maintaining our real property. Sustainment represents the funds for
necessary maintenance and for the major repairs or replacement of
facility components that are expected to be made periodically
throughout the life cycle. Sustainment prevents deterioration,
maintains safety, and preserves performance over the life of a
facility. It has been and continues to be the top priority in the
Department's facilities strategy. To forecast sustainment funding
requirements, DOD developed the Facilities Sustainment Model several
years ago using standard benchmarks for sustainment unit costs by
facility type (such as cost per square foot of barracks) drawn from the
private and public sector sources. The cost factors used to establish
those benchmarks are updated on a regular basis. Our Department-wide,
long-term goal continues to be full sustainment of our facilities to
optimize our investment and ensure readiness. As a reflection of the
importance of facilities sustainment to the overall health of our
inventory, the fiscal year 2009 budget request reflects an increase in
the Department-wide sustainment funding rate from 88 percent in the
fiscal year 2008 budget request to 90 percent, which equates to a $796
million increase.
SUSTAINMENT AND RECAPITALIZATION REQUEST
[President's budget in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2008 Request 2009 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainment (O&M-like) \1\.............. 6,686 7,482
Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like 1,193 1,780
plus) \1\..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration and Modernization (Military 5,908 8,102
Construction)..........................
TOTAL SRM............................. 13,787 17,364
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Operations and Maintenance (O&M) as well as related
military personnel, host nation, and working capital funds and other
appropriations such as Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
(RDT&E)
Another key element of our stewardship is recapitalization.
Recapitalization includes restoration and modernization, using the
resources necessary for improving facilities. It is the second element
of the Department's facilities strategy. Recapitalization is funded
primarily with either Operations and Maintenance or MILCON
appropriations. Restoration includes repair and replacement work to
restore facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age,
natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes. Modernization
includes alteration of facilities solely to implement new or higher
standards, to accommodate new functions, or to replace building
components that typically last more than 50 years. Our DOD goal has
been to achieve a recapitalization rate of 67 years, and the fiscal
year 2009 budget request exceeds that goal by funding recapitalization
at a rate of 56 years. This is an improvement over the rate of 76 years
achieved in the fiscal year 2008 budget, and is due, in part, to the
impact of BRAC and Global Basing. The fiscal year 2009 budget request
increased by $2.781 billion from the fiscal year 2008 budget request
for recapitalization.
We are in the process of refining the way that we measure our
investment in recapitalization, and will no longer be measuring a rate
in years. The new method, which will be implemented in fiscal year
2010, will focus on the modernization of the inventory of existing
facilities, and will be tailored to the actual inventory of facilities
within each military department.
The Department remains committed to maintaining a rate of
investment in facilities recapitalization that will improve, modernize,
and restore existing facilities while at the same time replacing
facilities in support of efforts to reshape and realign infrastructure.
However, as the Department consolidates and reshapes its
infrastructure, it will also experience localized growth in the size of
the facilities footprint. This is necessary to provide the quality and
quantity of facilities and assets necessary to support military
personnel and their families. These efforts include facilities to
support Army Transformation, Army and Marine Corps Grow-The-Force
initiatives, and bed-down of new weapons systems, such as F-22 and the
Joint Strike Fighter.
Elimination of excess and obsolete facilities in the inventory, an
effort separate and distinct from the BRAC process, continues to be
another key element of the Department's asset management plan. The
Military Departments continue to maintain and execute robust disposal
and demolition programs in order to reduce overall operating costs
associated with facilities sustainment and installation support,
improve the overall safety and aesthetics of our installations, and
ensure that only essential infrastructure is retained in the inventory.
In July 2007, the military Services and selected Defense Agencies
updated their disposal targets, and our goal now is to eliminate over
60 million square feet of facilities and additional excess
infrastructure by 2013. But there is much more work to be done.
We are continuing our efforts to forecast our disposals more
accurately, to capture that information in the real property inventory,
and to assess the impact of disposals on the entire inventory of
facilities more accurately. We are doing this by assessing the net
result of a comparison of the value of infrastructure removed from the
inventory with the value of infrastructure added to the inventory. This
will contribute to a more accurate view of the level of
recapitalization of our global inventory of facilities.
The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $7.72 billion for
Facilities Operations, formerly referred to as ``Real Property
Services.'' This program provides the municipal services on our
installations, such as utilities, fire protection, custodial services,
grounds maintenance, and other related functions. To forecast
Facilities Operations requirements, DOD developed the Facilities
Operations Model using commercial and public sector benchmarks to
determine the funding requirements for the essential services at our
installations.
We continue to make progress in defining common standards and
levels of support for a variety of services provided on our
installations. We are in the process of realigning the manner in which
we track individual services so that we can more effectively determine
the budget requirements for those services that are essential to the
health, welfare, and quality of life of the servicemembers, families,
and civilian employees who live and work on our installations. The
processes that are being developed are included in our implementation
of the BRAC 2005 Joint Basing recommendation. We have made considerable
progress in that area and are on track to meet the statutory deadline
for the establishment of joint bases. The initial implementation
guidance for the joint bases was recently issued, and the specific
details for implementing this BRAC recommendation and achieving its
benefits are well underway.
The MILCON appropriation is a significant source of facilities
investment funding. The Fiscal Year 2009 Defense MILCON and Family
Housing Appropriation request totals $24.4 billion, which is an
increase of $3.235 billion from the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
This funding will enable the Department to respond to warfighter
requirements rapidly, enhance mission readiness, and provide for its
people. In addition to new construction needed to bed-down forces
returning from overseas bases, this funding is used to restore and
modernize enduring facilities, while eliminating those that are excess
or obsolete. A large part of the increase in the MILCON requirements
($1.86 billion) supports the President's Grow-the-Force initiative,
projects needed to support the realignment of forces, projects to
improve and update facilities used by the Guard and Reserves Forces,
and facility projects needed to take care of our people and their
families, such as family and bachelor housing, Wounded Warrior housing,
and child development centers.
COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
[President's budget in millions of dollars--Budget Authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2008 Request 2009 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction................... $9,480 $11,283
NATO Security Investment Program........ 201 241
Base Realignment and Closure IV......... 220 393
Base Realignment and Closure 2005....... 8,174 9,065
Family Housing Construction/Improvements 1,080 1,457
Family Housing Operations and 1,851 1,741
Maintenance............................
Chemical Demilitarization............... 86 134
Family Housing Improvement Fund......... 0.5 1
Energy Conservation Investment Program.. 70 80
Homeowners Assistance................... 5
-------------------------------
TOTAL................................. $21,165 $24,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2006, the Department joined 16 other Federal agencies in
signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Federal Leadership in
High Performance and Sustainable Buildings. The guiding principles of
sustainable design defined in the MOU are to employ integrated design
principles, optimize energy performance, protect and conserve water,
enhance indoor environmental quality, and reduce environmental impact
of materials. The Department is committed to incorporate sustainable
design principles through a comprehensive approach to infrastructure
management. We are pursuing Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design Silver as a goal for nearly 70 percent of the Fiscal Year 2009
MILCON Program. In addition, the Department is working to assess and
address existing facilities' sustainable practices.
improving quality of life
Access to quality, affordable housing is a key quality-of-life
factor affecting servicemember recruitment, retention, morale, and
readiness. Through privatization and increases in housing allowances,
DOD has made great strides in increasing servicemembers housing
choices. Privatization allows for rapid demolition, replacement, or
renovation of inadequate units and for the sale without replacement of
inadequate units no longer needed. Privatization enables DOD to make
use of a variety of private sector approaches to build and renovate
military housing faster and at a lower cost to American taxpayers.
To date, the military Services have leveraged DOD housing dollars
by 12 to 1, with $2 billion in Federal investments generating $24
billion in housing development at privatized installations. The fiscal
year 2009 budget request includes $3.2 billion, an increase of $300
million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, which will construct
new family housing to accommodate Grow the Force, improve existing
housing, eliminate inadequate housing overseas, operate and maintain
government-owned housing, and fund the privatization of 12,324
additional homes.
The housing privatization program was created to address the
oftentimes poor condition of DOD-owned housing and the shortage of
affordable private housing of adequate quality for military
servicemembers and their families. Privatization allows the military
Services to partner with the private sector to generate housing built
to market standards for less money and frequently better quality than
through the MILCON process. Additionally, and almost of greater
importance, the projects include 50 years of maintenance and
replacement where necessary. Although nearly all projects have been
awarded, we are still in the early stages of the program since the
housing will be privately owned for 50 years. With privatization deal
structures and an income stream in place, full revitalization will be
completed within a 10-year development period.
As of the end of 2007 through the privatization program, and some
MILCON projects, we have privatized over 80 percent of the domestic
inventory. Additionally, DOD has eliminated 92 percent of inadequate
family housing units in the Continental United States and territories
including all inadequate units for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.
While there are some remaining inadequate Air Force units, these are
being addressed in fiscal year 2008. Inadequate units are considered to
be eliminated when they are conveyed to the private owner, who then
revitalizes the housing.
Tenant satisfaction is high, particularly for revitalized and newly
constructed housing. Given DOD's objective of improving quality of life
for its servicemembers, the degree of satisfaction service personnel
experience in privatized housing units is a critical indicator of
overall program success. Since DOD provides military families with
Basic Allowance for Housing at privatized bases, a military family's
decision to live in privatized housing is a significant measure of
satisfaction. The occupancy rate of nearly 90 percent program-wide
demonstrates the overall success of the program in providing suitable
housing.
A number of installations face changes and challenges as military
family housing requirements expand and contract due to BRAC
restructuring, global re-posturing, joint basing, or Grow the Force
requirements. While some installations may find they have a surplus of
housing as a result of these changes, others may experience a deficit.
However, even as needs for military family housing may change, ensuring
that our servicemembers and their families have access to safe,
desirable, and affordable housing will remain constant. The Services
continue to evaluate installation housing requirements and the
opportunities to meet additional housing needs through privatization
continue to expand.
Under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), private
sector developers and lenders develop, maintain, and operate the
privatized housing and resolve issues when they arise. Market forces
drive contractor performance and the primary enforcement mechanism is
the ability of the military members to choose where to live. If a
housing project is not meeting performance expectations, lenders have
the option, with the approval of the Department, to replace the owner
with a more viable entity. One developer, American Eagle, currently
owns five projects and is experiencing financial difficulties. American
Eagle was the general partner or owner of six MHPI projects, including
one Navy project, one Army project, and four Air Force projects. The
company sold its Navy project in late 2007 and is in the process of
selling its remaining five projects. The Army project, at Fort Leonard
Wood, MO, is stable and in the process of being sold to another
developer. American Eagle continues to fund maintenance of the existing
inventory of homes for the four Air Force projects. The Air Force is
maintaining constant dialogue with the projects' owner and bondholders
while American Eagle pursues the transfer to another developer. The
Department recently conducted an assessment of the overall financial
condition of DOD housing privatization owners. This assessment shows
that with the 87 awarded MHPI projects involving over 173,000 units,
the likelihood of developers experiencing financial stress is low
across the board.
The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding to eliminate
inadequate family housing outside the United States. The budget request
reflects a MILCON cost of $125 million for the Army to construct 216
family housing units in Korea as an alternative to the build-to-lease
effort.
The Department is also committed to improving housing for our
unaccompanied servicemembers. DOD continues to encourage the
modernization of Unaccompanied Personnel Housing to improve privacy and
provide greater amenities. In December 2007, the Navy executed its
second Unaccompanied Housing privatization pilot project. The Hampton
Roads, VA, unaccompanied housing project will construct 1,187 new
apartment units and privatizes 726 existing unaccompanied housing units
at Naval Station Norfolk. Navy pilot projects, enabled by use of
partial allowance, have successfully improved the quality of life of
unaccompanied personnel. The Department is now considering future uses
of this methodology.
In fiscal year 2007, the Army added bachelor officer quarters and
senior enlisted bachelor quarters to its existing privatization
projects at Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Stewart, GA; Fort Drum, NY; Fort
Bliss, TX/White Sands Missile Range, NM, and Fort Irwin, CA. In fiscal
year 2008, the Army will complete and begin implementing a Lodging
Development Management Plan covering the 13 installations that are part
of the Privatization of Army Lodging program Group A.
energy management
The Department continues to aggressively implement energy
conservation measures and avoid associated costs while improving
utility system reliability and safety. To that end, the Department
developed comprehensive policy guidance incorporating the provisions
and goals of Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management which the
President signed on January 24, 2007. This policy guidance will
continue to optimize utility management by conserving energy and water
usage, and improving energy flexibility by taking advantage of
restructured energy commodity markets when opportunities present
themselves. Requirements of the recently passed Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 will be incorporated as Federal guidance is
developed. The Department is in the process of developing
implementation guidance.
The Department's efforts to conserve energy are paying off. DOD is
the largest single energy consumer in the Nation and consumed $3.4
billion in facility energy in fiscal year 2007, a modest but
significant savings of $80 million from fiscal year 2006. DOD facility
energy consumption intensity is down more than 10 percent from the 2003
baseline, and non-tactical vehicle petroleum consumption has dropped
5.4 percent since fiscal year 2005. Our program includes investments in
cost-effective renewable energy sources or energy efficient
construction designs and aggregating bargaining power among regions and
the Services to achieve more effective buying power.
DOD has significantly increased its focus on purchasing renewable
energy and developing resources on military installations. Renewable
energy projects are consistently more expensive than similar
conventional energy sources, resulting in limited opportunities that
are life cycle cost effective, so innovative strategies have been
employed, such as the power purchase agreement resulting in 14
megawatts of solar electrical production at Nellis Air Force Base, NV.
The Department has increased the use of Energy Conservation Investment
Program (ECIP) funds for renewable energy projects from $5 million in
fiscal year 2003 to $28.2 million planned in fiscal year 2008, and
plans call for ECIP to increase $10 million per year, up to $120
million in fiscal year 2013, and renewable energy projects will
continue to be a high priority. The Department exceeded the Energy
Policy Act (EPAct) 2005 renewable energy goal of 2.5 percent in fiscal
year 2007, reaching 5.5 percent of facilities electrical consumption
under the Department of Energy accounting guidelines. In 2005, DOD set
a goal to reach 25 percent renewable energy procured or produced by
fiscal year 2025 and Congress placed this goal in the National Defense
Authorization Act 2007. I am pleased to say that the Department reached
11.9 percent renewable energy procured and produced for fiscal year
2007, placing it well on track to achieve the goal. While EPAct 2005
did not articulate a specific water reduction goal, Executive Order
13423 includes a goal of a 2 percent water reduction per year. The
Department began tracking water consumption in fiscal year 2002. By
fiscal year 2007, DOD has reduced water consumption intensity by an
impressive 25 percent and total water consumption by 27 percent or 43.8
million gallons per year. While we will continue to strive to exceed
the requirements, our prior achievement has served to set the baseline
low, so continuing the trend will be a challenge.
environmental management
The Department continues to demonstrate leadership in protecting
and conserving the natural resources on the approximately 30 million
acres entrusted to it. Through our environmental management programs we
are integrating environmental sustainability into all aspects of the
day-to-day operations of the Department, helping us to achieve our
goals for pollution prevention, cleanup, and conservation. Over the
last 10 years, the Department has invested almost $42 billion to ensure
the success of our environmental programs, and the fiscal year 2009
budget request of $4.3 billion will sustain our environmental progress
in support of the warfighter.
Executive Order 13423, ``Strengthening Federal Environmental,
Energy, and Transportation Management'', directed Federal agencies to
``lead by example in advancing our nation's energy security and
environmental performance.'' Since signature of the Executive Order
last January, the Department has established an Executive Steering
Committee of senior officials from across the Department to develop the
long-term strategic goals necessary to implement this order. These
goals and supporting policies will integrate and strengthen our
existing environmental, energy, and transportation programs to improve
our management of toxic and hazardous chemicals, further enhance
management of our natural resources, encourage sustainable development,
and improve the management of energy use.
Our ability to link the natural and built infrastructure with
national security and readiness enables the Department to integrate
environmental sustainability into all aspects of military operations--
from design to disposal. Our Natural Infrastructure Management (NIM)
initiative provides a framework for identifying and managing the
Department's natural assets--air, land, and water--together with
operational or mission requirements, so that the Department can predict
current and future natural infrastructure needs and investment needed
to sustain those assets. The Department piloted a NIM prototype at
representative installations in 2005 and 2006, and is now developing
policy and guidance to ensure that natural infrastructure assets are
recognized and leveraged effectively to support current and future
mission capability.
The Department uses Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans
(INRMPs), critical habitat designations have been avoided at 35
installations. That, coupled with our conservation efforts to protect
species at risk and common species before they become rare, provides
the Department more flexibility in its mission activities.
The Department conducts environmental cleanup or restoration in
cooperation with Federal and State agencies due to past use of
hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, and military munitions
on areas of active and former installations. The Department prioritizes
resources for Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites to address
past releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants,
and Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites to address hazards
associated with unexploded ordnance and discarded military munitions on
a ``worst first'' basis. By the end of fiscal year 2007, the Department
had completed cleanup at 69 percent or 21,600 of the 31,500 IRP and
MMRP sites. For IRP, the Department achieved a remedy in place (RIP) or
response complete (RC) at 89 percent of active installation sites, 68
percent of sites at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), and 85 percent
of sites on installations closed or realigned in the first four rounds
of BRAC and BRAC 2005. For MMRP, the Department has fulfilled its
cleanup obligations at over 53 percent of BRAC installation sites, and
24 percent of the sites at FUDS, with the remaining MMRP, as well as
IRP, sites either undergoing cleanup actions or investigations.
Employing a strategy that goes beyond mere compliance with
environmental laws and regulations, the Department is transforming our
business practices by integrating environment into our acquisition
process, maintaining a high level of environmental quality in defense
activities, and preventing pollution at its source. From fiscal year
2000 through 2007 there was a 23 percent reduction in the number of new
Federal and State enforcement actions received despite an 8 percent
increase in the number of regulatory inspections. For January through
June 2007, the latest information available, installations achieved a
95 percent compliance rate with wastewater treatment permits, and 98
percent of the 3.6 million customers served by DOD drinking water
systems received drinking water that met or exceeded Safe Drinking
Water Act standards, which compares favorably with the Environmental
Protection Agency's goal of 95 percent. Using an integrated approach
that enhances waste reduction and optimizes solid waste reduction, in
2007 the Department diverted almost 3.5 million tons or 60 percent of
our solid waste from landfills avoiding approximately $180 million in
landfill costs, and reducing hazardous waste disposal by 20 percent
compared to 1999. The Department is also effectively managing air
quality, reducing hazardous air pollutant emissions at our
installations by 728 tons in 2006. To further reduce waste and resource
consumption, in 2004 the Department established a Green Procurement
Program (GPP), which encourages Components to buy recycled, recovered,
and bio-based products whenever feasible. Through the GPP, the
Department has become the leader in green procurement, and we continue
to make further improvements to GPP, most recently issuing policy
direction in December 2007 requiring DOD contracting officers to use a
contract provision giving preference to biobased products. Through GPP
and all other environmental programs we will ensure a more secure and
sustainable future for the environment and our Armed Forces.
emerging contaminants
Our experiences with the mission and environmental consequences
associated with perchlorate, ozone depleting substances, and other
chemicals with evolving regulatory standards indicate a need to
establish a proactive program to make earlier, better-informed,
enterprise-wide risk management decisions regarding these emerging
contaminants (EC). This new program is already helping us better
protect human health and the environment, and enhance military
readiness. Simply put, the EC program identifies risks early in the
process, before regulatory actions take place or materials become
unavailable, thus protecting our people, assets, and mission.
Within the EC program we have established a three-tiered process
to: (1) identify and inform DOD decisionmakers early, (2) assess the
impacts of evolving science and the potential risks to human health and
DOD's mission implied by that science, and (3) develop appropriate risk
management options for DOD program managers. Twenty EC impact
assessments have been completed in the past 18 months for chemicals
that include explosives, fuel constituents, corrosion preventatives,
fire-fighting foams, and industrial degreasers. Examples of risk
management options resulting from these assessments include conducting
research to fill basic science gaps, improving material handling and
personal protection practices, developing new or improved remediation
technologies, and developing less toxic substitute materials or
processes. One of the major thrusts of the program is to work closely
with the DOD industrial base to conduct life-cycle analyses regarding
less toxic alternative chemicals for use in weapons platforms, systems
and equipment.
Because of the many national policy issues related to ECs, we are
working with a variety of external stakeholders, including a number of
Federal and State regulatory agencies, industry, academia, and
professional organizations. As an example, we formed an EC working
group with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental
Council of States. That working group has four consensus work products
aimed at resolving issues and clarifying policies and practices
involving ECs--all in various stages of completion.
Our experience with Perchlorate is particularly instructive.
Perchlorate has been used by DOD since the 1940s as an oxidizer in
explosives, pyrotechnics, rocket fuel, and missiles. Its high ignition
temperature, controllable burn rate, and stable chemical
characteristics reduce handling and storage risks and the likelihood of
unexpected detonations which makes it among the safest and least
expensive explosive we use. DOD was quickly blamed for perchlorate
found in drinking water supplies in over 34 States.
DOD has acted responsibly as the science and understanding of
perchlorate has evolved--including sampling, cleanup activities, and
$114 million in research focused on perchlorate treatment technologies,
substitutions, and analytical techniques. To ascertain our
responsibility for perchlorate releases and public exposure, DOD issued
clear policy in 2006 requiring sampling and compliance with applicable
Federal and State standards. The latest round of DOD-wide sampling data
shows that we are taking appropriate response actions and that DOD
installations, overall, do not appear to be a significant source of
perchlorate contamination in the Nation's drinking water. In
California, where perchlorate has been a particular concern, our joint
review with the State has found that of the 924 current and formerly
used Defense sites, 99 percent do not appear to pose a current threat
to drinking water. The remaining 1 percent has some confirmation
sampling underway or the assessments are still being reviewed by
Californian regulatory agencies.
DOD also demonstrated that the sources of widespread, low levels of
perchlorate exposure are complex. For example, we now know that annual
imports of perchlorate in fireworks alone exceed the amount of
perchlorate annually purchased by DOD. Road flares may also be a
significant source of groundwater contamination. Other DOD investments
are paying dividends--we have found suitable substitutes for a number
of military pyrotechnics and research for other applications is
ongoing. DOD can now differentiate natural from manmade sources of
perchlorate and is working on refining this technique to distinguish
the different manmade sources to ensure that DOD only pays for clean up
for which it is responsible.
sustaining the warfighter
Our Nation's warfighters require the best training and the best
equipment available. This means sustaining our vital range and
installation infrastructure where we test equipment and conduct
training. Incompatible land use in the vicinity of DOD installations
and ranges continues to challenge sustainability. The unintended
consequences of this encroachment upon our ranges and installations are
varied and include such challenges as more noise complaints from new
neighbors, complaints about smoke and dust, diminished usable airspace
due to new structures or increased civil aviation, a loss of habitat
for endangered species, and a compromised ability to test and train
with the frequency needed in time of war.
History and experience gained over decades demonstrate that
realistic and proper training of U.S. troops will result in victory.
Assured access to operational ranges is the only way to continue that
training. In 2001 the Department undertook the Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative to achieve a balance between national defense
and environmental policies. As a result, DOD is successfully balancing
environmental statutory and regulatory requirements with our national
defense mission requirements.
In 2002, Congress provided statutory authority to use Operations
and Maintenance (O&M) funds to create buffers around our ranges and
installations. Using this authority the Department established the
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, or REPI, and has
worked with willing partners to cost-share land conservation solutions
that benefit military readiness and preserve natural habitat. In fiscal
year 2005, REPI leveraged $12.5 million of O&M funding to secure $58
million worth of buffer land and easements, encompassing 14,688 acres
at seven installations. In fiscal year 2006, REPI leveraged $37 million
of O&M funding to secure $71 million worth of buffer land and
easements, encompassing 18,833 acres. The fiscal year 2006 acreage will
increase pending the completion of some unfinished projects. The 2007
and 2008 projects will continue to leverage REPI funds against partner
contributions. REPI and partner funding has allowed DOD to protect the
Navy's one-of-a-kind La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility in
California; to keep training areas open at Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune, NC; and buffer live-fire training ranges at Fort Carson, CO;
just to name a few projects. Overall in fiscal year 2007, REPI
initiated 26 projects in 17 States, and for fiscal year 2008 an
additional 46 projects have been identified for funding. For fiscal
year 2008 Congress appropriated $46 million for REPI. The President's
budget request for fiscal year 2009 for REPI is $40 million.
After several years of implementing REPI projects, the DOd asked
the RAND Corporation to assess the program's effectiveness. In 2007,
RAND issued its report, titled The Thin Green Line: An Assessment of
DOD's Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative to Buffer
Installation Encroachment. The report found that REPI projects were
beneficial to the military, to the environment, and they improved the
quality of life in communities where the projects were located. REPI
projects are providing land buffers around military installations and
ranges, and have been proven effective in relieving military training
and testing activities from encroachment pressures.
The RAND report shows that REPI projects have had a wide range of
environmental benefits; including helping to preserve habitat,
biodiversity and threatened and endangered species; protecting wildlife
corridors; and helping with water quality and supply concerns. REPI's
benefits not only help buffer military activities and enhance DOD
environmental programs; they also improve the military installation's
reputation with surrounding communities. For example, according to the
RAND report, REPI has also affected the quality of life around Fort
Carson by protecting large open spaces. Similarly, REPI projects such
as the ones near Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada can also help
preserve the local agricultural way of life.
Many of the issues that concern the DOD are also of mutual concern
to other Federal agencies and State governments. These issues cross
administrative boundaries and occur at the regional scale. The DOD is
working in partnership at the regional level with State governments and
Federal agencies to facilitate dialogue and to address issues of mutual
concern. These partnerships are proving essential to sustaining our
ranges and installations. For example, the DOD continues to work with
State governments and other Federal agencies in the Southeast Regional
Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). The States of
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina are
engaged with the DOD and other Federal agencies in this important
regional scale initiative. Through the SERPPAS process, the partners
are promoting better planning related to growth, the preservation of
open space, and the protection of the region's military installations.
In 2007, DOD continued to work closely with other Federal agencies
to sustain military readiness. On energy issues, the DOD continues to
work with other Federal agencies to ensure that wind farm projects and
energy transmission corridors are compatible with military readiness
activities. The Department also continues to work with the Department
of Homeland Security to ensure that our military readiness activities
and infrastructure in border regions are not impacted by new security
measures. Outreach to non-Federal and non-governmental organizations
continues to be a significant part of the Department's sustainability
program, and today we are working with State, county, and local
governments, Tribal, and environmental groups on issues of mutual
concern to seek win-win solutions. Overseas, DOD continues to develop
mission sustainment procedures to work with our host nations Global
Defense Posture partners. To sustain today's warfighters, and our
Nation's future warfighters, the DOD will continue its engagement and
partnering efforts.
safety and health risk management
A significant responsibility of Installations and Environment is
oversight of occupational safety and health. Secretary Gates has
challenged us to reduce preventable accidents and this has driven real
improvements. Over the last year, the Department experienced an overall
improvement in its safety and health performance.
For civilian employees, we are meeting the President's goals in the
Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment initiative by decreasing our
lost time injury rate by 5 percent. We plan to continue to improve by
increasing the number of installations participating in OSHA's
Voluntary Protection Program. This program engages every person--
commanders, middle managers, employees, and military members--in
changing attitudes toward accident prevention.
For motor vehicle safety, motor vehicle crashes--both in military
operations and on U.S. highways--continue to be the number one cause of
military fatalities outside of direct combat. We continue to work with
tactical vehicle developers to provide safer vehicles for combat
operations, and work with the Services and combatant commands to
improve operating doctrine for using the vehicles in a manner that
minimizes crashes. The greatest risk to our soldiers returning from
Iraq is being the victim of a crash on U.S. highways. The military
Services recognize this challenge, and have aggressive programs to
reorient soldiers back to safe driving habits in the U.S. While our
highway crash experiences are very similar to the general public, we
still work to prevent each of these losses. Every fatality still means
that one of our Nation's sons or daughters has been needlessly lost.
For aviation safety, we have made long-term progress in reducing
aviation accidents, reducing the overall rate of Class A accidents by
20 percent since fiscal year 2002. The military Services continue to
improve aircraft technology to provide our pilots with more capable and
safer aircraft, and to improve training and information needed for
improved pilot performance. Strategic improvements in aviation safety
will be supported through our partnership on the Next Generation Air
Transport System (NextGen) Joint Planning and Development Office.
Future improvements in DOD Safety and Health performance will be
guided by our principles of applying management systems for continuous
improvement, and engaging all of the risk decisionmakers in improve
awareness and attitudes toward reducing risk.
integrating business enterprises
We have made significant and tangible progress implementing the
core capabilities of the Real Property Accountability (RPA) business
enterprise priority. This effort spans all components, applying best
business practices and modern asset management techniques to provide
the warfighter access to secure, reliable information on real property
assets and environment, safety, and occupational health sustainability.
RPA is one of the six overall DOD business enterprise priorities
articulated in the DOD Enterprise Transition Plan, which is the
Department's roadmap for the improvement of critical business
operations. As DUSD(I&E), I am the lead in the Department for ensuring
that RPA stays on schedule.
RPA is aligning end-to-end business processes and enhancing
management visibility into operations by establishing and integrating
common processes and data standards, redefining defense business in
terms of functions managed and customers served rather than who
performs the task.
RPA correlates directly to the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) goal of ``Capable, Efficient,
and Cost Effective Installations'' and will help us to improve
installation planning and operations by embracing best business
practices and modern asset management techniques. The RPA initiatives
have already improved awareness of the importance of accurate
inventories, optimized resources, and enhanced access to real property
information.
The groundwork for RPA is nearly complete. Over the past few years,
the Department has developed enterprise-wide capabilities for real
property accountability and visibility, environmental liabilities
accountability and valuation, and hazardous materials operational
controls. These capabilities are founded on requirements for a common
business process model, standard data elements and data definitions,
business rules, and recommendations for policy changes. The components
are fine-tuning and implementing plans to fully integrate these
requirements into their operating environments.
Another key accomplishment in this area was the establishment of
the Real Property Unique Identifier Registry which reached full
operational capability for assigning real property unique asset
identifiers in December 2007. An initial step forward into a federated
location construct, the registry will provide authoritative physical
location information for DOD real property to communities outside of
the real property and installations management core business mission.
Other successes over the past year include:
Assignment of unique identifiers to all DOD's real
property assets to provide more granular physical location data
for DOD's legal interests in all user communities. Current
accurate location information provides enhanced access to
essential data for strategic decisions, increasing
accountability, and reducing costs.
Incorporation of fundamental geospatial standards in
the Business Enterprise Architecture, the Department's business
information infrastructure. Utilization of these standards
provide a common set of mapping information and tools which
enhance geospatial visualization capabilities while avoiding
redundant acquisition of geospatial resources across the
Department.
Real property inventory tools and procedures have been
developed, and we have made progress towards implementing and
maintaining consistent, accurate, and complete information on
the real property portfolio across the Department.
Initial operating capability for the Hazardous
Material Master Data Capability, a year ahead of schedule,
which placed the chemical and regulatory data essential for
safe and effective handling of hazardous materials in a
production environment. In partnership with the Defense
Logistics Agency, we will improve the availability of accurate,
authoritative hazard data while eliminating redundant data
purchases, entry, and maintenance burden across the Department.
Over the past few years, the Department has developed enterprise
wide capabilities for real property accountability and visibility,
environmental liabilities accountability and valuation, and hazardous
materials operational controls. Accurate and timely data is fundamental
to effective management of assets, and ultimately to military success.
conclusion
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to highlight the Department's successes and outline its
plans for the future. To meet the ever changing warfighting landscape
our military must be flexible and responsive and our installations must
adapt, reconfigured, and be managed to maximize that flexibility and
responsiveness. I appreciate your continued support and I look forward
to working with you as we transform these plans into actions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Arny. Now we will
hear from Secretary Eastin.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH E. EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
Mr. Eastin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I can't speak for
Secretary Anderson, but I'm feeling ganged up on by one Navy
guy on my left and one on my right here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Arny. But you used to be Navy too?
Mr. Eastin. Well, we don't get into that. [Laughter.]
I have a statement here and I have a more lengthy one for
the record if you include that I will be brief. We have a very
ambitious program this year, $11.4 billion in military
construction which, as you alluded to before, with our Grow the
Army Initiative, $4.2 billion of that is for directly related
to Growing the Army. Another $4.5 of that is in the BRAC
accounts and in putting those changes together and meeting that
deadline.
While we're on that and this will sound like a broken
record up here, $560 million of that $900 million that Wayne
Arny mentioned, was taken away from us, it is imperative that
we get it back in supplemental funding so that we can meet our
BRAC deadlines. I can't sit here and say we'll not meet them,
but it is going to be exceptionally hard to do if we have $560
million taken away that is not restored.
We're looking at 35 projects, many of them are at Armed
Forces Reserve Centers spread around the country. Those are the
ones that are going to fall and break that deadline. So your
help in getting that restored would be greatly appreciated.
We have an ambitious program, we are very confident that we
are going to be able to execute. We have a good record of
executing. If that's of the committee's concern I'll be happy
to discuss that later.
Other than that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eastin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Keith E. Eastin
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss the Army's Military Construction budget
request for fiscal year 2009. Our request is crucial to the success of
the Army's strategic imperatives to Sustain, Prepare, Reset, and
Transform the force. We appreciate the opportunity to report on them
and respond to your questions. We would like to start by thanking you
for your support to our soldiers and their families serving our Nation
around the world. They are and will continue to be the centerpiece of
our Army, and their ability to successfully perform their missions
depends upon congressional support.
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.
Our budget request, if approved, will enable soldiers and their
families to receive the facilities, care, and support they need to
accomplish the tasks our national leaders ask them to perform.
overview
Rebalancing the Force in an Era of Persistent Conflict
Installations are the home of combat power and a critical component
of the Nation's force generating and force projecting capability. Your
Army is working hard to deliver cost-effective, safe, and
environmentally sound capabilities and capacities to support the
national defense mission.
The tremendous changes in our national security environment since
the terrorist attacks on our Nation clearly underscore the need for a
joint, integrated military force ready to defeat all threats to U.S.
interests. In the 21st century, warfare is increasingly becoming a
contest between America and its allies trying to build up human
resources, authority, and physical infrastructure faster than the enemy
can tear it down. People and the knowledge, experience, and skills they
can bring to bear in this contest, will often be equally or more
decisive to the outcome than sophisticated technology and massive
firepower. This is a key difference from the industrial age warfare of
the 20th century.
To meet these security challenges, we require interrelated
strategies centered on people, forces, quality of life, and
infrastructure. Regarding infrastructure, we need a global framework of
Army installations, facilities, ranges, airfields, and other critical
assets that are properly distributed, efficient, and capable of
ensuring we can successfully carry out Army roles, missions, and tasks
to safeguard our security at home and abroad.
Army infrastructure enables the force to successfully accomplish
missions and generate and sustain combat power. As we transform our
operational forces, so too must we transform the institutional Army and
our installation infrastructure. We will accomplish these efforts by
translating the Army's four major imperatives (Sustain, Prepare, Reset,
Transform) into initiatives such as Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
2005, Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR), Army Modular Force
Transformation, the Army Medical Action Plan, the Soldier and Family
Action Plan, and the President's Grow the Force initiative.
forging the pieces together: stationing
The Army's stationing initiative is a massive undertaking,
requiring the synchronization of base realignments and closures, unit
activations and deactivations, and the flow of forces to and from
current global commitments. Our decisions to synchronize activities
associated with the aforementioned initiatives continue to be guided by
the following key criteria:
Meeting operational requirements
Funding critical requirements to achieve unit mission
Compliance with applicable laws
Minimizing the use of temporary facilities
Giving facility priority to ranges, barracks, housing,
vehicle maintenance shops, headquarters and operations, dining
and instruction facilities
Providing economic benefits
Using existing infrastructure to reduce cost and
excess capacity
Completion of this combined set of initiatives will result in an
Army that is better positioned to respond to the needs and requirements
of the 21st century security environment, with our soldiers and
families living at installations that are truly the centerpiece of the
Army.
Infrastructure Quality
In addition to mission support, our installations provide the base
of support for soldiers and their families. The environment in which
our soldiers train, our civilians work, and our families live plays a
key role in recruiting and retaining the high quality people the Army
needs. Through efforts such as Barracks Modernization and Residential
Communities Initiative (RCI) for family housing privatization programs,
the Army has made tremendous progress in improving the quality of life
for soldiers and their families. These efforts will combine with the
Army's stabilization of the force to strengthen the bonds between
units, soldiers, families, and the communities in which they live.
The quality of our installations is critical to support the Army's
mission, its soldiers, and their families. Installations serve as the
platforms to train, mobilize, and rapidly deploy military power. When
forces return from deployments, installations enable us to efficiently
reset and regenerate combat power for future missions. In the past
year, the Army has made tremendous progress in enhancing training and
improving its ability to generate and reset the force.
Global Defense Posture Realignment
The United States' global defense posture defines the size,
location, types, and roles of military forces and capabilities. It
represents our ability to project power and undertake military actions
beyond our border. Together with our overall military force structure,
our global defense posture enables the United States to assure allies,
dissuade potential challengers, deter enemies, and, if necessary,
defeat aggression. The new global defense posture will be adjusted to
the new security environment in several key ways: (1) expand allied
roles, build new partnerships, and encourage transformation; (2) create
greater operational flexibility to contend with uncertainty; (3) focus
and act both within and across various regions of the world; and (4)
develop rapidly deployable capabilities. Lastly, the United States and
its allies and partners will work from a different paradigm than in the
past: GDPR will relocate over 41,000 soldiers and their families from
Europe and Korea to the United States by 2011. These moves are critical
to ensure Army forces are properly positioned worldwide to support our
National Military Strategy. The new posture will yield significant
gains in military effectiveness and efficiency in future conflicts and
crises and will enable the U.S. military to fulfill its many global
roles. The new posture will also have a positive effect on our military
forces and families. While we will be moving toward a more rotational
and unaccompanied forward presence, these rotations will be balanced by
more stability at home with fewer overseas moves and less disruption in
the lives of spouses and dependents.
Army Modular Force
The Army Modular Force initiative transforms the Army from units
based on the division organization into a more powerful, adaptable
force built on self-sufficient, brigade-based units that are rapidly
deployable. These units, known as Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), consist
of approximately 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers. BCTs increase the Army's
combat power while meeting the demands of global requirements without
the overhead and support previously provided by higher commands. The
main effort of Army transformation is the Army Modular Force, which
reorganizes the Total Army: the Active component, Army National Guard,
and Army Reserve into modular theater armies, theater support
structure, corps and division headquarters, BCTs, and multi-functional
and functional support brigades. The Army is reorganizing from a
division-based to a modular brigade-based force to achieve three
primary goals:
First, to increase the number of available BCTs to meet operational
requirements while maintaining combat effectiveness equal to or better
than previous divisional brigades. Second, create brigade-size combat
support and combat service support formations of common organizational
designs that can be easily tailored to meet the varied demands of the
geographic combatant commanders and reduce the complexities of joint
planning and execution. Third, redesign organizations to perform as
integral parts of the joint force, making them more effective across
the range of military operations and enhancing their ability to
contribute to joint, interagency, and multinational efforts. By
implementing the Army Modular Force, the Army is better prepared to
wage full-spectrum operations in a persistent conflict against an
adapting enemy.
The fiscal year 2009 budget includes projects to ensure that our
facilities continue to meet the demands of force structure, weapons
systems, and doctrinal requirements.
New facility requirements for transforming units are being
provided, where feasible, through the use of existing assets. Where
existing assets are not available, the Army is programming high-
priority projects to support soldiers where they live and work. The
Army is requesting $321 million for fiscal year 2009 through the
Military Construction, Army program to provide permanent facilities to
support the conversion of existing BCTs to new, modular BCTs. In
addition, all new Grow the Army BCTs will be modular.
Grow the Army
The President's Grow the Army initiative, announced last year, will
increase the Army's end strength by 74,000 soldiers, bringing the
inventory to 48 active duty BCTs. Given current operational
requirements, the decision was made to accelerate Grow the Army. One
BCT, previously budgeted to be cut from the force (the 43rd BCT), was
retained at Fort Carson, and five new BCTs will be stationed at Fort
Bliss, Fort Stewart, and Fort Carson. Additional stationing decisions
for combat service and combat service support units have also been
provided to Congress.
At the same time these announcements were made, the Army notified
Congress of the decision to temporarily keep two BCTs in Europe for up
to 2 years longer than originally planned. In fiscal years 2012 and
2013, these BCTs will be restationed at Fort Bliss and White Sands
Missile Range.
Part of this year's request Military Construction, $4.195 billion,
supports the Grow the Army initiative. Grow the Army projects include
essential facilities required to support the increase in end strength
such as brigade complexes and associated combat support, combat service
support, training, and quality of life facilities worldwide. Funding is
requested for planning and design and military construction projects in
the active Army, Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and Army Family
Housing.
the way ahead
To improve the Army's facilities posture, we have undertaken
specific initiatives or budget strategies to focus our resources on the
most important areas--Range and Training Lands, Barracks, Family
Housing, and Workplaces.
Range and Training Lands
Ranges and training lands enable our Army to train and develop its
full capabilities to ensure our soldiers are fully prepared for the
challenges they will face. Our Army Range and Training Land Strategy
supports Army transformation and the Army's Sustainable Range Program.
The Strategy identifies priorities for installations requiring
resources to modernize ranges, mitigate encroachment, and acquire
training land.
Barracks
Providing safe, quality housing is a crucial commitment the Army
has made to its soldiers. We owe single soldiers the same quality of
housing that is provided to married soldiers. Modern barracks are shown
to significantly increase morale, which positively impacts readiness
and quality of life. The importance of providing quality housing for
single soldiers is paramount to success on the battlefield. The Army is
in the 16th year of its campaign to modernize barracks to provide
147,700 single enlisted permanent party soldiers with quality living
environments. Because of Grow the Army, the requirements have
increased, and for fiscal year 2009, a total of $1,003.6 million will
be invested in new barracks complexes that will meet the Department of
Defense's (DOD) ``1+1'' or equivalent standard. These units provide
two-soldier suites, increased personal privacy, larger rooms with walk-
in closets, new furnishings, adequate parking, landscaping, and unit
administrative offices separated from the barracks. We are on track to
fully fund this program by 2013.
Family Housing
This year's budget continues our significant investment in our
soldiers and their families by supporting our goal to have contracts
and funding in place to eliminate remaining inadequate housing at
enduring overseas installations by the end of fiscal year 2009. The
U.S. inadequate inventory was funded for elimination by the end of
fiscal year 2007 through privatization, conventional military
construction, demolition, divestiture of uneconomical or excess units
and reliance on off-post housing. For families living off post, the
budget for military personnel maintains the basic allowance for housing
that eliminates out of pocket expenses.
Workplaces
Building on the successes of our Family housing and barracks
programs, we are moving to improve the overall condition of Army
infrastructure by focusing on revitalization of our workplaces.
Projects in this year's budget will address requirements for
operational, administration, instructional, and maintenance facilities.
These projects support and improve our installations and facilities to
ensure the Army is deployable, trained, and ready to respond to meet
its national security mission.
Leveraging Resources
Complementary to these budget strategies, the Army also seeks to
leverage scarce resources and reduce our requirements for facilities
and real property assets. Privatization initiatives such as RCI and
utilities privatization represent high-payoff programs which have
substantially reduced our dependence on investment funding. We also
benefit from agreements with Japan, Korea, and Germany where the Army
receives host nation-funded construction.
In addition, Congress has provided valuable authorities to utilize
the value of our non-excess inventory under the Enhanced Use Leasing
program and to exchange facilities in high-cost areas for new
facilities in other locations under the Real Property Exchange program.
In both cases, we can capitalize on the value of our existing assets to
reduce unfinanced facilities requirements.
The Army is transforming military construction by placing greater
emphasis on installation master planning and standardization of
facilities as well as planning, programming, designing, acquisition,
and construction processes. Looking toward the immediate future, we are
aggressively reviewing our construction standards and processes to
align with industry innovations and best practices. In doing so, we
expect to deliver quality facilities at lower costs while meeting our
requirements more expeditiously. By encouraging the use of manufactured
building solutions and other cost-effective, efficient processes, the
Army will encourage nontraditional builders to compete. Small business
opportunities and set-aside programs are being addressed. Work of a
repetitive nature coupled with a continuous building program will
provide the building blocks for gaining efficiencies in time and cost.
Action Plans for Soldiers, Families, and Medical Programs
In a persistent conflict, sustaining the All-Volunteer Force is a
fundamental strategic objective for the Army. The most important
element in sustaining our Army is the quality of life we provide to our
soldiers and their families. At the core of the Army's strategy lie two
programs the Army leadership has developed: the Soldier and Family
Action Plan and an Army Medical Action Plan. Both initiatives will
integrate programs spanning a range of Army budget accounts. At the
core of the Soldier and Family Action Plan is the Army Family Covenant
that conveys our commitment to support all members of the Army Family
in five general areas: standardizing and funding existing family
programs and services; increasing accessibility and quality of health
care; improving soldier and family housing; ensuring excellence in our
schools, youth services, and child care facilities; and expanding
education and employment opportunities for family members.
The budget includes $70.6 million for child development centers and
youth centers. We will also be using the extended authority granted in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 to fund
child development centers using Operation and Maintenance, Army funds.
Once Congress completes its deliberations for the fiscal year 2008
supplemental, Army Medical Action Plan projects will proceed as
planned.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of
Military Construction Appropriation Authorization Appropriations Appropriation
Request Request Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction Army (MCA).................... $4,178,513,000 $4,615,920,000 $4,615,920,000
Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG).... N/A 539,296,000 539,296,000
Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR)........... N/A 281,687,000 281,687,000
Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC)............. 678,580,000 678,580,000 678,580.000
Army Family Housinq Operations (AFHO)............... 716,110,000 716,110,000 716,110,000
BRAC 95 (BCA)....................................... 72,855,000 72,855,000 72,855,000
BRAC 2005 (BCA)..................................... 4,486,178,000 4,486,178,000 4,486,178,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................. $10,132,236,000 $11,390,626,000 $11,390,626,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army's fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $11.4 billion
for Military Construction appropriations and associated new
authorizations, Army Family Housing, and BRAC.
military construction, army
The Active Army fiscal year 2009 Military Construction budget
request is $4,178,513,000 for authorization and $4,615,920,000 for
authorization of appropriations and appropriation, including
$3,483,664,000 (including planning and design) for Grow the Army.
Sustain (Barracks and Quality of Life Projects)
The well-being of our soldiers, civilians, and families is
inextricably linked to the Army's readiness. We are requesting $1.3
billion of our Military Construction, Army budget for projects to
improve soldier quality of life in significant ways.
The Army continues to modernize and construct barracks to provide
soldiers quality living environments. We will provide new permanent
party barracks for 6,362 single soldiers. For soldiers in a training
environment, this year's budget request includes 6,864 training
barracks. With the approval of $503.6 million for these training
barracks, 38 percent of our requirement will be funded at the standard.
We are requesting the second increment of funding, $81.6 million,
for the previously approved, incrementally funded, SOUTHCOM
Headquarters at Miami-Doral, FL. In addition, we are requesting the
third increment of funding, $102 million, for the Brigade Complex at
Fort Lewis, WA. The budget also includes $15 million for a Brigade
Complex-Operations support facility and $15 million for a Brigade
Complex-Barracks/Community, both projects at Dal Molin, Italy.
Overseas Construction
Included in this budget request is $275 million in support of high-
priority overseas projects. In Germany, a Command and Battle Center
located at Wiesbaden and an Aircraft/Vehicle Maintenance Complex at
Katterbach are included. In Korea, we are requesting funds to further
our relocation of forces on the peninsula. This action is consistent
with the Land Partnership Plan agreements entered into by the U.S. and
Republic of Korea Ministry of Defense. A vehicle maintenance shop is
included. Our request for funds in Italy funds continuing construction
for a BCT, as described above. The bulk fuel storage and supply
projects (phase 5 and 8), and the joint special operations forces
headquarters facility in Afghanistan and the Sensitive Compartmented
Information Facility and the Battle Command Training Center, both in
Japan, are the remaining overseas projects.
Mission and Training Projects
Projects in our fiscal year 2009 budget will provide maintenance,
infrastructure, utilities, operational and administration facilities,
and training ranges. These projects support and improve our
installations and facilities to ensure the Army is deployable, trained,
and ready to respond to meet our national security mission.
We will also construct a military operations urban terrain, tracked
vehicle drivers course, automated anti-armor range, stationary tank
range, modified record firing ranges, and digital multipurpose training
ranges. These facilities will provide our soldiers realistic, state-of-
the-art, live-fire training. We are requesting a total of $242 million
for these high-priority projects. We are also requesting funding of
$9.1 million for range access roads.
Army Modular Force Projects
Our budget continues support of the transformation of the Army to a
modern, strategically responsive force and contains $321 million for
four brigade complexes and other facilities. The new barracks will
house 988 soldiers in support of the Army Modular Force.
Other Support Programs
The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $177 million for planning and
design of future projects, including $69 million to Grow the Army. As
executive agent, we also provide oversight of design and construction
for projects funded by host nations. The fiscal year 2009 budget
requests $24 million for oversight of host nation funded construction
for all Services in Japan, Korea, and Europe.
The budget request also contains $23 million for unspecified minor
construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission
requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.
military construction, army national guard
The Army National Guard's fiscal year 2009 Military Construction
request for $539,296,000 (for appropriation and authorization of
appropriations) is focused on Mission and Training, Transformation,
Growth of the Force/Army, and other support and unspecified programs.
Mission and Training
In fiscal year 2009, the Army National Guard has requested $192.5
million for 12 projects to support preparing our forces. These funds
will provide the facilities our soldiers require as they train,
mobilize, and deploy. Included are two logistics facilities, two
training institutes, four range projects and four Readiness/Armed
Forces Reserve centers.
Transformation
This year, the Army National Guard is requesting $199 million for
10 projects in support of our new missions. There is one Aviation
Transformation project to provide facilities for modernized aircraft
and change unit structure. Also in support of the Modular Force
initiative we are asking for four readiness centers, three range
projects, one aviation facility, and one headquarters building.
Growth of the Force/Army
Improving the Army National Guard's ability to deal with the
continued high levels of Force Deployment, under the category of growth
of the Force/Army, we are submitting a request of $87.2 million for
seven readiness centers, and included within the total Planning and
Design request of $4.5 million for Growth.
Other Support Programs
The fiscal year 2009 Army National Guard budget also contains $48.8
million for planning and design of future projects and $11.8 million
for unspecified minor military construction to address unforeseen
critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for
the normal programming cycle.
military construction, army reserve
The Army Reserve fiscal year 2009 Military Construction request for
$281,687,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is
for Preparation, Transformation, other support, and unspecified
programs.
Preparation
In fiscal year 2009, the Army Reserve will invest $72.2 million to
build four Army Reserve Centers and modernize one Army Reserve center,
in four States. The five Reserve centers will support over 1,200 Army
Reserve soldiers and civilian personnel. In addition, the Army Reserve
will invest $13.7 million to construct four training ranges, which will
be available for joint use by all Army components and military
Services.
Transformation
The Army Reserve plan to transform from a Strategic Reserve to an
operation force includes converting 16,000 soldiers positions from
generating force structure to operational forces. The Army Reserve will
construct 10 Army Reserve centers in 10 States, with an investment of
$178,731,000. The transformation projects will provide operational
facilities for over 3,600 Combat Service and Combat Service Support
units in support of Army BCTs.
Other Unspecified Programs
The fiscal year 2009 Army Reserve budget request includes $13.9
million for planning and design for future year projects and $3.1
million for unspecified minor military construction to address
unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot
wait for the normal programming cycle.
army family housing construction (afhc)
The Army's fiscal year 2009 family housing construction request is
$678.6 million for authorization, authorization of appropriation, and
appropriation, including $333.8 million for Grow the Army. It finalizes
the successful Whole Neighborhood Revitalization initiative approved by
Congress in fiscal year 1992 and our RCI program.
The fiscal year 2009 new construction program provides a Whole
Neighborhood Revitalization by replacement projects at Wiesbaden,
Germany, in support of 326 Families for $133 million using traditional
military construction. Also included for new construction is $125
million for family housing at Camp Humphreys in Korea to support
relocation of forces south of Seoul.
The Construction Improvements Program is an integral part of our
housing revitalization and privatization programs. In fiscal year 2009,
we are requesting $333.8 million in support of Grow the Army, as well
as $66.2 million for direct equity investment in support of the
privatization of 3,936 homes at Forts Wainwright and Greely, AK, as
well as Fort Carson, CO; Fort Stewart, GA; and Fort Bliss, TX, in
support of Army Growth. The Improvements program also provides $20
million for traditional revitalization of 97 homes in Wiesbaden,
Germany.
In fiscal year 2009, we are also requesting $579,000 for planning
and design for final design on fiscal year 2009 and 2010 family housing
construction projects as well as for housing studies and updating
standards and criteria.
Privatization
RCI, the Army's housing privatization program, is providing quality
housing that soldiers and their families can proudly call home. The
Army is leveraging appropriated funds and existing housing by engaging
in 50-year partnerships with nationally recognized private real estate
development, property management, and home builder firms to construct,
renovate, repair, maintain, and operate housing communities.
The RCI program will include 45 locations, with a projected end
state of over 89,000 homes--98 percent of the on-post family housing
inventory in the U.S. At the end of fiscal year 2008, the Army will
have privatized 38 locations, with an end state of over 83,000 homes.
Initial construction and renovation at these 38 installations is
estimated at $11.2 billion over a 3 to 10 year development period, of
which the Army will contribute about $1.287 billion. Although most
projects are in the early phases of their initial development, since
2001 our partners have constructed 12,418 new homes, and renovated
10,662 homes. In addition to the 2,225 additional homes that will be
constructed to support Grow the Army, the fiscal year 2009 budget
request provides funding for additional homes at Forts Wainwright and
Greely, AK. In total, the Army will expand the portfolio of privatized
Family housing, transferring six additional installations during fiscal
year 2009.
army family housing operations (afho)
The Army's fiscal year 2009 Family Housing Operations request is
$716 million (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations).
This account provides for annual operations, municipal-type services,
furnishings, maintenance and repair, utilities, leased Family housing,
demolition of surplus or uneconomical housing, and funds supporting
management of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative.
Operations ($126 million)
The operations account includes four subaccounts: management,
services, furnishings, and a small miscellaneous account. All
operations sub-accounts are considered ``must pay accounts'' based on
actual bills that must be paid to manage and operate family housing.
Utilities ($113 million)
The utilities account includes the costs of delivering heat, air
conditioning, electricity, water, and wastewater support for Family
housing units. The overall size of the utilities account is decreasing
with the reduction in supported inventory.
Maintenance and Repair ($252 million)
The maintenance and repair account supports annual recurring
projects to maintain and revitalize family housing real property
assets. Since most family housing operational expenses are fixed,
maintenance and repair is the account most affected by budget changes.
Funding reductions result in slippage of maintenance projects that
adversely impact soldier and family quality of life.
Leasing ($193 million)
The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our
military families. The fiscal year 2009 budget includes funding for
9,119 housing units, including 1,080 existing section 2835 (``build-to-
lease''--formerly known as 801 leases) project requirements, 2,017
temporary domestic leases in the United States, and 6,022 foreign
units.
Privatization ($32 million)
The privatization account provides operating funds for
implementation and oversight of privatized military Family housing in
the RCI program. RCI costs include selection of private sector
partners, environmental studies, real estate surveys, and consultants.
These funds support the preparation and execution of partnership
agreements and development plans, and oversight to monitor compliance
and performance of the privatized housing portfolio.
base realignment and closure (brac)
The Army is requesting $4,486,178,000 for BRAC 2005 which is
critical to the success of the Army's new initiatives, and $72,855,000
for legacy BRAC to sustain vital, ongoing programs.
BRAC 2005 is carefully integrated with the Defense and Army
programs of GDPR, Army Modular Force, and Grow the Army. Collectively,
these initiatives allow the Army to focus its resources on
installations that provide the best military value, supporting improved
responsiveness and readiness of units. The elimination of Cold War era
infrastructure and the implementation of modern technology to
consolidate activities frees up financial and human resources to allow
the Army to better focus on its core warfighting mission. These
initiatives are a massive undertaking, requiring the synchronization of
base closures, realignments, military construction and renovation, unit
activations and deactivations, and the flow of forces to and from
current global commitments. If done efficiently, the end results will
yield tremendous savings over time, while positioning forces, logistics
activities, and power projection platforms to efficiently and
effectively respond to the needs of the Nation.
As an essential component of Army transformation, BRAC 2005
decisions optimize infrastructure to support the Army's current and
future force requirements. Under BRAC 2005, the Army will close 13
Active component installations, 387 Reserve component installations and
8 leased facilities. BRAC 2005 realigns 53 installations and/or
functions and establishes training centers of excellence, joint bases,
a Human Resources Center of Excellence, and Joint Technical and
Research facilities. To accommodate the units relocating from the
closing Reserve component installations, BRAC 2005 creates 125 multi-
component Armed Forces Reserve centers and realigns the Army Reserve
command and control structure. By implementing BRAC 2005 decisions, the
Active Army will maintain sufficient surge capabilities to expand to 48
maneuver brigades and handle increased production, training, and
operational demands now and in the future. BRAC 2005 better postures
the Army for an increase in end strength by facilitating the Army's
transformation to a modular force and revitalizing and modernizing the
institutional Army through consolidation of schools and centers.
In total, over 150,000 soldiers and civilian employees will
relocate as BRAC is implemented over the next 3-plus years. The over
1,300 discrete actions required for the Army to successfully implement
BRAC 2005 are far more extensive than all four previous BRAC rounds
combined and are expected to create significant recurring annual
savings. BRAC 2005 will enable the Army to become a more capable
expeditionary force as a member of the Joint team while enhancing the
well-being of our soldiers, civilians, and family members living,
working, and training on our installations.
BRAC 2005 Implementation Strategy
The Army has an aggressive, carefully synchronized, fully
resourced, BRAC fiscal years 2006-2011 implementation plan, designed to
meet the September 2011 deadline, while supporting our national
security priorities. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requirements necessary to support our implementation plan were
initiated in fiscal year 2006 to enable the early award of essential
construction projects. Our BRAC construction plan is fully coordinated
and carefully synchronized to support our overall strategy for re-
stationing, realigning, and closing installations while continuing to
fully support ongoing missions and transformation initiatives. This
construction plan identifies requirements, defines scope, and considers
existing installation capacity and infrastructure needs. It is an
extremely complex plan that manages numerous construction projects, re-
stationing actions, BRAC moves, and deployment timelines to allow the
Army to implement the BRAC statute while supporting critical missions
worldwide.
Seventy-seven percent of all required construction projects are
planned for award by the end of fiscal year 2009, and 100 percent by
fiscal year 2010. This will enable the major movement of units and
personnel in fiscal year 2010 and 2011, with expected completion by the
mandated BRAC 2005 deadline.
In fiscal year 2006 the Army awarded 11 BRAC military construction
projects to support re-stationing and realignments, including: 3
projects to support GDPR; 2 incremental projects for BCTs, and 5 Armed
Forces Reserve Centers, totaling over $789.1 million. In fiscal year
2007, the Army awarded 61 projects: 20 projects to support GDPR; 20
Reserve component projects in 12 States; and 21 other Active component
projects totaling over $3.3 billion, including planning and design for
fiscal year 2009 and 2010 projects. This will lay the foundation for
follow-on projects, and in earnest, start the implementation of our
synchronized construction program.
As signed into law, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-161) contained a very significant reduction
in BRAC funding of $938.7 million (of which $560 million is reduced
from the Army's BRAC budget). I cannot overstate the difficulties that
repeated cuts or delays in BRAC funding have, and will continue to pose
to the Army as we implement BRAC construction projects. It directly
threatens to derail our carefully integrated implementation plan. If
the Army program is not fully funded, we will be significantly
challenged to execute BRAC as intended. Construction of required
facilities will be delayed and cause increased cost, uncertainty for
mission commanders, and the resulting impact will cascade through our
re-stationing, transformation, and growth plans for years to come. The
net impact from shortfalls in BRAC funding will likely be felt by funds
from the military construction programs as they are shifted to plug the
gaps in BRAC.
BRAC 2005 Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
The Army's fiscal year 2009 budget request of $4,486,178,000 will
continue to fund both BRAC and GDPR actions necessary to comply with
BRAC 2005 Law. The Army plans to award and begin construction of 83
military construction projects, plus planning and design for fiscal
year 2009 and 2010 projects. This is estimated to cost $3,792 million
and includes: 5 additional GDPR projects, 37 Army National Guard and
Army Reserve projects, and an additional 41 Active component projects.
A significant portion of the Army's BRAC request supports the
transformation and re-stationing of the operational force. BRAC
military construction projects support major realignments of forces
returning to the United States from Europe, as well as several
stateside relocations. The fiscal year 2009 budget request also funds
projects supporting Reserve component transformation in 22 States and
Puerto Rico.
The BRAC budget request will also fund furnishings for BRAC
projects awarded in fiscal year 2006 and 2007 as the buildings reach
completion and occupancy. The request also funds movement of personnel,
ammunition, and equipment associated with BRAC Commission
Recommendations.
The Army will continue to procure investment type equipment in
fiscal year 2009 in support of our BRAC military construction program
as part of the ``other procurement'' budget line. This equipment
exceeds the investment and expense unit cost threshold of $250,000 each
and includes information technology infrastructure and equipment for
the previously awarded BRAC projects, which will be impacted if fiscal
year 2008 funding is not fully restored.
In fiscal year 2009, the Army will continue environmental closure
and cleanup actions at BRAC properties. These activities will continue
efforts previously ongoing under the Army Installation restoration
program and will ultimately support future property transfer actions.
The budget request for environmental programs is $54.8 million, which
includes Munitions and Explosives of Concern and Hazardous and Toxic
Waste restoration activities.
Prior BRAC
Since Congress established the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission in 1990, the DOD has successfully executed four rounds of
base closures to reduce and align the military's infrastructure to the
current security environment and force structure. As a result, the Army
estimates approximately $12.6 billion in savings through 2008--nearly
$1 billion in recurring, annual savings from prior BRAC rounds.
The Army is requesting $72,855,000 million in fiscal year 2009 for
prior BRAC rounds ($4.9 million to fund caretaking operations of
remaining properties and $68 million for environmental restoration) to
address environmental restoration efforts at 147 sites at 14 prior BRAC
installations. To date, the Army has spent $2.8 billion on the BRAC
environmental program for installations impacted by the previous four
BRAC rounds. We disposed of 235,480 acres (93.5 percent of the total
acreage disposal requirement of 259,674 acres), with 24,194 acres
remaining.
Homeowners Assistance Program
The Army is the DOD Executive Agent for the Homeowners Assistance
Program (HAP). This program provides assistance to eligible military
and civilian employee homeowners by providing some financial relief
when they are not able to sell their homes under reasonable terms and
conditions as a result of DOD announced closures, realignments, or
reduction in operations when this action adversely affects the real
estate market. For fiscal year 2009, HAP will execute the approved
program for Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick, ME, and complete a
market impact study expected to result in an approved program at Naval
Station (NS) Ingleside, TX. NAS Brunswick was approved 2 years earlier
than anticipated due to the more rapid departure of personnel and a
marked decline in areas markets.
The numerous government employee and servicemember homeowners who
are required to move with their transferred organizations, or to new
jobs beyond the commuting distance from their present homes, will
benefit from this program during periods of fluctuating home values. We
are requesting an appropriation of $4.46 million for the Homeowners
Assistance Program.
operation and maintenance
The Army's fiscal year 2009 Operation and Maintenance budget
includes $2.85 billion in funding for Sustainment, Restoration, and
Modernization (S/RM) and $8.61 billion in funding for Base Operations
Support (BOS). The S/RM and BOS accounts are inextricably linked with
our military construction programs to successfully support our
installations. The Army has centralized the management of its
installations assets under the Installation Management Command to best
utilize this funding.
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (S/RM)
S/RM provides funding for the Active and Reserve components to
prevent deterioration and obsolescence and restore the readiness of
facilities on our installations.
Sustainment is the primary account in installation base support
funding responsible for maintaining the infrastructure to achieve a
successful readiness posture for the Army's fighting force. It is the
first step in our long-term facilities strategy. Installation
facilities are the mobilization and deployment platforms of America's
Army and must be properly maintained to be ready to support current
missions and future deployments.
The second step in our long-term facilities strategy is
recapitalization by restoring and modernizing our existing facility
assets. Restoration includes repair and restoration of facilities
damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster,
fire, accident, or other causes. Modernization includes alteration or
modernization of facilities solely to implement new or higher
standards, including regulatory changes to accommodate new functions,
or to replace building components that typically last more than 50
years, such as foundations and structural members.
Base Operations Support
This account funds programs to operate the bases, installations,
camps, posts, and stations for the Army worldwide. The program includes
municipal services, government civilian employee salaries, family
programs, environmental programs, force protection, audio/visual, base
communication services, and installation support contracts. Army
Community Service and Reserve component family programs include a
network of integrated support services that directly impact soldier
readiness, retention, and spouse adaptability to military life during
peacetime and through all phases of mobilization, deployment, and
demobilization.
summary
Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2009 Military Construction and BRAC
budget requests are balanced programs that support our soldiers and
their families, the global war on terrorism, Army transformation,
readiness, and DOD installation strategy goals. We are proud to present
this budget for your consideration because of what this budget will
provide for our Army:
Military Construction:
2,225 New homes for Grow the Army
1,117 Additional homes privatized (230 require
government contribution, 1,481 do not require government
contribution)
423 homes replaced or renovated
30,845 government-owned and leased homes operated and
sustained at the end of fiscal year 2009
Portfolio management of 87,691 privatized homes
13,962 soldiers get new barracks
30 new training ranges/facilities
$11 billion invested in soldier/family readiness
$4.2 billion to Grow the Army
Over 3,300 soldiers training in 16 new or improved
Readiness Centers and Armed Forces Reserve Centers
14 New Army Reserve Centers
One Modernized Army Reserve Center
4,954 soldiers get new Reserve Centers
Base Realignment and Closure:
Statutory compliance by 2011 for BRAC
83 Military Construction projects
Planning and Design for fiscal year 2009-2010 projects
Remaining NEPA for BRAC 2005 actions
Continued Environmental Restoration of 24,194 acres
Base Operations Support:
Goal is to meet essential needs for all BOS programs:
Base Operations, Family, Environmental Quality, Force
Protection, Base Communications, and Audio/Visual.
Sustainment/Restoration and Modernization:
Funds Sustainment at 90 percent of the OSD Facility
Sustainment model requirement.
Our long-term strategies for installations will be accomplished
through sustained and balanced funding, and with your support, we will
continue to improve soldier and family quality of life, while remaining
focused on Army and Defense transformation goals.
In closing, we would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
appear before you today and for your continued support for America's
Army.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Secretary Eastin.
Secretary Penn?
STATEMENT OF HON. B.J. PENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
(INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
Mr. Penn. Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, I'm pleased to
come before you today to discuss the Department of Navy's
installation and environmental efforts.
I would like to touch on a few highlights in this year's
budget request, the largest facilities budget in well over 15
years. Our request is a robust $14.3 billion, 9.6 percent of
the Department's Total Obligation Authority. Most apparent is
our increased infrastructure investment, both in Facilities
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) and the
construction accounts.
With regard to SRM, the Navy acknowledges that years of
underfunding have degraded the shore infrastructure to below
industry standards, and that a substantial shot in the arm of
41 percent this year is necessary to reverse course and
maintain these systems so that we can maximize their full
service life. The increase in construction, 45 percent for
military construction (MILCON), 13 percent for family housing,
continues the trend begun last year with the Marine Corps Grow
the Force initiative to ensure their bases are ready to house
and operate with the additional end strength.
Our MILCON program also includes a number of projects to
enhance the quality of life of our sailors and marines,
including four fitness centers, six child development centers,
and four enlisted dining facilities. Our fiscal year 2009
budget also includes the second increment of our two MILCON
projects that were proposed last year for full funding by the
administration but selected by Congress for incremental
funding. While we do not consider any of these projects in our
fiscal year 2009 program to be viable candidates for
incremental funding, we have taken the lead in drafting
criteria for incrementing costly construction projects and are
working with DOD and OMB. We commit to work with Congress to
reestablish mutually acceptable and objective criteria in time
for the next budget cycle.
Fiscal year 2009 marks the first year since 2005 that we've
asked for appropriated funds for prior BRAC. We've been able to
finance all or part of our prior BRAC with land sale revenue.
But we've used all but $25 million which we are applying to
this year's program.
Our fiscal year 2009 request includes $179 million for
prior BRAC. We will need appropriated funds in future years to
complete our clean-up work despite the prospects of some
limited land sale revenue from Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico
and some other small parcels. We've disposed of 91 percent of
the prior BRAC properties so there is little left to sell. The
real estate market is not as lucrative as it was a few years
ago.
With respect to the BRAC 2005 program, we have several good
news items to share. Nearly all impacted communities have
established local redevelopment authorities to guide local
planning and redevelopment efforts. We were able to facilitate
the reversion of the former Naval Station Pascagoula to the
State of Mississippi last June. We've been able to hold down
our cost increases to a modest 2 percent for the implementation
period of fiscal year 2006 through 2011.
However, our ability to meet the statutory deadline of
September 15, 2011, hinges on the prompt restoral of the fiscal
year 2008 reduction of $939 million. I ask the committee's
support to help restore these funds as soon as possible.
We continue to improve where our sailors, marines, and
their families live. We have awarded a second barracks
privatization project in December 2007, this one in Hampton
Roads, VA. We're almost finished evaluating our third pilot
project in the Jacksonville area.
Surveys of our residents, both in family and unaccompanied
housing, show that satisfaction has increased significantly
since privatization began. As a Department we emphasize and
participate in communication at all levels of management from
the installation level where focus groups bring together their
residents, command representatives, and property managers to
the annual meetings with partner CEOs, the Department remains
engaged throughout all levels of management. The objective is
to identify issues early and take prompt corrective action when
required.
In fiscal year 2009 the Department is investing over $900
million in its various environmental programs. We were
recognized last year for our efforts in several areas, winning
six Ozone Protection Awards from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and a White House Closing the Circle Award for
progress in alternate fuels and fuel conservation.
I am troubled though by the press coverage lately about how
the Navy's training and sonar testing affects marine mammals.
One of the most challenging threats that our naval forces face
is a modern, quiet diesel submarine and the tactical use of MFA
sonar that's the best means of detecting these potentially
hostile vessels. The inability to train effectively with active
sonar literally puts the lives of thousands of Americans at
risk.
The Navy is operating under an exemption to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) through January 2009 to give the
Department enough time to complete the required EIS and obtain
letters of authorization for sonar use on our maritime ranges
and operating areas. What gets less air time is that the Navy
will invest $18 million or more in fiscal year 2008 for marine
mammal research, more than any other single agency. This
research aims to develop effective mitigation and monitoring
methods to reduce any potential effects of sonar and other
human induced sound on marine mammals.
We have made significant progress in the past year in
planning for the relocation of the marines from Okinawa to
Guam. We established a joint program office, both the
headquarters and forward elements. The EIS for Guam is underway
with a target Record of Decision in January 2010 in time for
the construction to begin in fiscal year 2010.
We're working closely with our counterparts in the
Government of Japan to prepare the details for construction
requirements, their phasing and funding priorities, and we are
working with our domestic partners, the Government of Guam, the
Department of Interior, OMB, and other Federal agencies to
ensure the island can meet the challenges of such a
concentrated influx of people and workload.
Finally, it has truly been an honor and privilege to serve
this great Nation and the men and women of our Navy and Marine
Corps team, the military and civilian personnel and their
families. Thank you for your continued support and the
opportunity to testify before you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Penn follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. B.J. Penn
Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, and members of the subcommittee, I
am pleased to appear before you today to provide an overview of the
Department of Navy's investment in its shore infrastructure.
the navy's investment in facilities
We live in an increasingly globalized and interlinked world--
through our economic, communication, and financial networks, yet a
world in which rogue nations, terrorists, and even the forces of nature
disrupt the delicate balance between war and peace on a daily basis. A
Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower establishes that we must
not only be capable of winning wars, but must also strive to prevent
war by fostering the collective security of all by working with our
interagency, international, and private sector partners.
To fulfill this challenge we must ensure our sailors and marines
have the training, education, and tools necessary to prevail in
conflict and promote peace abroad. The Department of Navy's (DoN)
investment in our shore infrastructure represents our deepening
commitment to this goal. Our installations are where we homeport the
Fleet and her Marine forces, train and equip the world's finest sailors
and marines, and develop the most sophisticated weapons and
technologies. Our fiscal year 2009 shore infrastructure baseline budget
totals $14.3 billion, representing 9.6 percent of the DoN's fiscal year
2009 baseline request of $149 billion.
The Base Operating Support (BOS) request of $6.5 billion, excluding
environmental, comprises the largest portion of the Department's
facilities budget request. This account funds the daily operations of a
shore facility, e.g., utilities; fire and emergency services; air and
port operations; community support services; custodial and grounds
maintenance costs.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Our fiscal year 2009 request of $6.5 billion for BOS reflects a 9.4
percent increase from the fiscal year 2008 request. The Navy request of
$4.3 billion includes an increase of $348 million over last year's
request and matches the budget request with recent execution
performance. The Marine Corps request is $2.1 billion, an increase of
$207 million over last year's request, and is consistent with their
execution experience.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The fiscal year 2009 military construction (Active + Reserve)
request of $3.2 billion is $1.1 billion more than the fiscal year 2008
request. This is a 50 percent increase above the fiscal year 2008
request, and nearly three times the size of the fiscal year 2007
request. This unprecedented growth in Department's military
construction request is primarily due to the Marine Corps' ``Grow the
Force ``initiative.
The fiscal year 2009 Family Housing request of $759 million
represents a 13 percent increase over our fiscal year 2008 request.
This growth is also spurred by the need for additional family housing
for the Marine Corps' Grow the Force initiative. The Navy and Marine
Corps have continued to improve their overseas housing, which is not
eligible for privatization as has been done in the U.S.
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (S/RM) includes
military construction and operation and maintenance funds. Our fiscal
year 2009 request of $2.7 billion funds the Department at 90 percent of
the DOD sustainment model requirement and includes only the amount of
S/RM funded with Operations and Maintenance. It represents a 41 percent
increase over our fiscal year 2008 request to improve sustainment of
existing facilities and rehabilitate older buildings to meet current
standards.
Our fiscal year 2009 request of $966 million for environmental
programs at Active and Reserve bases is comprised of operating and
investment appropriations \1\, roughly $58 million more than our
request for fiscal year 2008 due to higher compliance and conservation
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the following accounts: RDT&E,N; MC,N; OP,N. Excludes
BRAC environmental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our BRAC program consists of environmental cleanup and caretaker
costs at prior BRAC locations, and implementation of BRAC 2005
recommendations.
Our fiscal year 2009 prior BRAC program consists of $179 million in
appropriations and $25 million in remaining land sales revenue from
past prior BRAC property sales. This is the first time since fiscal
year 2005 that the Department has requested appropriated funds for
prior BRAC as we have exhausted our land sales revenue from previous
sales. We anticipate some limited future revenue as we move to dispose
of the former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico and some
other smaller property sales. We will use revenue from these future
sales to accelerate cleanup at the remaining prior BRAC locations.
The fiscal year 2009 budget includes a request of $871 million to
implement the BRAC 2005 recommendations. We are proceeding apace with
implementation; however, there has been considerable turbulence in
execution in part due to the late receipt of congressional
appropriations. The fiscal year 2008 $939 million congressional
reduction to this DOD account, for which the Navy share is $143
million, adds additional execution concerns which I will address later
in the statement. I urge Congress to promptly restore the fiscal year
2008 reduction.
Here are some of the highlights of these programs.
military construction
The DoN's fiscal year 2009 Military Construction program requests
appropriations of $3.2 billion including $239 million for planning and
design and $13.7 million for Unspecified Minor Construction.
The Active Navy program totals $1.1 billion and includes:
$176 million to fund five waterfront projects: Wharf
Upgrades in Diego Garcia to support stationing of a Land-class
tender; Berth Lima Conversion at Naval Air Station North
Island, CA to accommodate homeporting an additional third
nuclear powered aircraft carrier, subject to the completion of
an ongoing Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; the
second increment of the Magnetic Silencing Facility in Naval
Station, Pearl Harbor, HI; a pier replacement project at
Submarine Base New London, CT; and Improvements to Alpha Wharf
at Naval Station Mayport, FL, to make structural and utilities
repairs to the existing bulkhead.
$62 million to fund three airfield projects: the
second increment of the Hangar 5 Recapitalization at Naval Air
Station, Whidbey Island, WA; an Aircraft Maintenance Hangar and
Aircraft Parking Apron at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti.
$60 million to fund four expeditionary operations
projects, including headquarters for the 25th Naval
Construction Regiment in Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Gulfport, MS; two projects supporting Joint Forces Command, one
in Naval Station Pearl Harbor to build a Deployment Staging
Area and another at MacDill Air Force Base, FL, to construct a
Communications Squadron Equipment Facility.
$111 million to fund two training projects: a Special
Programs Barracks to conduct remedial training at Recruit
Training Command, Great Lakes, IL; and an Integrated Training
Center for the P-8A, the replacement for the Maritime Patrol
aircraft.
$102 million to fund two weapons related projects: the
5th of 7 increments of the Limited Area Production and Storage
Complex at Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, WA; and the second
increment of the Kilo Wharf Extension in Guam.
$91 million to construct four research and development
facilities, including a new laboratory in the District of
Columbia that will consolidate 17 separate labs conducting
research in unmanned systems.
$60 million to support ship maintenance operations,
including dredging the Norfolk Harbor Channel to enable
carriers to navigate up the Elizabeth River to Norfolk Naval
Shipyard without risk to the propulsion system.
$268 million to increase the quality of life for our
sailors and their family members, including two Bachelor
Enlisted Quarters (BEQs), five child development centers, and
three fitness centers.
$57 million for planning and design efforts.
The Active Marine Corps program totals $2 billion, a $989 million
increase over the fiscal year 2008 Military Construction and global war
on terror requests. This program includes:
$1.3 billion for facilities to support the ``Grow the
Force'' initiative, which I will discuss in greater detail
below;
$312 million for the Marine Corps BEQ Initiative to
build over 3,600 spaces and an additional $856 million in the
Marine Corps Grow the Force to build over 8,700 permanent
party/trainee spaces. The total funding devoted to BEQs is $1.2
billion.
$133 million in operations and training facilities and
an additional $121 million in the Grow the Force initiative
funds Military Operations in Urban Terrain facilities at
Twentynine Palms, CA, and Ranges at Camp Pendleton, CA, and
Camp Lejeune, NC; Academic training facilities for The Basic
School at Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA, the School of
Infantry at Camp Pendleton, CA, and the Marine Aviation Weapons
and Tactics Squadron at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, AZ;
operational facilities for V-22 aircraft support at Marine Corp
Air Station Miramar and Marine Corps Air Station New River, NC,
and apron space at Marine Corps Air Facility Quantico, VA.
$36 million and an additional $73 million accelerated
with the Marine Corps Grow the Force initiative funds Quality
of Life facilities such as enlisted dining facilities at Marine
Corps Air Station, New River, NC and Camp Lejeune, NC, and a
Child Development Center at Camp Lejeune, NC;
$64 million and an additional $62 million from the
Grow the Force initiative funds new recruit quarters at Marine
Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, SC and Marine Corps Recruit
Depot San Diego, CA as well as Student Officer Quarters for The
Basic School at Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA;
$53 million in Grow the Force funding will accelerate
additional utility infrastructure improvements at Camp
Pendleton, CA.
$67 million and an additional $10 million accelerated
from our Grow the Force initiative funds aircraft maintenance
facilities at Marine Corps Air Facility Quantico, VA, Ordnance
Facility at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC and
Communications and Electronics Maintenance Facilities and
Regimental Maintenance Facilities at Camp Pendleton, CA.
$44 million supports other facilities such as the
replacement of the 2nd Marine Air Wing Headquarters facility at
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, destroyed by fire in
2007, a satellite fire station for Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar, CA; and road improvements for entry into Marine Corps
Base Quantico, VA.
$183 million for planning and design efforts.
The Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Military Construction
appropriation request is $57 million to construct a total of five
Reserve centers: two Navy; two Marine Corps; and one joint Armed Forces
center.
Marine Corps Grow the Force
To meet the demands of the global war on terrorism as well as the
uncertainty of our Nation's security environment, the Marine Corps must
be sufficiently manned, well trained, and properly equipped. Like the
Cold War, the global war on terrorism is a generational 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 its obligations to the Nation, the Marine Corps will
grow its personnel end strength to 202,000 Active component marines.
This increase will enable the Marine Corps to train to the full
spectrum of military operations and improve the ability of the Marine
Corps to address future challenges in an uncertain environment. This
growth will enable the Marine Corps to recover its ability to respond
in accordance with timelines outlined in combatant commander war
plans--thereby reducing operational risk. It will also relieve strain
on those superb Americans who have volunteered to fight the Nation's
battles. This growth includes:
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.
Exacerbating our requirements, the Marine Corps for many years
funded only its most critical needs. As a result, Marine Corps
installations are in a poor position to properly house and operate with
additional marines. Most of the efforts in fiscal years 2007, 2008 and
proposed 2009 accelerate non-unit specific facilities which benefit all
those aboard the installation--such as bachelor quarters, family
housing, ranges, operational facilities, and landfills. This will
assist in getting our installations ready to support our Grow the Force
initiative. Beginning in fiscal year 2010, we are planning facility
programs to support the final unit specific end strength growth. Unit-
specific construction will begin in fiscal year 2010 in concert with
the expected completion of the National Environmental Policy Act
review. Because marines will begin to arrive before construction at
many locations is complete, the Marine Corps is planning to lease, or
purchase temporary support facilities.
As a result of the rapid, but rigorous planning process, the Marine
Corps submitted its end strength growth stationing plan to Congress in
October 2007. Our proposed fiscal year 2009 request is based on that
stationing plan. This plan will ensure that adequate facilities are
available to support the phase-in and Full Operating Capability of a
202,000-Marine Corps while meeting our environmental stewardship
requirements.
Incrementally funded MILCON projects
Our fiscal year 2009 budget request complies with Office of
Management Policy and the DOD Financial Management Regulation that
establishes criteria for the use of incremental funding. Furthermore,
we do not consider any of the projects in our program to be viable
candidates for incremental funding based on the mutual understanding
between Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD).
The DOD and OMB commit to work with Congress to reestablish
mutually acceptable and objective criteria for the funding of DOD
military construction projects.
Meeting the Energy Challenge
In August 2006, I directed that all new Department of Navy
facilities and major renovations be built to U.S. Green Building
Council ``LEED Silver'' standards starting in fiscal year 2009. In
addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 set new standards for energy
performance in Federal facilities, including a 30 percent energy
reduction over current design standards and the specification of
devices that measure and reduce energy consumption. A modest 3 percent
investment will contribute to the reduction of life cycle costs of our
facilities and will improve the quality of life of our personnel
through better indoor environmental air quality and improved levels of
comfort within the facilities.
The Continued Need for a Mid-Atlantic Outlying Air Field
The Navy has decided to terminate the draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that conducted further court-
directed analysis at five alternative sites for a new Outlying Landing
Field (OLF) to support introduction of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet)
aircraft on the east coast. The Navy will prepare a new Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) that analyzes five new potential OLF sites. This decision
followed careful consideration of the public comments received on the
draft SEIS, review of new information provided by the State of North
Carolina and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a reassessment of the
Navy's operational requirements. It is consistent with the action taken
by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 to rescind the authority to construct the OLF at Site C in
Washington County, NC. The new EIS will analyze potential environmental
impacts at three sites in Virginia, and two sites in North Carolina
that were provided by the respective States. Based on our evaluation of
available information, these new sites each have operational,
environmental, and population characteristics that make them viable
site alternatives. The EIS will further analyze potential environmental
impacts at each location and will result in a future decision about a
new preferred OLF site. We expect this process will take about 30
months, so we have not requested any construction funds in fiscal year
2009. The five sites analyzed in the draft SEIS, including the
Washington County location, are no longer under consideration as
potential OLF sites.
The OLF is required to satisfy training capacity requirements under
the Fleet Response Plan, and to reduce the impacts of encroachment on
operations at existing facilities. While recent actions initiated by
jurisdictions in the vicinity of Naval Air Station Oceana and Navy
Auxiliary Landing Field Fentress in response to recommendations of a
Joint Land Use Study may mitigate further encroachment, both capacity
and encroachment continue to form the basis for the OLF requirement.
Throughout this process the Navy will continue to work closely with the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of North Carolina. The Navy
believes that by working with state and local officials, we can
understand their perspective on the issues and seek common ground on
ways to mitigate impacts and identify potential benefits.
facilities management
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM)
The Department of Defense uses a Sustainment model to calculate
life cycle facility maintenance and repair costs. These models use
industry-wide standard costs for various types of buildings and
geographic areas and are updated annually. Sustainment funds in the
Operation and Maintenance accounts are used to maintain facilities in
their current condition. The funds also pay for preventative
maintenance, emergency responses for minor repairs, and major repairs
or replacement of facility components (e.g. roofs, heating and cooling
systems).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Restoration and modernization provides major upgrades of our
facilities using Military Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Working Capital Fund, and Military Personnel funds. The DOD uses a
recapitalization metric to gauge investment levels. The ``recap''
metric is calculated by dividing the plant replacement value by the
annual investment of funds and is expressed in years. The DOD goal is
to attain a 67-year rate by fiscal year 2008. This continues to be a
relatively coarse metric, as demonstrated by the effect of past
Supplemental funds, BRAC construction projects, and recap projects to
support Grow the Force. The Navy and Marine Corps continue to work with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the other Components to
develop a recap model similar to the Sustainment model, planned for
release in the next budget cycle.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Naval Safety
The Department of the Navy strives to be a world class safety
organization. In fiscal year 2007 the we achieved our lowest rate ever
recorded for total Class A Operational Mishaps.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A Class A mishap is one where the total cost of damages to
Government and other property is $1 million or more, or a DOD aircraft
is destroyed, or an injury and/or occupational illness results in a
fatality or permanent total disability. An operational mishap excludes
private motor vehicle and off duty recreational mishaps. Mishaps
exclude losses from direct enemy action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has embraced the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), which fosters
a cooperative relationship between management, labor, and OSHA to
improve workplace safety. DoN has achieved ``Star'' status, OSHA's
highest level of achievement, at five sites representing over half of
the VPP star sites in DOD. The Navy activities include all four Naval
Shipyards, our largest industrial facilities, and the Navy Submarine
Base in Kings Bay, GA. In 2007 DON was one of six Federal departments
and independent agencies to meet all four of the goals specified by the
President's Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) program.
Noise is also a safety concern in the workplace. Hearing loss is
not reversible, it's often not painful and it won't kill you, but it
sure is a quality of life issue for our sailors and marines when they
leave the Service. We are engineering systems to be quieter, improving
our training, and making sure our people have the best personal
protective equipment.
Encroachment Partnering
The Navy has established an encroachment management program to
acquire real property interests in the vicinity of our installations.
Long-term encroachment partnering agreements have been established with
Churchill County, NV, and a local land trust for NAS Fallon; with the
City of Virginia Beach for NAS Oceana; with Ocean County, NJ, for NAEWC
Lakehurst; and with the State of Florida and Santa Rosa County, FL, for
NAS Whiting Field. These long-term agreements enable the Navy to join
with others to acquire easements that preclude incompatible development
around our installations. We are working to establish a long term
encroachment agreement to protect lands under the supersonic operating
corridor at NAWS China Lake and Edwards AFB, CA.
The Marine Corps secured easements on 2,715 acres at a cost of $6.9
million in fiscal year 2007 while our partners contributed $6.8 million
to prevent incompatible development and protect vital ecological
resources. Marine Corps projects in progress and planned for fiscal
year 2008 are expected to reach $30 million in DOD and partner funds to
address encroachment at MCB Quantico, MCAS Cherry Point, MCB Camp
Lejeune, MCAS Beaufort, and MCB Camp Pendleton.
Energy
The Department of Navy is committed to achieving the energy
efficiency, water conservation, and renewable energy goals that
Congress and the President have directed. DoN last year reduced energy
consumption by 10.8 percent compared to the 2003 baseline. DoN is
increasing use of renewable energy through evaluation of geothermal,
solar, wind, biomass, and ocean energy technologies, as well as
implementing highly efficient cogeneration systems, efficient lighting,
motors, HVAC and other energy systems. Nearly 3 percent of the total
energy consumed by the Department comes from renewable sources
including wind, solar and thermal. The Navy plans to award $210 million
per year in energy, water, and renewable projects. We continue to
leverage new technologies including ocean thermal energy conversion,
tidal energy, and fuel cells. Targeting energy systems at the ``per
building'' level itself is promising, particularly with the use of
photo-voltaic cells.
housing
Our fiscal year 2009 budget continues to improve living conditions
for sailors, marines, and their families. Thanks to the support of
Congress, we met the goal to program the necessary funds and have
contracts or agreements in place by the end of fiscal year 2007 to
eliminate all inadequate family housing. Renovation or replacement of
inadequate Navy housing will be complete by the end of fiscal year
2011. Marine Corps families will be out of inadequate family housing by
fiscal year 2014. This time has been extended from previous projections
to maintain a supply of housing for additional marines associated with
Grow the Force until additional housing is constructed through
privatization initiatives. We continue to provide homes ashore for our
junior shipboard unaccompanied sailors, to provide appropriate living
spaces for our junior enlisted bachelor marines, and to address long
standing family housing deficits. In our fiscal year 2009 budget, we
are requesting the necessary funding to eliminate the remaining
inadequate permanent party unaccompanied BEQs facility spaces still
featuring ``gang heads.''
Family Housing
As in past years, our family housing strategy consists of a
prioritized triad:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Reliance on the Private Sector. In accordance with
longstanding DOD and DoN policy, we rely first on the local
community to provide housing for our sailors, marines, and
their families. Approximately three out of four Navy and Marine
Corps families receive a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and
own or rent homes in the community.
Public/Private Ventures (PPVs). With the strong
support from this committee and others, we have successfully
used PPV authorities enacted in 1996 to partner with the
private sector to help meet our housing needs through the use
of private sector capital. These authorities allow us to
leverage our own resources and provide better housing faster to
our families. Maintaining the purchasing power of BAH is
critical to the success of both privatized and private sector
housing.
Military Construction. Military construction will
continue to be used where PPV authorities don't apply (such as
overseas), or where a business case analysis shows that a PPV
project is not financially sound.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As of the end of fiscal year 2007, we have awarded 30 privatization
projects for over 61,000 homes. As a result of these projects, over
30,000 homes will be replaced or renovated, about 5,000 new homes will
be built, and the remaining 15,000 were privatized in good condition
and did not require any improvements. Through the use of these
authorities we have secured approximately $8 billion in private sector
investment from approximately $800 million of our funds, which
represents a ratio of almost ten private sector dollars for each
taxpayer dollar.
Our fiscal year 2008 and outyear family housing privatization
projects are targeted at reducing family housing deficits by
constructing additional housing for our families where the private
sector cannot accommodate their needs. This includes locations where
increased requirements associated with the Grow the Force initiative
will add to projected housing deficits. During fiscal year 2008, we
plan to award three Marine Corps family housing privatization projects
that would build an additional 1,100 homes.
Our fiscal year 2009 budget includes $383 million for family
housing construction and improvements. This amount includes $259
million for the Government investment in family housing privatization
projects planned for fiscal year 2009 award. It also includes the
replacement or revitalization of housing in Cuba and Japan where
privatization is not planned. Finally, the budget request includes $376
million for the operation, maintenance, and leasing of remaining
Government-owned or controlled inventory.
Unaccompanied Housing
Our budget request includes $1.3 billion for 37 unaccompanied
housing projects at 10 Navy and Marine Corps locations. The budget
continues the emphasis on improving living conditions for our
unaccompanied sailors and marines. There are three challenges:
1. Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors. With its
fiscal year 2008 request, the Navy completed programming for
military construction associated with the Homeport Ashore
initiative to provide ashore living accommodations for E1-E3
unaccompanied sailors who otherwise would live aboard ship even
while in homeport.
In addition to the E1-E3 shipboard sailors, there are
approximately 5,000 unaccompanied E-4 sailors with less than 4
years service who are assigned to sea duty. In fiscal year
2001, Congress extended the BAH entitlement to all
unaccompanied E-4 sailors assigned to sea duty. Funding for the
E-4s with less than 4 years' service remains unprogrammed. The
Navy is evaluating housing strategies for its unaccompanied
sailors including this segment of the population. In the
interim, we will accommodate these junior sailors to the
greatest extent practible within our existing unaccompanied
housing capacity.
2. Ensure our Barracks Meet Today's Standards for Privacy. We
are building new and modernizing existing barracks to increase
privacy for our single sailors and marines. Reflecting the
Commandant of the Marine Corps' priority to ensure single
marines are adequately housed, the fiscal year 2009 budget
includes $1.2 billion in MILCON funding for the construction of
approximately 13,000 permanent party spaces at 8 Marine Corps
installations. The Marine Corps has programmed the necessary
funding from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2011 to
eliminate the BEQ deficit for the Marine Corps pre-Grow the
Force end strength requirement by 2012. Additional funding for
BEQ requirements specifically related to the ``Grow the Force''
initiative is planned to begin in fiscal year 2010 after NEPA
requirements are met in order to satisfy this requirement by
2014. These barracks will be built to the 2+0 room
configuration, as have all Marine Corps barracks since 1998.
This is consistent with the core Marine Corps' tenets for unit
cohesion and teambuilding.
3. Eliminate Gang Heads. The fiscal year 2009 budget request
includes funding to eliminate the last Navy permanent party BEQ
with a gang head. The Marine Corps had already accomplished
this goal in fiscal year 2005, but will continue to use these
facilities on an interim basis to address short-term housing
requirements resulting from the additional end strength related
to the Grow the Force Initiative.
Unaccompanied Housing Privatization
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Department awarded our first pilot unaccompanied housing
privatization project to Pacific Beacon LLC in December 2006. When
complete in 2009, this project will provide 941 new two-bedroom/two-
bathroom apartments for E-4 and above enlisted personnel in San Diego,
CA, who are unsuitably housed in the private sector or who are living
in Government quarters that could be used by shipboard sailors. An
existing unaccompanied housing building, containing 258 ``1+1E''
modules, was also privatized as part of this agreement. Our partner
will provide additional quality of life amenities to existing
buildings, such as a swimming pool. We expect the first building to be
complete by the end of this year and overall project completion in
2009. I am pleased to report the facility that was privatized, ``Palmer
Hall,'' won an industry award for improved resident satisfaction based
on resident surveys.
In December 2007, we executed business agreements for our second
pilot project at Hampton Roads, VA. This project will build more than
1,100 new two-bedroom/two-bathroom apartments and privatize over 700
existing unaccompanied housing modules for unaccompanied shipboard E1-
E3 personnel.
We are nearing completion of our evaluation of the Mayport/
Jacksonville, FL, area as the candidate for third pilot project. We are
also continuing to evaluate additional phases at San Diego and Hampton
Roads using the public/private entities previously executed.
Managing Our Privatization Portfolio
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We take seriously our responsibility to monitor the privatization
agreements to ensure that the Government's long-term interests are
adequately protected. We have instituted a portfolio management
approach that collects and analyzes financial, occupancy, construction,
and resident satisfaction data to ensure that the projects remain sound
and that the partners are performing as expected. We conduct meetings
with senior representatives of our partners and, where necessary,
resolve issues of mutual interest. We use focus groups to obtain direct
feedback from residents, property managers, and command
representatives. Customer surveys show overall improvement in member
satisfaction after housing is privatized. Where our projects have
encountered difficulties, appropriate corrective actions have been
taken. For example, we had concerns regarding performance of the
private partner in our Pacific Northwest project. The partner sold its
interest as a general partner to another company which has a record of
good performance with military housing privatization projects.
environment
Shipboard Programs
The Navy continues to convert its shipboard air conditioning and
refrigeration plants from Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) to non-ODS
refrigerants. As of 1 February 2008, the Navy completed 552 of 690 air
conditioning conversions and 595 of 611 refrigeration conversions. The
Navy reached a major milestone in 2007 as conversions of the final
aircraft carrier air-conditioning systems began. The Navy expects to
complete its transition to non-ODS refrigerants by 2017.
In addition to the shipboard air conditioning and refrigeration
conversion program, the Navy has taken other ODS management efforts
which have reduced our Class I ODS usage by over 95 percent. For
example, the Navy is designing and building the first aircraft in the
world without halon for fire suppression. In recognition of these many
achievements, the Navy garnered six EPA Best of the Best Stratospheric
Ozone Protection Awards at the 20th Anniversary Meeting of the Parties
of the Montreal Protocol in September 2007.
The Navy has also completed 168 of 334 upgrades to its plastic
waste processors (PWPs), which allow ships at sea to compress plastics
into a solid disk for disposal or recycling ashore. The upgraded PWPs
reduce maintenance, improve reliability and throughput, and include a
self-cleaning feature, giving our sailors the best equipment available
to meet no-plastics discharge requirements while at sea.
Natural Resources Conservation
The Department of the Navy's natural resources conservation
programs rely on Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMP)
to ensure our programs are effective in providing conservation benefits
to species and their habitats while ensuring no net loss to the
military mission. For example, in 2007, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service determined that the INRMPs for the Marine Corps'
Townsend Bombing Range, GA, and Camp Pendleton, CA, provided a benefit
to the protection of two species: the Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma
cingulatum) and tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), respectively,
and the range and base were excluded from Critical Habitat designation.
Since the Endangered Species Act, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), was
amended in the fiscal year 2004 NDAA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service determined that the effectiveness of
DoN INRMPs outweighed the necessity to make 41 Critical Habitat
designations on DoN installations.
Environmental Compliance by Shore Installations
Domestically, 93 percent of Navy and 95 percent Marine Corps
permits are in full compliance with Clean Water Act standards, and 98
percent of the Navy and 100 percent of Marine Corps population receives
water that meets all Safe Drinking Water Act standards, both increases
from recent years. The DoN has made great strides in improving
wastewater compliance through significant investments in infrastructure
and improved management practices. For example, Marine Corps invested
over $109 million in military construction funds at Camp Pendleton
between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2008 to meet wastewater
requirements, including the construction of a new tertiary treatment
system to serve the southern portion of the base. An additional $52.5
million military construction project is budgeted in fiscal year 2009
to reduce the total dissolved solids (TDS) in their drinking water.
Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
The DoN has completed cleanup or has remedies in place at 83
percent of our 3,716 contaminated sites at our active installations. We
plan to complete the program by 2014. The cost-to-complete the
installation restoration program continues a downward trend with
efficiencies of $600 million over the past 10 years. Use of new
technologies, land use controls, remedy optimizations, contract
efficiencies, and a dedicated professional staff has contributed to
these efficiencies. Our fiscal year 2009 request of $293 million
consists of $243 million for IRP, and $50.0 million for munitions
response.
Munitions Response Program (MRP)
The DoN is proceeding with cleanup of Munitions and Explosives of
Concern and Munitions Constituents at all Navy and Marine Corps
locations other than operational ranges. We completed the preliminary
assessments in fiscal year 2007 at 99 percent of the 239 known sites on
62 active installations and will complete site inspections and sampling
by 2010. The data obtained from these inspections and samplings will
provide the basis for developing estimates for environmental clean-up.
Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment
The Navy has completed environmental operational range assessments
on 13 of 22 operational range complexes and is on track to complete the
remaining nine operational range complex assessments by the end of
fiscal year 2008. The Marine Corps has completed six range assessments
and is on track to complete the remaining eight ranges by the end of
fiscal year 2009 operational ranges in the United States by the end of
fiscal year 2008. To date, neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps has
had a release or threat of a release from an operational range to an
off-range area that presents an unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
The Department has many initiatives to reduce its reliance on
imported oil and increase its fuel conservation efforts. Over the past
5 years, the Navy initiatives have resulted in a 10-fold increase in
the use of B-20 (i.e. 20 percent blend of biodiesel in petroleum
diesel). The Navy has partnered with the Exchange Services to supply
fuel for both government and commercial use at sites such as Naval
Station Norfolk, VA. Biodiesel field testing and integration efforts
are underway at several locations to address Executive Order 13423
goals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to increase environmental
security.
The Marine Corps has exceeded the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992
for Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) requirements for the past 5 years
and is a leader in DOD and among other Federal agencies in the use of
biodiesel and other alternative fuels. It has reduced its consumption
of petroleum by 28 percent since 1999 due in part to increased use of
alternative fuels (such as biodiesel, ethanol, and compressed natural
gas), neighborhood electric vehicles and conservation. For their
aggressive pursuit of compliance with Federal mandates well beyond
published goals, the Marine Corps received the White House Closing the
Circle Award in 2005 and again in 2007.
Navy Marine Mammals/Sonar R&D investments
The Navy remains a good steward of the environment by taking steps
to protect marine mammals from anthropogenic sound in the water. Navy
has steadily increased annual marine mammal research from $12.5 million
in fiscal year 2004 to $22 million in fiscal year 2009. This long-term
investment will support more than thirty universities, institutions,
and technology businesses worldwide and address critical issues in
marine mammal demographics (the ``what, where, when, how many, and how
much'' questions); establish criteria and thresholds to measure the
effects of naval activities; develop effective mitigation and
monitoring methods to lessen any potential effects; and continue to
refine characteristics of the sound field.
MMPA National Defense Exemption
The Navy has been operating for the past year under a National
Defense Exemption (NDE) issued in January 2007. Given recent court
decisions in California and continuing litigation in California and
Hawaii challenging the Navy's use of Mid-Frequency Active (MFA) sonar,
the ability to rely on the NDE has been important to the Navy's ability
to continue to test and train with MFA sonar. This limited-in-time NDE
was necessary to allow the Navy sufficient time to complete the
analysis and consultation necessary to support long-term compliance for
Navy's MFA sonar testing and training. The Navy is preparing
environmental planning and compliance documents in cooperation with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The process
will be complete for the Southern California Range Complex, the Hawaii
Range Complex and the East Coast training areas by the time the NDE
expires in January 2009. MFA sonar use as analyzed in these documents
conservatively accounts for 75 percent of the Navy's testing and
training with MFA sonar. The documentation for the remaining ranges
will be completed later in 2009.
The NDE requires the Navy to employ 29 specific mitigation measures
developed with, and fully supported by, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) within NOAA. The NDE enables the Navy to employ MFA
sonar in a manner that maintains testing and training fidelity while
providing protection to marine mammals. By enabling critical MFA sonar
testing and training to continue in an environmentally sound manner
protective of marine mammals, the NDE serves as a bridge to future
compliance with the authorization requirements of the MMPA. NMFS, in
recently considering the effects of Navy MFA sonar training exercises
on marine mammals in and adjacent to the Navy's Southern California
Operating Area, noted that the mitigation measures employed as a result
of the NDE will minimize the risk of injury to marine mammals, and
concluded that it does not expect the exercises to result in adverse
population level effects of any marine mammal populations.
As part of the Council On Environmental Quality's (CEQ) alternative
arrangements for Navy compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) for the remaining exercises in the Southern California
Operating Area through January of 2009, the Navy will use the NDE
mitigation measures as modified by those alternative arrangements, as
well as public involvement and best available scientific information to
inform long-term range management decisions regarding continued testing
and training with MFA sonar. However, while the MMPA has been removed
as a basis for legal challenges, the Navy's ability to meet its
statutory requirement to train and maintain a ready force, which
includes training with MFA, remains at risk due to legal challenges
based on other environmental laws, specifically NEPA, the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Litigation
surrounding those issues continues, with two courts recently enjoining
MFA sonar use during two U.S. Pacific Fleet major exercise series. The
Navy is reviewing its options with the Department of Justice.
relocating the marines to guam
National interests and treaty commitments require the United States
to strengthen its military capabilities in the Western Pacific. U.S.
forces must be positioned to maintain stability, ensure flexibility to
respond to regional threats, project power throughout the Pacific,
defend our assets as well as those of our allies, and provide forces to
respond to global contingencies.
The relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam under
the October 2005 agreement, ``U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and
Realignment for the Future'' (ATARA) is part of a broader realignment
that, when implemented, will strengthen our regional posture, deter
potential aggressors, and provide capabilities that can be flexibly
deployed in contingencies. This is essential for the defense of Japan
and for peace and security in the Pacific.
Plans for implementing the military realignment to Guam have
progressed significantly. United States (USG) and Government of Japan
(GOJ) representatives meet regularly to develop implementing
instructions covering the programming, budgeting, and funding to
construct operational facilities, utilities, and housing needed to
realign 8,000 marines and 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam. The
USG and GOJ have negotiated a GOJ contribution of $6.09 billion of the
estimated $10.3 billion cost for infrastructure on Guam. We have
budgeted $42 million in various DoN accounts in fiscal year 2009 to
continue planning efforts.
We continue numerous studies necessary for preparing an EIS in
compliance with the NEPA. The EIS addresses the movement of Marine
Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam as well as Navy efforts to construct
a transient nuclear aircraft carrier-capable pier at Apra Harbor and
Army efforts to locate a ballistic missile defense battalion on the
island. A draft EIS is expected in spring 2009, the final EIS in
December 2009, and a Record of Decision (ROD) in January 2010.
In parallel with the EIS efforts, we are developing a Guam Joint
Military Master Plan (GJMMP). The GJMMP addresses the realignment of
Marine Corps forces in the context of other DOD actions on Guam, such
as plans to increase intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities and transient forces at Andersen Air Force Base, an
increased Navy submarine presence, and the Army effort noted above. A
working level draft of the GJMMP will be complete this summer.
We are working closely with the Government of Guam (GovGuam), the
Guam community, and other Federal agencies to ensure that social,
economic, cultural, and other direct and indirect consequences are
considered. DOD officials meet regularly with representatives from
local agencies as part of a Civilian-Military Task Force on the island.
We regularly meet with key GovGuam officials to coordinate
compatibility with Guam's own Master Plan. Several public scoping
meetings have been held and future public outreach sessions will be
scheduled to ensure the community's concerns and ideas regarding
environmental, socioeconomic and cultural impacts are taken into
account. Federal support is also provided through DOD's Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA), which has thus far provided nearly $1.7
million in grants to GovGuam to support key planning and impact
studies.
The business community, including local industry, is updated semi-
annually on the relocation and acquisition effort at the Guam Industry
Forum. These gatherings, held on Guam, attract large and small scale
businesses and serve to facilitate networking and partnering
opportunities.
DOD also ensures GovGuam's voice is heard by the rest of the
Federal Government by co-chairing with the Department of Interior's
Office of Insular Affairs a Federal Interagency Task Force. There are
five working groups that bring together representatives from key
Federal agencies such as Department of Labor, Health and Human
Services, Department of State, Department of Agriculture, Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Homeland Security and others to
address issues that will affect Guam during and after the military
realignment. GovGuam representatives participate in each of the five
working groups. I am pleased to note that GovGuam's Port Authority and
the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration are working
together to achieve GovGuam's short-term vision of supporting the
military realignment and its long-term goal of becoming a key
intermodal transportation hub in the Pacific Rim region.
A critical concern is the availability of an adequate, trained
construction workforce. With the need for an estimated 12,000 to 15,000
laborers, a small, but fully employed indigenous workforce on Guam, and
a relatively low wage scale that will not attract significant numbers
of workers from the continental U.S. or Hawaii, a significant amount of
foreign workers will be required. Legislation is pending in Congress to
relax the current cap on H2B visas for workers on Guam and the Marianas
Islands. We will need a reliable supply of non-immigrant labor
throughout the construction phase to complete the relocation of the
marines to Guam.
An additional issue of concern is the state of Guam's off-base
infrastructure and public services. Although Guam is a U.S. Territory,
the condition of much of its infrastructure is inferior to that found
in other parts of the U.S. Without major improvements to its
infrastructure, Guam may not be able to adequately support the
projected increase to its population. We are working with other Federal
agencies and the Government of Guam through the Interagency Task Force
to identify specific requirements and opportunities within the U.S.
Government to finance high priority upgrades to Guam's infrastructure
that support the Department's realignment. Ongoing cooperation in this
regard will be crucial to ensure a successful relocation effort.
prior brac cleanup and property disposal
The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 were a major tool in
reducing our domestic base structure and generating savings. The
Department has achieved a steady state savings of approximately $2.7
billion per year since fiscal year 2002. All that remains is to
complete the environmental cleanup and property disposal on portions of
17 of the original 91 bases and to complete environmental cleanup on 14
installations that have been disposed.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Property Disposal
Last year we conveyed 3,363 acres in 6 separate real estate
transactions at three prior BRAC bases. We also completed Findings of
Suitability for Transfer (FOST) for 3,397 acres. The FOST certifies
that DOD real estate is environmentally suitable for transfer by deed
under section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. section 9620(h)).
The Department of the Navy has disposed of 91 percent of the 170,000
acres from prior BRAC actions.
The DoN has spent about $3.7 billion on environmental cleanup,
environmental compliance, and program management costs at prior BRAC
locations through fiscal year 2007. The current cost to complete
cleanup at prior BRAC locations is $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2009
through completion.
DoN completed 12 CERLCA Records of Decisions (RODs) and Action
Memos in fiscal year 2007, 7 of which were at Alameda, CA. We sampled
over 3,500 monitoring wells, and treated over 350,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and 4.4 billion gallons of contaminated groundwater.
At Hunters Point we have completed the removal of all radiological
impacted sewer and storm lines on Parcel B: we removed enough soil to
cover a football field twenty-eight feet high! We teamed with the
Stanford University to treat PCB contamination in sediment with
activated carbon. This innovative technology has proven to be quite
successful and could lead to more efficient and faster cleanup across
DoN.
In fiscal year 2008 we are continuing progress at Hunter's Point
and Alameda, two of our Prior BRAC installations with remaining
programs of considerable size. There has been a concerted effort to
accelerate environmental and low-level radiological cleanups to support
redevelopment initiatives. Admittedly, the radiological component has
caused complications and delays not previously anticipated. In fiscal
year 2008, DoN will use the $50 million in additional appropriated
fiscal year 2008 funds to further cleanup actions at Hunters Point,
Adak, Alameda, and Treasure Island. Another $8 million appropriated in
fiscal year 2008 for use on groundwater at Hunters Point will be used
toward a zero valent iron treatability study. The additional funding
allocated to Hunters Point will help expedite cleanup of what has
proven to be one of the most unique and difficult BRAC sites for the
Navy.
We have continued our success in using property sales to assist in
funding environmental cleanup and property disposal as well as recover
value for taxpayers from the disposal of Federal property. Through a
combination of cost economic development conveyances, negotiated sales,
and public sales, the DoN has received over $1.1 billion in revenues
from the sale of prior BRAC property. Nearly all of this revenue has
been generated since fiscal year 2003. Beginning in fiscal year 2003,
we have used these funds to accelerate environmental cleanup, and to
finance the entire DoN prior BRAC effort including caretaker costs
since fiscal year 2005.
One significant property sale remains for the Navy at the former
Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, PR, which is planned for fiscal year
2009. Revenue projections for Roosevelt Roads are unknown, but are
expected to be well below that obtained from the sale of California
property at El Toro and Tustin. In the absence of additional land sale
revenue, we are resuming the need for appropriated funds in the fiscal
year 2009 budget.
brac 2005 implementation
The DoN continues to move forward implementing closure and
realignment plans that will eliminate excess capacity, improve
operational readiness, capitalize on joint basing opportunities with
our sister Services, maintain quality of service, and achieve cost
savings. In contrast to prior BRAC commissions, the BRAC 2005
recommendations have fewer closures and many more realignments,
particularly realignments that involve more than one component. The DoN
has 6 ``fence line'' closures and 81 realignment recommendations
involving 129 bases.
Environmental Cost to Complete
Given the relatively few number of closures, the absence of major
industrial facilities, and the extensive site characterization,
analysis, and cleanup that has occurred over the last several decades,
the DoN's remaining environmental liabilities for BRAC 05 are
substantially less than in previous rounds of BRAC. We have spent $128
million in cleanup at BRAC 05 locations through fiscal year 2007. Our
remaining environmental cost to complete for fiscal year 2009 and
beyond is $74 million and the majority of it will be spent at Naval Air
Station Brunswick, ME and Naval Weapons Station Detachment, Concord,
CA.
Accomplishments
Nearly all impacted communities have established a Local
Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs) to guide local planning and
redevelopment efforts. The DOD Office of Economic Adjustment has been
providing financial support through grants and technical assistance to
support LRA efforts.
One of the success stories of the past year was the establishment
of Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (MRRA) as the
implementation LRA in Brunswick, ME. In December 2007, the reuse master
plans for Brunswick Naval Air Station and Topsham Annex were adopted
and MRRA began implementation of the plans in January 2008. Under the
reuse plan, 51 percent of the total base property has been allocated
for development (approximately 1,630 acres); and 49 percent
(approximately 1,570 acres) of the base has been dedicated to
recreation, open space, and natural areas.
The former main base of Naval Station Pascagoula (known as Singing
River Island) reverted to the State of Mississippi on June 1, 2007.
This facility was homeport to 1,000 military members and 100 civilians.
Established as an operational homeport in 1992, the Naval Station
fulfilled its mission to support and maintain surface combatants in the
Southeast Region. The installation closed on November 15, 2006; but
severe damage sustained to several buildings and the pier from
Hurricane Katrina delayed the reversion to allow repair of the
facilities. Through the team efforts of the State of Mississippi, the
LRA, and the Navy, the repairs were awarded in January 2007 and
completed in May 2007. This reversion represents 528 acres of BRAC 05
property eliminated from the Navy's property account.
Finally, with careful management--such as deploying tiger teams to
conduct independent evaluations of site conditions and requirements--we
have been able to keep our cost increases down to a modest 2 percent
compared to our fiscal year 2008 budget request.
Joint Basing
There will be 12 joint bases, of which the DoN has the lead on
four: Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, DC; Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam,
HI; Joint Base Little Creek-Fort Story, VA and Joint Region Marianas,
Guam. DOD issued Joint Basing Implementation Guidance (JBIG) in January
2008, stating that a memorandum of agreement for each joint base site
will define the relationships between service components. Under the
joint guidance, total obligation authority and real property will
transfer to the lead service prior to full implementation. A number of
``table top'' exercises have been conducted to facilitate a smooth
transition in implementing joint basing.
Walter Reed National Naval Medical Center
Naval Facilities Engineering Command is the construction agent for
the Army-lead BRAC Recommendation to relocate all tertiary (sub-
specialty and complex care) medical services from Walter Reed Military
Medical Center (WRNMMC) to Bethesda, MD. The Draft EIS public comment
period closed on January 28, 2008, and a Final EIS is being prepared
that will address public comments, most of which concerned traffic/
congestion and homeland security. The ROD is planned for May 2008.
Two construction contracts are being prepared to meet the full
requirements of the BRAC recommendation:
Contract 1 includes design and construction of Medical
Inpatient and Outpatient facilities, Medical renovations of
Buildings 1-10, renovation of Building 17 to house
administrative functions, and construction of parking
structures. This contract is scheduled for award February 2008.
Contract language precludes all construction activity until the
ROD is signed so as to not prejudice the NEPA process. Award
prior to ROD signature allows design to begin and gives the
project better assurance of completion within the BRAC
statutory deadline.
Contract 2 includes construction of non-clinical/WTU
administrative facilities, WTU and Staff BEQs, and a gymnasium.
Contract award is planned for September 2008.
Fiscal Year 2007 Financial Execution
The DoN budget for fiscal year 2007 was $690 million. The OSD
Comptroller will release $54 million of that amount once the business
plan for Naval Integrated Weapons and Armaments RDT&E Centers at China
Lake, Dahlgren, and Indian Head is approved. As of December 2007, the
overall obligation rate was approximately 66 percent, which was
impacted by the fact that over 90 percent of the funding was received
past the midpoint of the fiscal year. Contract awards for 11 of 51
fiscal year 2007 BRAC construction projects have been delayed pending
resolution of issues related to business plans, resolution of
congressional issues and refinement of project scope requirements. We
anticipate having contracts in place for the remaining 11 unawarded
projects by the end of the third quarter fiscal year 2008.
Impact of the DOD Fiscal Year 2008 Reduction
Of the DOD fiscal year 2008 congressional budget reduction of $939
million, DoN's share was determined to be $143 million. Lack of funding
creates uncertainty with our civilian and military workforce, creates
turmoil with the implementation of business plans and causes us to lose
momentum. Finally, without full fiscal year 2008 funding the Navy's
ability to fully support joint recommendations, where the business plan
is led by another component, is severely degraded. We encourage
Congress to promptly restore full funding.
If funding is not restored, we will delay two BRAC construction
projects ($97 million) and Operations and Maintenance ($46 million)
spending from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009. Without prompt
restoral of these funds, the Navy will jeopardize its ability to
implement BRAC 2005 by the September 15, 2011 statutory deadline.
meeting the construction execution challenge
We have outlined how our facilities investment is at a record
setting pace. Yet we are poised to accomplish this tremendous amount of
work at hand. The Department's execution agent, the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC), has outlined an aggressive plan to
accomplish the in increased volume of work.
Due to market conditions exacerbated by world-wide natural
disasters, NAVFAC's execution lagged during fiscal year 2006. At the
end of fiscal year 2006, total NAVFAC carry-over was $1,139 million, of
which $712 million was DoN. In addition, there were seven pending
reprogrammings. In the subsequent 16 months, we scrubbed these
requirements and used innovative acquisition strategies to reduce this
backlog. As of the end of January 2008, fiscal year 2007 and prior
carry-over is down to $302 million of which $186 million is DoN. NAVFAC
acquisition plans for fiscal year 2008 are poised to award all
remaining prior year unawarded and fiscal year 2008 MILCON and BRACON
projects.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To execute the growing MILCON workload, we are utilizing successful
past and innovations practices:
Use best value source selection procedures.
Stand-up additional, fully autonomous Officer-in-
Charge of Construction offices at Bethesda, Camp Pendleton, and
Camp Lejeune to focus on the concentrated workload at these
locations
Package similar and nearby projects over multiple
fiscal years to achieve economies of scale. We achieved great
success at Recruit Training Command complex at Great Lakes, IL,
using this strategy. We will do this where it makes sense while
continuing to find opportunities to meet small and
disadvantaged business goals.
Incorporate ``best of breed'' features and standardize
designs, particularly for Marine Corps BEQ projects.
Apply Common component sourcing to minimize
differences in building systems that would otherwise require
multiple vendors, maintenance routines, and a wide variety of
repair parts.
Award program support contracts to augment NAVFAC's
workforce, while maintaining the Governments acquisition and
technical authority.
conclusion
The Sea Services will operate in an increasingly dispersed
environment to support the Maritime Strategy and ensure the freedom of
the seas. This requires an ever strong foundation of installations from
which to resupply, re-equip, train, and shelter our forces. We must
continue to make smart infrastructure investments to prepare for the
future and secure the peace abroad. It has been an honor and privilege
to serve this great Nation and the men and women of our Navy and Marine
Corps team--the military and civilian personnel and their families.
Thank you for your continued support and the opportunity to testify
before you today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your statement, Secretary
Penn.
Secretary Anderson?
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS)
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thune, good afternoon
and to the members of the committee, and to the staff, I want
to thank you on behalf of all airmen for your unwavering
support of the U.S. Air Force, our families, as the team goes
about doing the important work of security for this nation and
also delivering humanitarian aid across the world.
This afternoon, I'm going to make some brief introductory
comments focusing on five different issues: Air Force
installations transformation; joint basing; Federal facilities
agreements; housing privatization; and energy. But before I
jump into those five topics I hope you'll indulge me for just a
moment to tell a little story about some airmen in my part of
the Air Force world and the work that they are doing in harm's
way.
I know you all know that the Air Force has been in
continuous combat operations for 17 years, defending America's
interest from above in air space and cyberspace, anywhere and
anytime. Although there are many inspiring stories of airmen
doing great things, I'd like to talk a little bit about 30
individuals on the Village of Hope team. These 30 individuals
are members of the 557th Expeditionary Red Horse Squadron,
Balad Air Force Base. It's a mix of Active Duty and Reserve
individuals.
Their mission is to work southern Baghdad doing
construction trade, acting as construction trade instructors
teaching building skills to local residents. Those are local
hands sourcing local materials and rebuilding homes and shops
that have been destroyed by extremists. In the words of one
airman on that team, he's been deployed five times, but he said
this is the first time in his military life he's had the chance
to change someone else's life. This is a team of great
ambassadors for the United States.
Let me jump, if I could, into our transformation efforts on
the installation team. While the country and the Air Force is
at war, we're also at the same time facing significant
transformation, constantly searching for ways to improve
efficiencies, improving the quality of the output of the
products that we deliver to our airmen in times that our
continuing budget pressures put strains across the board.
We started with a concept, what we call, Corps of
Discovery. We went out to find the best of the best in
industry. Companies like GM, GE, IBM, and Bank of America to
benchmark, to determine where we can improve our systems to be
efficient and more effective.
We then realigned and restructured both our civil
engineering organization and our real property agency. We are
also in the process of transforming our information systems to
make them better to measure how we're doing. All with the
endgame of implementing breakthrough asset management
techniques to reduce the risks that are associated with risks
that we are taking to recapitalize the Air Force.
Along with that organizational transformation, and Mr.
Chairman, you mentioned this earlier in the hearing, we are
committed as you say, to make the joint basing a raging
success, which is the second issue that I want to discuss this
afternoon. The Air Force has a long and successful history
working towards common goals in a joint environment without
compromising Air Force principles nor 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 for all of its assigned personnel,
importantly their families and all the other customers within
the local communities that our bases support. To accomplish
this we're working with the other Services and with the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to establish a common base
quality of life standard. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines along with 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 a level
of installation support services they deserve. As we work with
OSD and our sister Services, we will ensure all joint basing
initiatives contribute to DOD's ability to perform its mission.
The third issue I'd like to talk about a little bit is on
the environmental front, the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA).
The Air Force has an aggressive goal. We want to get all of our
Active Duty bases to a remedy in place status by 2012. That's 2
years ahead of the DOD challenge.
To achieve that all parties need to break out of
bureaucratic and administrative procedures and focus on
streamlining result-based initiatives. The Air Force is
currently working proactively with the EPA to break the
paradigm of the inefficiencies of what is called FFAs. If
regulation is a sign of design failure, then success over the
years and years of working in remediation should put
streamlined oversight and return land to productive use quicker
and with less burden on the American taxpayer.
The fourth issue I'd like to comment on is housing
privatization. That program, housing privatization, has allowed
all Services to dramatically and quickly upgrade tens of
thousands of housing units, leveraging private equity, debt and
private initiatives in industry competencies to provide better
housing units for the men and women in uniform and their
families. There are many housing privatization success stories.
I've toured a number of these facilities as I know my
colleagues have, talked to the residents and by and large they
were all very happy. Occasionally, in the private sector, in
the real estate environment, deals do go sour. We're currently
working through, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned earlier today,
one vendor who impacts four Air Force bases, and who also by
the way, had done some deals for one Army and one Navy facility
as well, where the deal has gone sour.
Air Force senior leadership is very upset, as I know you
all are. We're working within the legal and regulatory system
and with the bond holders to resolve these issues as quickly as
possible. We're also constantly refining our internal processes
to incorporate lessons learned to get better as we move
forward. Primarily we are concerned with the airmen, their
families, their quality of life in getting the mission done,
and will work through these bumps in the road as we move
forward.
Finally, I'd like to take a moment just to talk about
energy. As many of you know, the Air Force has stepped out
aggressively to heed the President's call to wean this country
off its addiction to foreign oil. We're not working policy.
We're not working subsidies. But we're working from our
position as the Federal Government's largest single user of
energy and taking that major customer position to drive the
market.
Our first program out of the box was to commit ourselves to
find a synthetic fuel that we can certify our fleet on and we
will certify that fleet by 2011. By 2016, 50 percent of our
continental United States (CONUS) aviation fuel buy will be via
a synfuel blend. But we didn't stop there.
We've determined our position again as a major consumer, a
billion dollars a year consumer of installation electricity to
take a leading role there. You heard earlier about Nellis Air
Force Base where the largest solar array in the Americas at
14.2 megawatts is installed and running effectively and
efficiently. That is renewable energy that doesn't cost the
taxpayer more, as a matter of fact it is costing the taxpayer
$1 million less to deliver energy to the airmen at Nellis Air
Force Base.
Five other major projects are in the works, three solar
projects, one each in California, New Mexico, and Arizona,
which we expect to be significantly larger than Nellis. Our
coal to liquids manufacturing plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base
and several of your colleagues have asked the Air Force to look
at whether Air Force Bases are appropriate citing locations for
small package nuclear. In each of these cases we're talking
about private finance, private development, private operation,
not using taxpayer money to make this happen all in the
commercial world.
At the same time the Air Force recognizes that energy and
the environment are tightly linked. Not only have we committed
to purchase only alternative energy sources with a greener
footprint than current options, the Air Force is committed to
be a leader in establishing a global consortium to tackle the
reduction, capture, and reuse of greenhouse gas emissions. The
Air Force is calling for consortium of organizations to work
together for carbon dioxide reduction, capture, and reuse,
something we are calling CO2RCR.
In conclusion, the current and future readiness and the
capability of our Air Force to deter our enemies and when
necessary fight and win this Nation's wars depends heavily on
the state of our power projection platforms. Those are our
installations. As the Air Force continues to modernize and
recapitalize we'll wisely invest our precious funding
allocations allocated to MILCON, operations and maintenance,
BRAC, the environment, military family housing, and energy.
This will enable us to win today's fight, care for our people,
and prepare for tomorrow's challenges. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. William C. Anderson
Mr. Chairman, Senator Thune, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, as our Nation and Department finds itself in both a time
of war and a time of transition; the Air Force continues to evolve to
ensure we stand ready to protect America and its interests. The Air
Force is the preeminent force for operations beyond the bounds of
earth, and is vital to the success of ground operations as well, which
is being proven daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beginning with
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the Air Force has been at
continuous combat operations for more than 17 years. We cannot provide
Global Vigilance, Global Reach, or Global Power without our warfighting
platforms--our installations--and the airmen that construct, operate
and maintain those installations. I would like to highlight just a few
of the significant ways our Total Force airmen are serving this great
Nation in this capacity.
We are firmly committed to supporting the Air Force's number one
priority, ``winning today's fight.'' Over 22,000 airmen are currently
deployed in direct support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom. More than 2,500 are engineers. Forty percent of the engineers
are serving side-by-side with our Army comrades-in-arms by filling
``Joint Sourced,'' ``in lieu of'' or ``individual augmentee''
positions, often sharing the same level of risk while operating
``outside the wire.'' Our heavy construction Red Horse engineers and
our Prime Beef engineers are well-known in the area of responsibility
(AOR) for their ability to build and maintain expeditionary
installation weapons platforms, whether bedding down Air Force, joint,
or multinational forces. Our Air Force Explosive Ordnance Disposal
(EOD) airmen make up 37 percent of Central Command's (CENTCOM) joint
EOD capability in theatre and in calendar year 2007 they responded to
more than 8,400 calls to destroy IEDs, unexploded ordnance, or weapons
caches. Sixty six percent of these EOD warriors are operating ``outside
the wire'' alongside their joint peers. Our ``customers,'' whether
joint, other Federal agency, or multinational, continually let us know
how impressed they are by the capabilities our combat support personnel
bring to the fight. While 18 of our logistics and installation airmen
have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war, we are proud to be part
of the joint effort serving our Nation's call to arms.
The reconstruction effort stands alongside the operational mission
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Air Force Center for Engineering and the
Environment (AFCEE) is successfully executing a robust program to win
the hearts and minds of Iraqi and Afghan citizens and help set the
conditions for more free societies. Thus far, their efforts have
included the execution of more than 576 projects, worth more than $4.6
billion, to construct or repair more than 4,000 facilities, to include
government and military facilities, airports, roads, schools, medical
clinics, police stations, utilities systems, and more. Much of this
work is being done by Iraqi and Afghan citizens making up more than 90
percent of the construction workforce and 70 percent of the project
engineers. External audits have validated AFCEE's efficiency: low
overhead costs in manpower and financial resources, minimized in-
country presence, and successful leveraging of the latest in efficient
and effective business processes.
Our capabilities are vital to the global war on terror and other
American interests overseas. We are also leading the way in many
initiatives on the home front. Let me briefly highlight a few. The Air
Force is a great example of leadership in energy, facilities
management, and the environment. We have been recognized as the number
one Federal purchaser of renewable energy 4 years running, and we are
overall number three in the Nation. We will achieve the Department of
Defense's (DOD) 2014 goal for environmental restoration 2 years early.
Our housing privatization efforts have leveraged more than $350 million
taxpayer dollars, bringing in $6 billion in private sector investment,
speeding the delivery of adequate housing to our airmen. The Air Force
is solidly on track to eliminate inadequate housing overseas, having
already received support from this Congress through 2007 to completely
fund the elimination of inadequate stateside family housing. Our
emergency responders implemented the cross-functional Air Force
Incident Management System in December 2007, making us the first
Federal agency to meet the Executive Order and the Department of
Homeland Security directive for implementing the National Incident
Management System, assuring seamless and coordinated emergency response
among agencies at or near our installations. The Air Force wants to
ensure that appropriate conditions exist to make Joint Basing a raging
success. We have 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. Therefore, to guarantee success, each Joint Base will
provide an appropriate setting to all of its assigned personnel to
facilitate mission success and provide improved quality of life through
consistent installation standards, currently being developed. Our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, DOD civilians, and their families
will benefit from efficient, consistent Installation Support Services.
These standards will ensure the Air Force and our sister Services
continue to provide all personnel with the level of Installation
Support Services they deserve. Our base commanders and their local
service providers are, of course, on the front lines of our efforts to
maintain and improve services. As we work with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and our sister Services, we will ensure all
Joint Basing initiatives contribute to DOD's ability to perform its
mission. Joint Basing allows us to build closer relationships and forge
stronger ties among the Services.
While we are proud of these successes, we have much work to do. Our
Air Force's biggest challenge is to modernize our air, space, and
cyberspace capabilities to ensure we continue to provide our Nation
with its decisive military advantage. While not optimal, we must take
manageable risk in our facilities and infrastructure to free up funding
for weapons modernization. We also, however, have a vision to transform
and overcome these challenges.
transformation
Our Air Force is transforming around new concepts of operations,
organizational change, and advanced technologies. Accordingly, we are
on a difficult but promising journey to transform our installations
support enterprise. We are changing on a scale not seen since the post-
Cold War draw down. As part of our Air Force strategy to internally
fund weapon systems recapitalization and modernization, we needed to
reduce manpower. We took this as an opportunity to restructure our
Civil Engineer and Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA) organizations
and improve support to the warfighter. The first major initiatives to
transform how we effectively manage support for our installations are
largely complete. We've reorganized Civil Engineering at all levels;
rebalanced the force to include manpower increases in our high-demand
Red Horse and EOD combat engineer capabilities; and centralized the
execution of all Military Construction (MILCON), housing MILCON, and
environmental restoration at the AFCEE in San Antonio. Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) 2005 directed the relocation of AFRPA to San Antonio
and we took advantage of this to restructure AFRPA at the same time, to
attract new skills and ideas to preserve and improve our focus on
unlocking value in our underutilized real property.
We are also transforming our business processes, infrastructure,
and technology to enable us to operate our installations within reduced
funding levels and thereby continue to support our weapons
modernization and recapitalization initiatives. Our approach includes
producing efficiencies in enterprise-wide business processes while
reducing by 20 percent, by 2020, the funding required for sustaining
and maintaining our $243 billion physical plant. Let me emphasize that
installation support funding has already been reduced by 14 percent in
the last 3 years; now we are figuring out ways to live within this
funding level for the long haul and not impact our standards. Not only
are we elevating internal best practices to the strategic level and
using the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century toolkit of
``LEAN'' and ``Six Sigma'' process improvement methods, we are also
incorporating best practices from our strategic partnership with
leading private sector companies, called the ``Corps of Discovery.''
Our installations organization established ``Corps of Discovery''
teams to visit companies such as GM, IBM, GE, Bank of America,
ExxonMobil, CB Richard Ellis, Jones Lang LaSalle, Archibus, and others.
We found that we share many of the same challenges in maintaining our
operational or primary mission edge while effectively balancing
investment in infrastructure. Through this mutually-beneficial
relationship, these patriotic companies are sharing their invaluable
transformation ``lessons learned.'' We are centering our transformation
strategy on these key ``lessons learned,'' such as strategic sourcing
and real estate management from a portfolio perspective. Leading edge
companies manage their real estate and physical plant with a holistic
and integrated asset management approach that enables them to better
articulate and manage risk while supporting their company's mission. We
recently reorganized our installations organizational structure and
people around Asset Management. True transformation, takes years, and
these companies have proven the value of this long-term investment.
Their knowledge and experience is proving invaluable to us as we
transition to the asset management approach, which is also playing a
key role in installations transformation.
Maintaining our installations within current funding levels
requires an aggressive approach to efficiently utilize our physical
assets and target limited funding on the most critical portions of our
physical plant. An asset management-based operation allows us to attach
value to our built and natural environment. This business case analysis
approach will provide better decision making in a resource constrained
environment. Our asset management initiatives to reach this goal
include utilities privatization; energy conservation; redesigned
incentive-based consolidation, demolition, and demolition in situ
programs; housing privatization; and others. Finally, we have initiated
a focused effort to identify opportunities where Enhanced Use Lease
(EUL) authority can help us find ways to leverage our physical plant
value while providing a mechanism to offset facilities and utilities
operations and maintenance costs, especially energy costs. As a force
multiplier, we are leveraging our AFRPA to be our center of excellence
for identifying and acting upon EUL opportunities across the Air Force.
Following on the tremendous success of the construction of the largest
photovoltaic solar installation in the Americas at Nellis Air Force
Base (AFB), NV, we are pursuing five major energy-related EUL projects:
solar energy at Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ; and Kirtland AFB, NM;
and a prospective nuclear energy project at a location yet to be
identified.
Successful implementation of transformed business processes that
will drive these physical plant utilization initiatives requires an
enabling information technology (IT) system. We are transforming IT
systems to support reengineered business processes and maximize the
efficiency of our work force. Our benchmarking found integrated
workplace management systems commonly used at these Fortune 500
companies, and we are examining how these IT systems could enable our
own transformation. Launched the first part of this year, our IT
acquisition strategy is leveraging key insights from the ``Corps of
Discovery'' partnerships, and will also leverage capable commercial
off-the-shelf systems. While meeting executive, department and Air
Force requirements for real property accountability systems and data
transparency, the new Agile Installation Management IT system will
enable enterprise-wide reengineered business processes centered on the
complete lifecycle of asset management.
As you can see, we are transforming enterprise-wide, from core
business processes to organizational structure and IT systems. We are
also providing leadership to our government and even the private
sector, from purchasing and producing alternative energy, to housing
privatization and asset management. We are making process changes at
every level, resulting in resource savings and more efficient
operations. At the heart of all of our efforts are of course our
customers. Exceeding the expectations of our warfighters, their
families and the communities that support our installations, in terms
of cost, quality of service and delivery, stands as the centerpiece of
our installations business model.
These efforts are the means by which we are meeting the enormous
challenges of today and the foreseeable future, and they ultimately
enable us to sustain and modernize the world's best air, space, and
cyberspace force. These transformational changes will help us maintain
our focus on our Air Force's three overarching priorities: winning
today's fight, taking care of our people, and preparing for tomorrow's
challenges.
fiscal year 2009 air force milcon, brac, environmental, operations and
maintenance, and family housing programs
Air Force facilities, housing, environmental, and BRAC programs are
key components of our support infrastructure. At home, our
installations provide stable training environments as we equip and
reconstitute our force. Both our stateside and overseas installations
provide force projection platforms to support Combatant Commanders
(COCOMs), from homeland defense sorties over New York, to strike
missions in Iraq. Our installations are weapons systems and in order to
support our base-centric concept of operations, the Air Force has
developed an infrastructure investment strategy that focuses on
enabling COCOMs to win today's fight, take care of our people, prepare
for tomorrow's challenges, implement BRAC, protect and restore our
natural environment, drive energy efficiency and independence, sustain
our infrastructure, and strive to recapitalize our aging
infrastructure. We are the DOD's leader in expeditionary combat support
and continue that role with pride. Our total force military
construction, family housing, environmental, energy, and sustainment,
restoration, and modernization programs are paramount to successful
operations and maintaining the quality of life that our men and women
in uniform and their families deserve.
The fiscal year 2009 President's budget (PB) request for Air Force
military construction is more than $2.1 billion, comprised of
traditional MILCON ($988 million), BRAC 2005 ($734 million) and housing
investments ($396 million). Unfortunately, we face demands on our
resources that require tough choices. Our challenging budgetary
environment includes: increased operations, maintenance, and personnel
costs; the cost of the war against terrorism; and absorbing inflation
factors that reduce overall buying power. These factors have forced us
to self-finance the centerpiece of future dominance--a massive and
critical recapitalization and modernization effort of our aging air and
space force. To accomplish this, we are accepting manageable risk in
facilities and infrastructure funding. The Total Force MILCON portion
($988 million) of the Air Force fiscal year 2009 PB military
construction request reflects our highest construction priorities. This
request includes $935 million for active military construction, just
over $34 million for the Air National Guard, and $19 million for the
Air Force Reserve. In addition, this budget carefully balances our
facility operations and maintenance accounts for sustainment,
restoration, and modernization with military construction programs to
make the most effective use of available funding in support of the Air
Force mission, while keeping ``good facilities good.'' The Air Force
Total Force sustainment funding in fiscal year 2009 is $2 billion, 90
percent of the amount called for by the Facility Sustainment Model. The
fiscal year 2009 Total Force restoration and modernization (R&M)
funding is $514 million--an increase of approximately $168 million over
last year's request.
The Air Force fiscal year 2009 PB request of $396 million for the
Military Family Housing investment program balances new construction,
improvements, and planning and design (P&D) work, and completes the
funding to eliminate inadequate housing overseas. We cannot allow our
current housing stock to fall into disrepair. Therefore, in addition to
the $396 million requested for housing investment, we request nearly
$599 million for operations and maintenance, for a total housing
investment of just under $1 billion.
To continue our proactive and responsive environmental quality and
restoration programs, the fiscal year 2009 PB request includes $1,015
million for direct-funded non-BRAC environmental programs. In addition
to the $435 million we requested for traditional environmental
restoration activities, the fiscal year 2009 PB request includes $367
million for environmental compliance activities and projects, $82
million for pollution prevention initiatives, $53 million for funding
environmental conservation activities, $61 million for munitions
response activities, and $17 million in investments in promising
environmental technologies.
The Air Force is investing in its facility energy future, with $14
million in 2008 and $229 million more across the Future Years Defense
Program. These monies are lead-turning important initiatives such as
establishing Resource Efficiency Managers Air Force-wide and enhancing
our aggressive utility rate and Energy Savings Performance Contract
management teams to ensure we are getting the best value for every tax-
payer dollar. We also are investing in the highest payback energy
conservation initiatives such as upgrading our energy-intensive
aircraft paint hangars; decentralizing heat plants; recommissioning
facility heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems; and
installing ground-source heat pumps. We expect the return on investment
on these initiatives to be 2.5 to 1 or, a savings of approximately $550
million by 2015.
To continue our aggressive BRAC implementation schedule, the fiscal
year 2009 PB request includes $1.2 billion for BRAC-related activities,
of which $734 million is construction. The Air Force is lead for 64
BRAC business plans and has equity in 16 additional business plans.
Full support of this funding request is critical to ensure we remain on
track to meet the requirement for compliance by 2011.
Sound investment in our installations postures the Air Force to
support our priorities of winning today's fight, taking care of our
people, and preparing for tomorrow's challenges. We believe the fiscal
year 2009 PB proposal will provide the funds to ensure our
installations continue to serve as effective power projection platforms
that enable the continued success of our core Air Force missions.
winning today's fight
The Air Force's first priority is to win today's fight. We plan to
invest $222 million on 14 projects that support and enhance the Air
Force's ability to deliver intelligence, maintenance, and operational
capabilities to our COCOMs. The Air Force is executing five projects
directly contributing to winning today's war within the CENTCOM AOR.
CENTCOM's AOR is the geographic and ideological heart of today's fight.
A war without borders, it spans 27 countries in the Central Asian
region of the world. The five projects in CENTCOM's AOR provide much-
needed in-theater aircraft maintenance as well as appropriate parking,
fueling, and cargo handling space. An additional eight projects in the
continental United States (CONUS) provide critical infrastructure
necessary to continue to deliver, grow, and improve the high demand for
an Unmanned Aircraft System presence in current and future operations.
The Air Force will also construct a large vehicle inspection station to
greatly improve the force protection and operational capability of the
forces at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom.
taking care of our people
The Air Force sees a direct link between readiness and quality of
life. The Air Force is committed to creating and maintaining a
consistent, high quality, and safe environment in locations where
airmen work, train, reside, and recreate. Our Total Force airmen are
the most valuable assets we have in winning today's fight and ensuring
our air, space and cyberspace dominance. We must continue to recruit,
train, develop, and retain the best America has to offer. As our Air
Force becomes more capable, more efficient and more lethal, so will our
airmen. The quality of life we provide for our airmen and their
families is a distinct determining factor in how long they remain in
our Service. The sacrifices our airmen and their families make are
enormous. We are deeply committed to providing every airman and their
family with the best possible quality of life as they serve our Nation.
In this year's budget we strive to promote a wide spectrum of projects
that take care of our airmen and their families; from quality family
housing for our families, quality dormitories for unaccompanied airmen,
functional fitness centers, and safe child development centers, to
realistic training and operational facilities.
Workplace
The Air Force is fully committed to the ensuring the safety and
protection of human health for all of our personnel, both on and off
duty. The Air Force evaluated its current injury and illness rates for
airmen and determined implementation of the Occupational Safety and
Health Adminstration's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) would improve
upon that commitment. VPP implementation historically results in a
major reduction in illness/injury compared with non-VPP sites in like
industries, and reductions on the order of 50 percent are not uncommon.
The Air Force formalized this commitment to VPP last August through
signing of a partnership agreement between the Air Force and
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). The agreement
included a commitment to reduce civilian and military workforce
injuries and illness by at least 3 percent per year and to expand
participation in VPP and increase awareness of the value of effective
safety and health management. Currently, 20 Air Force installations
have begun work toward implementing the elements of VPP, and 5 will be
ready to apply for formal OSHA evaluation and designation in 2008--
Altus AFB, OK; Hanscom AFB, MA; Tinker AFB, OK; Robins AFB, GA; and
Eielson AFB, AK. Eventually all Air Force installations both in the
continental United States and overseas will use this tool. To make sure
the Air Force is gaining from others who have improved workplace
safety, we are working closely with civilian companies who have proven
their commitment to the highest level of health and safety performance.
We have already learned from these companies and have used their
experiences to improve our safety processes, and also have found VPP
implementation a common element at these high-performing organizations.
Our ultimate goal is to make VPP a way of thinking both on duty and off
duty for our airmen. VPP is one way to give our airmen the safest
possible environment in which to work and live.
Energy
The Air Force Model Energy Base Initiative is testing the breadth
of initiatives and best practices in facility management, aviation fuel
reduction, and ground vehicle management. McGuire AFB, NJ, and
Barksdale AFB, LA, are the two bases selected to demonstrate the
effectiveness of comprehensive efforts by the Air Force to implement
its energy strategy. McGuire AFB was selected because it represented
for the Air Force a base with an Air Mobility mission in a region with
a large heating load in the winter. Barksdale AFB represents an air
combat mission with a large cooling load in the summer. The Air Force
will be disseminating lessons learned and best practices throughout the
organization as they become available, and will share with our sister
Services and other energy partners.
Under the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century
processes, we have established the HQ Air Force Energy Senior Focus
Group and Provide Infrastructure Working Group which look at four
strategic pillars to maximize our energy efficiencies: Improve current
infrastructure, improve future infrastructure, expand renewables, and
manage cost. We have established metrics to track compliance with
executive orders and Air Force guidance.
We are continuing our aggressive stance with five major energy-
related EUL projects: solar energy at Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ;
and Kirtland AFB, NM; and a prospective nuclear energy project at a
location yet to be identified.
Family Housing
The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan details our Housing
military construction, operations and maintenance, and privatization
efforts. To implement the plan, our fiscal year 2009 budget request for
family housing is just under $1 billion. Consistent with DOD Strategic
Planning Guidance, the Air Force is on track to fund projects through
2009 that will eliminate inadequate overseas housing.
For fiscal year 2009, the requested $396 million for our housing
investment program will replace and improve more than 2,100 housing
units at eight overseas bases. An additional $599 million will pay for
operations, maintenance, utilities and leases to support the family
housing program.
We have used the privatization authorities granted by Congress to
accelerate our family housing improvement program. By fiscal year 2009,
the Air Force will privatize 41,500 housing units, and with the funding
of the fiscal year 2009 PB the Air Force plans to privatize an
additional 4,300 housing units. The Air Force projects it will have
strategically leveraged more than $350 million in government investment
to bring almost $6 billion in private sector total housing development.
That is $16 of private investment for each public tax dollar. The Air
Force is evaluating the privatization of remaining CONUS installations
where feasible.
Unaccompanied Housing (Dormitories)
The fiscal year 2009 total Air Force requirement for dormitory
rooms is 60,200. We have made great progress using the three-phased
investment strategy outlined in our Dormitory Master Plan (DMP). Phase
I, now construction complete, eliminated central latrine dormitories.
With the fiscal year 2007-2009 MILCON programs we have the necessary
funding to complete Phase II of our DMP, which is our permanent party
and pipeline dorm room shortage (deficit), by building new dormitories.
In Phase III, now underway, we will replace existing dormitories at the
end of their useful life with a standard Air Force-designed private
room configuration under the `Dorms-4-Airmen' concept. Our `Dorms-4-
Airmen' concept capitalizes on our wingman strategy and keeps our dorm
residents socially and emotionally fit.
Our fiscal year 2009 Program reflects this strategy. The $104
million request for dormitory investment will replace or construct more
than 1,400 rooms for unaccompanied personnel at 3 CONUS bases. We are
equally committed to providing adequate housing and improving the
quality of life for our unaccompanied junior enlisted personnel as we
are to our families.
Fitness and Child Development Centers
The Air Force maintains its strong commitment to the `Fit-to-Fight'
program. Fitness and exercise is a regular part of airmen's lives as
they prepare to meet the rigors of the expeditionary environment. Our
goal is to replace at least one fitness center per year until we have
the resources to do more. This year we will construct a new fitness
center at Dover AFB, DE.
We also remain committed to our Air Force families and we are
dedicated to providing them with adequate and nurturing child care
facilities. The most urgent need in 2009 is at Columbus AFB, MS. Its
current facility only meets half of the childcare requirement and is
being supplemented by a leased trailer. Our $8 million fiscal year 2009
MILCON project will construct a Child Development Center to provide
supervised care for 128 infants and preschool children.
Operations and Training
Our MILCON program supports our expanded view of quality of life
for airmen by providing facilities from which to train in and operate.
New Security Forces Operations and Communications facilities in
Burlington, VT, will provide the men and women of the Air National
Guard in one of our most stressed career fields with functional, up-to-
date facilities to meet necessary training and day-to-day operational
requirements. This year's program also includes a 56-position Combat
Arms Training and Marksmanship facility at Maxwell AFB, AL, to
supplement the existing, undersized, high-demand range. The range
enables the continuing improvement of our Air and Space Basic Course by
providing combat-focused training to our junior officers. Finally, a
recapitalization project at the Air Force Academy concludes the phased
upgrade of the Fairchild Hall academic building.
Environmental Management Programs
Our environmental management programs continue to ensure our most
basic quality of life needs are being met for our airmen and
surrounding communities: clean air, clean drinking water, and healthy
working and living conditions for our workforce and base residents. We
are also implementing refinements to our environmental management
approach to incorporate best practices where we find opportunities. All
Air Force installations have put in place and continue to utilize their
Environmental Management Systems to identify environmental aspects of
base operations, assess their impacts, and allow commanders to make
informed decisions and investments to reduce environmental risks and
compliance costs. Also, last year, I challenged our installation
commanders to significantly reduce new environmental enforcement
actions, and I'm proud to tell you we cut our new enforcement actions
by 39 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2007--a major
success story. We intend to cut enforcement actions by another 14
percent in fiscal year 2008.
preparing for tomorrow's challenges
Our third priority is to prepare for tomorrow's challenges. Our
2009 MILCON program is a direct reflection of our strong commitment to
the current and future success of our Air Force and is heavily weighted
toward preparing for tomorrow's challenges by addressing our most
critical modernization and recapitalization needs. The $493 million
fiscal year 2009 Total Force military construction program consists of
32 projects that are essential to modernization and recapitalization.
The F-22 Raptor is the Air Force's primary air superiority fighter
and key enabler, providing operational access, homeland and cruise
missile defense, and force protection for joint forces. Combat-capable
Raptors are in full rate production on the world's only 5th generation
production line. Elmendorf AFB, AK, will be the second operational
Raptor base, and Holloman AFB will be the third. We are constructing 13
projects to continue to beddown the world's premier fighter at a cost
of $197 million. The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is our 5th
generation multi-role strike fighter aircraft optimized for air-to-
ground attack. The F-35 will recapitalize combat capabilities currently
provided by the F-16 and A-10, and will complement the capabilities of
the F-22. A student dormitory project at Eglin AFB, Florida continues
the beddown for joint F-35 training squadrons. To provide the best
possible training to our aircrews by using a professional adversary
force of pilots and controllers, the Air Force is pressing forward with
its vision for a more robust Aggressor program. Constructing a squadron
operations facility and aircraft maintenance unit at Nellis AFB, NV,
supports the beddown of a full 24-aircraft F-16 Aggressor squadron.
Our Tactical Air Controllers are embedded with ground forces,
directing Air Power in support of ground operations. This year's MILCON
program provides the 3rd Air Support Operations Group with a Joint Air
Ground Center at the unit's host Army installation, Fort Hood, TX. This
facility supports the U.S. Army's brigade transformation and provides
Air Force Tactical Air Controllers with the training space required to
support the critical Close Air Support mission.
We are modernizing and recapitalizing our facilities in support of
large-frame aircraft as well. The C-17 continues its outstanding
support for humanitarian operations and the Joint warfighter. The
addition and alteration of simulator facilities at Charleston and
McChord AFBs will greatly improve the program's training efficiency. A
MILCON project at Cheyenne, WY, constructs a C-130 squadron operations
facility to support daily 24-hour operations for airborne firefighting,
aeromedical evacuation, and homeland defense missions. Tinker AFB is
also receiving a hangar to satisfy scheduled maintenance requirements
for Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard associate KC-135 units.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, communications, and
space systems play an ever-increasing role in what we do. The Total
Force Initiative Information Operations Squadron Facility at New
Castle, DE, will provide real-time information operations mission
support, analysis, and feedback of reconnaissance missions around the
world supporting commanders in the field.
Depot Maintenance Reengineering and Transformation (DMRT) remains
essential to revitalizing depots using ``LEAN'' principles to increase
aircraft availability by reducing depot cycle time, defects, and costs.
This program has played a significant role in transforming our
industrial base to more effectively support warfighter requirements.
The 2009 program supports the DMRT initiative with two projects, one at
Robins AFB, GA, and one at Tinker AFB, OK, together totaling $73
million.
The 2009 military construction program has five other
infrastructure modernization projects worth $109 million. These
projects cover the spectrum from a SOCCENT headquarters facility at
MacDill AFB, FL, and personnel moves in the National Capitol Region, to
an infrastructure project on Guam that enables the relocation of a
Combat Communications unit from Kadena AB, Japan to Andersen AFB, Guam.
These projects recapitalize our aging infrastructure and enable us to
support our vision for a modernized force.
base realignment and closure
The ongoing implementation of BRAC recommendations is among the Air
Force's efforts to transform the Total Force. In this round of BRAC, 78
percent of our required actions involve the Air Reserve component while
in past rounds, fewer than 20 percent involved the Air National Guard
and Air Force Reserve. This transformational effort across the force
will ensure the Air Force is more lethal, agile, and capable of
maintaining total dominance in air, space, and cyberspace domains.
Joint Basing
We have 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. Therefore, to guarantee success, each Joint Base will
provide an appropriate setting to all of its assigned personnel to
facilitate mission success and provide improved quality of life through
common standards, currently being developed. Our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, marines, DOD civilians, and their families will benefit from
efficient, consistent Installation Support Services standards. These
standards will ensure the Air Force and our sister Services continue to
provide all personnel with the level of Installation Support Services
they deserve. Our base commanders and their local service providers
are, of course, on the front lines of our efforts to maintain and
improve services. A Senior Joint Base Working Group, led by the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), is developing
policy to implement joint bases by September 15, 2011, in accordance
with BRAC law. The group is in the process of defining common standards
for delivery of service of installation support functions before they
are transferred. Once standards and corresponding performance metrics
are established, the bases will develop formal support agreements and
implementation plans in order to proceed with the joint base construct.
San Antonio Medical Merger
In San Antonio, the Air Force is the lead for implementing one of
the most complex sets of BRAC recommendations in history. Along with
our sister Services, and the TRICARE Management Activity, we continue
to make significant strides to change the way military health care is
delivered, and to consolidate all Services' enlisted medical education
and training from across the U.S. onto a single campus at Fort Sam
Houston, and to centralize a significant part of military medical
research.
Execution of BRAC recommendations in San Antonio is fully funded
and on-schedule. On January 11 of this year, the Corps of Engineers
broke ground on a $92 million Battlefield Health and Trauma Research
facility which will be integral to developing life saving medical care
for our warfighters. Additionally, beginning this year, we will begin
constructing instructional facilities, dining facilities, and
dormitories in direct support of world-class training for our Joint
medics. Just this month, two dormitory contracts have been let in
support of this effort.
BRAC 2005 Execution Report Card
Managing and executing the multi-million dollar program, with
diverse interests, locations, and economic influencers involved, is a
major endeavor. As a result the Air Force underwent an effort to
identify, analyze and define its requirements and the assets needed to
implement its program.
The Air Force has executed 80 percent of our fiscal year 2007 BRAC
MILCON projects, with the total contract awards staying within 99
percent of the original programmed amount. I am content with the
current working estimates for our unexecuted fiscal year 2007 projects
and confident we will award the projects and stay within budget.
Current working estimates for the Air Force's fiscal year 2008 BRAC
MILCON projects again show we should execute within our overall
programmed amount.
The $939 million Omnibus reduction to the DOD BRAC 2005 account
must be restored. If left unfunded, the reduction will result in the
Air Force receiving $235 million less than required in fiscal year
2008. The Air Force will experience delays and disruptions in
construction and the movement of our people and assets. Delays will
impact our ability to meet mandated completion deadlines and could
ultimately result in a failure to complete mandated actions. Prompt
action and restoration of full funding will permit us to stay on course
in executing our obligations for timely completion of the BRAC
recommendations as approved by Congress. We solicit your support in
advocating that action occur.
air force real property agency brac and real estate
The Air Force is a Federal leader in the implementation of the real
property management principles outlined in Presidential Executive Order
13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management. We aggressively manage
our property assets to deliver maximum value for the taxpayer, support
to the Air Force warfighter, and improved quality of life for our
airmen and their families. The Air Force is achieving these priorities
through two fundamental efforts: (1) completion of our BRAC property
disposal mission; and (2) leveraging the value of our non-BRAC property
assets using a suite of property management and disposal tools.
The Air Force has successfully deeded 85 percent of the 87,000
acres of legacy Air Force BRAC property to date. The highly successful
reuse of AFB closure property led to the creation of tens-of-thousands
of jobs in the affected communities. To complete the clean up and
transfer of remaining property, the Air Force is partnering with
industry leaders on innovative business practices for its ``way ahead''
strategy. These include an emphasis on performance-based environmental
remediation contracts, using such performance-based contracts on
regional clusters of BRAC bases, and innovative tools such as early
property transfer and privatization of environmental cleanup. Our
objectives remain constant and clear: (1) provide reuse opportunities
that best meet the needs of the Air Force and local communities, (2)
move the process along smartly in each situation to get property back
into commerce as soon as practical, and (3) provide transparency
throughout the process. Of the 32 legacy BRAC bases slated for closure,
the Air Force has completed 19 whole-base transfers. The remaining 13
are targeted for transfer by 2010.
As the Air Force transfers BRAC property for civic and private
reuse, it is paramount that we ensure any past environmental
contamination on the property does not endanger public health or the
environment. The Air Force will continue to fulfill this most solemn
responsibility, as reflected in our fiscal year 2009 request of $120
million for legacy BRAC clean up activities.
At our non-BRAC Air Force installations, we continue to reshape our
infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Air Force
seeks fair market value for disposal or outgrants of property, and uses
new tools, such as EUL authority, to optimize our resources and obtain
value from our underutilized or excess capacity--value we can return to
the warfighter.
EUL constitutes a rapidly growing segment of our efforts to
leverage the value of our property assets. EUL allows the Air Force to
lease military property that is currently underutilized, but that is
still needed for future mission needs, to private industry and public
entities in exchange for cash or in-kind consideration that will
provide certain services, facilities, or property repair and
renovations to the Air Force. EULs are win-win scenarios for all
involved. Through EUL projects, developers can establish long-term
relationships with private and government partners who are potential
tenants with specific real estate needs. Additionally, developers can
receive market rates of return on design, construction, maintenance,
tenant leases and property management activities. The Air Force EUL
Program is active with 21 projects undergoing feasibility studies
across the Nation. A 10 U.S.C. 2869 exchange is another asset
management tool, allowing the Air Force to work with communities to
find effective win-win solutions to the disposal of BRAC and non-BRAC
property. Communities benefit from receipt of real property, in
exchange for which, value is returned to the Air Force in the form of
approved MILCON projects. The Air Force is actively engaged in 2869
exchanges at Lynn Haven, FL, and Norwalk, CA.
environmental cleanup
The Air Force is fully committed to the protection of human health
and the environment, to be good steward of taxpayer dollars and to full
compliance with applicable law at all of its facilities and for all
programs, including cleanup. The Air Force commitment to protection of
human health and the environment the Air Force has established an
aggressive, internal goal to have cleanup remedies in place at all
active installations by the end of fiscal year 2012. That is 2 years
ahead of the current DOD goal.
maintaining our facilities and operational infrastructure
The Air Force remains focused on sustaining, restoring, and
modernizing our operational infrastructure. Through our ``Corps of
Discovery'' partnerships, we have been benchmarking the ``best of the
best'' asset managers that our country has to offer. We are finding and
implementing ways to manage better, utilize resources more wisely,
leverage private sector investment potential, and use smart information
technology. Our aim is to effectively manage assets by optimizing
resources to deliver operational infrastructure for the warfighter at
our installations and ranges. In 2009, we have focused sustainment
funding on keeping our ``good facilities good'' and targeted limited
R&M funding to fix critical facility and infrastructure deficiencies to
maintain readiness.
Our sustainment program is aimed at maximizing the life of our
facilities and infrastructure in order to preserve our existing
investment. Without proper sustainment, our facilities and
infrastructure rapidly wear out. Additionally, commanders in the field
are driven to use other operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts to
address facility requirements that impact their mission capabilities.
When facilities require restoration or modernization, we use a
balanced program of O&M and military construction funding to make them
``mission ready.'' Unfortunately, restoration and modernization
requirements in past years exceeded available O&M funding, causing us
to defer much-needed work. It is important for us to steadily increase
the investment in restoration and modernization in order to halt the
growth of this backlog, while fully funding sustainment to maximize the
life of our facilities and infrastructure.
The Air Force Total Force sustainment funding request in fiscal
year 2009 is $2 billion, 90 percent of the amount called for by the
Facility Sustainment Model (FSM). The fiscal year 2009 Total Force R&M
funding request is $514 million, a much needed improvement over our
fiscal year 2008 PB request. This is an area where the Air Force is
taking manageable risk given our other budgetary priorities.
demolition of excess, obsolete facilities
In addition to modernizing and restoring worn out facilities, we
also demolish excess and obsolete facilities. This ensures funds are
focused on facilities we need, not on sustaining those we do not. For
the past 10 years, the Air Force has aggressively demolished or
disposed of facilities that were unneeded or no longer economically
viable to maintain. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2007, we
demolished 27.3 million square feet of non-housing facilities and
infrastructure at a cost of $303 million in O&M funding. This is
equivalent to demolishing more than three average size Air Force
installations and has allowed us to target our O&M funding on
facilities we need for the long-term mission. As part of its
transformation vision, the Air Force will continue to aggressively
identify opportunities to eliminate excess and obsolete facilities.
planning and design/unspecified minor construction
This year's Air Force MILCON request includes $88 million for P&D,
of which $8 million is for military family housing. The request
includes $71 million for active duty, $5 million for the Air National
Guard and $4 million for the Air Force Reserve. These funds will allow
us to complete the design work for fiscal year 2010 construction
programs and to start the designs for fiscal year 2011 projects,
allowing us to award contracts in the year of authorization and
appropriation.
This year's request also includes $28 million for the Total Force
unspecified minor construction program, which is our primary means for
funding smaller projects.
energy strategy
The increasing costs of energy and our commitment to reducing our
dependence on foreign oil have led to the development of the Air Force
energy strategy--to reduce demand, increase supply, and change the
culture within the Air Force so that energy is a consideration in
everything we do.
In view of this commitment, the Air Force is implementing
aggressive demand side fuel optimization and energy efficiency
initiatives on each of our three energy sectors: aviation operations,
ground transportation and support equipment, and installations. We are
also assuring energy supply side availability of fuel for our aircraft,
ground vehicles and equipment, and our facilities through initiatives
such as testing and certifying our aircraft to use synthetic fuel and
exploring public-private partnerships so that renewable sources of
energy are available. Third, and perhaps the most important element of
our energy strategy, we are ensuring that our strategy transcends the
present to create a lasting culture of change in all airmen so that
energy becomes a consideration in all we do through the strong
involvement of our senior leadership, changes to our training and
curricula at all levels throughout the Air Force and communication
efforts so that every airman knows the importance of what they are
doing to conserve energy.
Synthetic Fuel
Taking the lead to reduce dependence on foreign oil, the Air Force
is evaluating a broad range of energy alternatives and the Air Force
Synthetic Fuels Initiative is a key part to our energy strategy. 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've certified the B-52 to fly on a synthetic fuel
blend, and are on track to test and certify the C-17, B-1, and F-22 in
the near future, with the entire Air Force fleet certified by early
2011.
Reduction of Facility Energy Usage
The Air Force has an aggressive facility energy conservation
program that achieved an impressive 30 percent reduction in energy use
over the past 20 years. Your Air Force is the Federal Government's
largest purchaser of ``green power'' and the third largest in the
Nation overall. Thirty-seven of our bases purchase green power--at
Dyess AFB, TX, Fairchild AFB, WA, and Minot AFB, ND, 100 percent of the
electrical energy purchased came from renewable sources.
Public-Private Partnerships and Energy EULs
The Air Force continues to look for opportunities at our
installations for installing and developing renewable energy projects
for wind, solar, biomass, waste-to-energy, landfill gas and geothermal
power as well as commercial-scale ethanol and biodiesel fuel plants.
At Nellis AFB, NV, through a public-private partnership with
Powerlight, a subsidiary of Sun Power Corporation, we installed the
largest solar photovoltaic array in the Americas. It became operational
in November and produces over 14.2 megawatts of clean, renewable,
power. Overall, this renewable source of power results in a cost
savings of nearly $1 million a year for the installation and the
American taxpayer. Similar solar energy EUL projects we are pursuing at
Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ; and Kirtland AFB, NM; would utilize a
private-public partnership where private industry would utilize Air
Force property in return for in-kind considerations.
Nuclear Energy
Given the energy requirements of our air bases, as well as the
unique demands of some of our remote installations, small modular
nuclear reactors seem to provide a viable option to meet our future
energy demands. We believe that the market is best suited to identify
technological and economic winners. We expect the nuclear power project
to be commercially funded and financially viable with normal commercial
risk. In all cases, the Air Force would not develop, design, own,
operate, or be the licensee for the nuclear power plant. We are in the
process of gathering and assessing responses to a Request for
Information from industry. The current estimate is that any plant built
and operated pursuant to this initiative could be operational in latter
half of next decade. Under ideal circumstances the Air Force intends to
sign one or more letters of intent with viable consortiums by October
2008.
Alternative Vehicles and Fuels
We currently have over 5,200 FlexFuel vehicles in our fleet and
nearly 8 percent of our diesel fuel is B20, which is a blend of 80
percent conventional diesel and 20 percent renewable bio-fuels. We
spent approximately $10 million on alternative fuels alone for ground
vehicles and equipment in fiscal year 2007 and have budgeted over $100
million over the next 5 years for alternative fuel and low-speed
vehicles.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Air Force recognizes that energy and environmental management
decisions are essentially two sides of the same coin; the
interdependence between the two areas is clear. While our overall
energy strategy is driven by the imperative to ensure the security and
sustainability of mission critical energy resources, likewise, our
environmental management strategy is looking beyond the regulatory
paradigm to ensure mission needs are supported by sustainable
environmental practices.
As an Air Force with global reach and alliances, we are well aware
of the international concern regarding greenhouse gas emissions, and
recognize the importance placed on greenhouse gas emissions management
by our allies, global partners, and here in the homeland. In order to
make proactive, informed decisions about greenhouse gas emissions
management with respect to energy use, alternate energy options, as
well as chemical use, land management and process improvement
opportunities, the Air Force has initiated a comprehensive greenhouse
gas inventory to identify overall greenhouse gas emission sources from
a ``top down'' aggregate energy use perspective, as well as from a
detailed ``bottom up'' perspective, identifying greenhouse gas
emissions from material usage and process activities. Further, we are
identifying and quantifying biological carbon sequestration on our Air
Force properties so that biological sequestration opportunities are
understood as we manage over 9.8 million acres of Air Force
installations and military range lands. We intend to complete our first
comprehensive inventory by September 1 of this year.
The Air Force is positioned to be a significant player in solving
the global carbon dioxide issue. We are reaching out to others to
partner in establishing a ``man on the moon'' scope project to address
the reduction, capture, and reuse of greenhouse gases. We need to push
for a holistic look at emissions from all energy sources. This will
allow for the examination of all emissions across the lifecycle and
then we can prioritize opportunities to drive true, measurable
emissions reductions.
utility privatization
Turning to utilities privatization, similar to our efforts in
privatizing housing, the Air Force is privatizing utilities where it
makes economic sense and does not adversely affect readiness, security,
or mission accomplishment. Because installations are key to our
operational capabilities, our network of bases provide necessary
infrastructure for deploying, employing, and sustaining air and space
operations and re-deploying and reconstituting the force afterwards.
Reliable utility systems are critical infrastructure components and
essential to air operations and quality of life at every AFB.
Additionally, these systems must be consistent with modern technology
to optimize energy conservation. We believe privatization offers an
important tool in the toolbox for simultaneously meeting both these
requirements.
To date, under OSD's utilities privatization program, the Air Force
has conveyed 14 systems under 10 U.S.C. 2688 and six additional systems
using standard FAR clauses, for a total of 20 privatized systems with a
plant replacement value in excess of $300 million. We are currently
evaluating an additional 335 systems for privatization. Additionally,
where market conditions may have changed, we plan to re-solicit 145
systems previously determined ``uneconomic.'' We anticipate possibly
privatizing another 10 systems in fiscal year 2008. By the time the
program concludes, we now anticipate more than half of about 500
systems could be privatized. During the course of this process, we
further expect many competitive solicitations will end up as sole-
source procurements from local utility companies.
conclusion
The current and future readiness and capability of our Air Force to
deter our enemies and, when necessary, fight and win our Nation's wars,
depends heavily upon the state of our power projection platforms--our
installations. As the Air Force continues to modernize and
recapitalize, we will continue to wisely invest our precious funding
allocated to military construction, the environment, operations and
maintenance, BRAC, military family housing, and energy. This will
enable us to win today's fight, take care of our people, and prepare
for tomorrow's challenges.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Secretary Anderson.
Secretary Anderson and Secretary Penn, as I said in my
opening statement I see the concept of joint basing as
something that holds promise as a way to not only save taxpayer
money, but also to deepen the jointness that our forces already
demonstrate so well in combat. My question to both of you is,
are each of your departments fully committed to making joint
basing work?
Mr. Penn. The Navy definitely is. Yes, sir, and I mentioned
that last year as the same thing.
We have conducted several, well, three major table top
exercises where we've gone through and we've found great
success. We've found the quality of life for the sailors, the
airmen, the marines very positive. We also found that there was
no impact or the mission readiness with this. So we support it
100 percent.
Senator Akaka. Secretary Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to mention a couple of
different things. First, B.J. did mention the table top
exercises. Those exercises were done as a joint Air Force, Navy
effort and as the Secretary said it was a tremendous success.
Not only to find out what works, but also to ferret out some of
the issues early that we could address before we jumped with
both feet into joint basing.
I'd like to also highlight Guam if I could for a moment,
and the tremendous work that the base commanders, the Navy
local installation commander, the Air Force wing commander have
done to make sure that joint basing will work effectively in
Guam, which is, of course, a forward operating location that
has implications to significant additional implications to
national defense. I want to take my hat off to both of the
commanders for working on a local solution that will work for
both the Navy and the Air Force, has been signed off by both
Services and is moving forward very efficiently at the same
time that those 8,000 marines are on their way to Guam. We're
working a myriad of different issues. So teams are working
together closely.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, the Air Force wants
joint basing to be a raging success. We think the efficiencies
are there. I think we can get more efficiency then we have even
identified at this point.
But we do have to make sure the mission capability, the
ability for commanders to command their people. The Air Force
does train and deploy a little bit different than the other
Services do. We need to make sure that that capability
continues to be available.
We have a slightly different view on how to execute. But in
terms of executing on joint basing we are absolutely in lock
step that this is the right thing to do. We just want to make
sure that we investigate it. Make sure that we do it the right
way. It's not about the what. It's about the how.
Senator Akaka. Let me follow up in the execution of this
program. It is not clear to me who will be responsible for
making sure joint bases get the appropriate level of
investment. I know that Pearl Harbor and Hickam will be one of
the first joint bases in this case with the Navy in the lead.
So, who will be responsible in this case for making sure
that future budgets fund the required investments such as
electrical system upgrades needed at Hickam. Will that be the
Navy's responsibility because the Navy will be in the lead for
this joint base or will it be the Air Force's responsibility to
fund their own projects?
Mr. Arny. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond?
Senator Akaka. Mr. Arny?
Mr. Arny. With the concept, indeed, at Pearl Harbor--
Hickam, the Navy would be responsible for all of the ongoing
maintenance they will receive when the deal is finally signed,
they will receive a transfer from the Air Force. We at DOD,
with all the Services, we're working very carefully to
establish joint standards that we all agreed to for all
capabilities on the installation management. The Air Force will
still maintain their own mission parts. But as far as the
maintenance of the installation, it will be the Navy's
responsibility to fund and maintain to the standards that we
all agree, and that includes recap.
If there's an Air Force hangar that needs to be rebuilt
that will be put into the Navy budget. If there's a new hangar
required for a new mission then that will be the responsibility
of the Air Force to fund that facility. Let's call it a hangar,
and then once it's done, it will be turned over and it will be
maintained by the Navy.
Now this is a two way street. There has to be
communications both ways, but there are also several occasions
where the Air Force is in charge and they'll have
responsibilities. The Army will have responsibility in other
places.
Senator Akaka. Yes. The particular, the specific case that
I mentioned was the electrical system upgrades which Hickam
really needs. If this occurs then what you are telling me is
that the Navy would certainly deal with that.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Penn. But it would be funded by the component. The
intent is that a mission requirement is funded by the
component.
Mr. Arny. But the electrical system upgrades would probably
be a military installation.
Mr. Penn. Right.
Mr. Arny. That probably would be funded by the Navy.
Mr. Penn. Yes.
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Senator Akaka. Secretary Penn, last year the Navy took
strong action to address a child care problem at Pearl Harbor.
First by addressing a safety issue with a reprogramming and
then by including funds in the 2009 budget request for a new
child care center. I commend you for those actions.
We need to have that same focus on our shipyard at Pearl
Harbor because it is such a key readiness asset for the entire
Pacific theater. Section 332 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 required a
minimum level of investment in our military's maintenance
depots, including Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. That minimum
level will rise from 5 percent of workload funding in 2008 to 6
percent beginning in 2009.
Last year, Senator Inouye and I added funds to address
problems at dry dock one and two because we felt the shipyard
was not getting the funds it needed. Please provide for the
record, what investment the Navy has planned for the Pearl
Harbor Naval Shipyard over the next 5 years. All that compares
with the 6 percent investment requirement for Navy depots.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. We'll be glad to do that.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Navy manages the 6 percent reinvestment requirement at the
Naval Shipyard Activity Group level as directed by section 332 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 vice by
individual shipyards. This information is reported to Congress through
the President Budget Exhibits for Naval Shipyard commonly referred to
as the ``J-Book''. In fiscal year 2009, $198 million (6 percent of
``revenue'') was invested into the naval shipyards. To ensure both
national strategic needs and individual shipyard requirements are met,
the Navy follows a standard business process through which individual
projects are developed and reviewed to ensure strong business case and
economic justification for use of limited resources. The results of
this process are provided annually as part of the President's budget.
The last 3 fiscal years the funding profile for individual
shipyards was as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
(Numbers in 000) Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard:
Military Construction............. 0 9,700 0
SRM............................... 10,486 16,288 6,238
Capital Investment (OPN).......... 12,755 12,710 11,007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Naval Shipyard:
Military Construction............. 65,891 0 42,830
SRM............................... 21,747 28,578 15,233
Capital Investment (OPN).......... 9,136 15,748 22,930
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and IMF:
Military Construction............. 0 97,200 0
SRM............................... 38,323 43,729 38,405
Capital Investment (OPN).......... 13,031 11,786 13,990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and IMF:
Military Construction............. 0 30,200 0
SRM............................... 30,407 28,789 44,409
Capital Investment (OPN).......... 9,525 7,740 3,353
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinvestment in the shipyards is key to keeping them fully mission
capable. The Navy is committed to reinvesting at a minimum 6 percent
per year across the shipyards. Due to the nature of the budget process,
the exact level of funding at each individual yard will vary from year
to year.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Anderson,
in your written testimony to the House last week on the subject
of synthetic fuels you stated, ``The Air Force goal is to cost
effectively acquire 50 percent of our CONUS aviation fuel via
synthetic fuel blend utilizing domestic blend feed stocks and
produced in the United States by 2016 with the intent to
require the synthetic fuel purchases be sourced from suppliers
with manufacturing facilities that engage in carbon dioxide
capture and effective reuse.'' What is the biggest challenge
you face in meeting the goal of purchasing 50 percent of that
aviation fuel by 2016?
Mr. Anderson. Essentially, Senator, the biggest challenge
is a market developing in the United States. Our process of
testing, certifying, and flying this fuel in the fleet at
research quantities is ongoing. We have a time line, a map,
that will take us through the early 2011. The fleet will be
ready to receive the fuel.
The commercial aviation industry is following along with us
and working with us in the certification process of the entire
aviation footprint in this country and by the way, around the
world with some foreign interest as well. The problem though is
the fact that we don't want to necessarily certify to a fuel
that will be another foreign import. With the United States
having the largest coal reserves in the world it makes sense to
us that we ought to utilize those coal reserves in a very
ecologically friendly way.
We believe the new technology for making liquid fuel out of
coal can achieve an environmental footprint that is very
favorable for coal based, fossil based fuel. But yet at this
point no ground breaking has been done on it on a commercial
scale plant in the United States although a couple are under
consideration. That's why we set the goal 5 years after the
certification was done because we believe the industry wouldn't
begin to kick off into this country and make commercial
quantities of fuel at least until 2012 to 2014. So we set our
goal beyond the time when there will be commercial level
production in this country.
Senator Thune. How do you define cost effective? Is the
assumption going to be that it's going to be based strictly on
lowest price?
Mr. Anderson. Based on market for an equivalent type of
comparable fuel, i.e. petroleum based jet fuel, yes, sir.
Senator Thune. Ok. Will there be any other discriminators
in how the Air Force would go about selecting suppliers of
those synthetic fuels, price driven. Is there any other thing
that you can think of that would----
Mr. Anderson. No, sir. Price and performance. As I
mentioned earlier, coal seems to be the most logical, near- to
mid-term feed stock. But we don't care about the feed stock. We
don't necessarily care about the technology used to refine the
material.
We look at the performance parameters that are necessary to
fly jets on. We look at price against the market price for a
similar product, and that would be the only discriminators.
Senator Thune. Is 50 percent by 2016, is that, that's a
cap. That's a ceiling. Is there any chance we get there sooner?
Mr. Anderson. Actually, it's not a ceiling. It was just a
vision, a pie in the sky. What we're talking about is 400
million gallons a year and if we represent 10 percent of the
domestic aviation market, that's a demand of 4 billion gallons
coming out of factories if the commercial world follows us.
That's a huge production capability.
We just base it on what we thought would be possible. It
can be accelerated. It can be expanded if the production
capability is there. Yes, sir.
Senator Thune. Ok. My hope would be that to see that sooner
than 2016. Maybe not 50 percent but I'd like to see it be great
if it were to achieve that goal even sooner.
Mr. Anderson. I hope you're right. Yes, sir.
Senator Thune. Let me ask the rest of the panel. Air Force
obviously is the largest user when it comes to fuel and so the
question, primarily directed at Secretary Anderson, are the
other Services in DOD as a whole considering similar goals for
the use of synthetic fuels?
Mr. Anderson. Actually, sir, the Air Force has been the
lead for the Department because they are the biggest user and
we tend to split those efforts up. If it's successful we all
benefit from it.
Senator Thune. Navy? Army? Any thing to add to that?
Mr. Eastin. We have some research programs, but they're no
where near production.
Senator Thune. Ok.
Mr. Penn. Over the last 5 years we've had a 10-fold
increase in the use of a 20 percent blend of biodiesel and
petroleum diesel, so we're moving on this as well.
Senator Thune. Ok. Good. I would just say to the Department
and the other branches that they're to take a good hard look of
the possibility of following the Air Force's lead on this
knowing full well that they're the biggest user of the fuels.
But nevertheless I think it's something Department-wide could
achieve a significant savings if we're having to pay. Who knows
what the price per barrel of oil is going to be sometime into
the future.
Mr. Arny. I think that's the key. If we can get synthetic,
get it at a price that's comparable, then it obviously makes us
far less dependent on overseas sources.
Senator Thune. I don't think we can convert quickly enough
to home grown energy because we continue to enrich petro-
dictators who figure out ways to fund organizations that turn
around and attack Americans. So I encourage you to pursue that
as quickly as possible.
Congress is looking at once again considering legislation
in this year that would authorize a multiyear procurement of
synthetic fuels by the Department. If Congress were to extend
the existing multiyear procurement authority to synthetic fuels
does that assist you in achieving your goals?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, a qualified yes, Senator, is the answer.
The Air Force and the other Services, of course, what we're
concerned about is acquiring the fuel we need to do the
mission. The supplier on the other side of the equation has to
worry about the economics of the viability of investing up to
$4 billion per plant for these synthetic fuel facilities.
In numerous discussions on Wall Street with major bankers
they have suggested that a long-term contract somewhere between
10 to 25 years as opposed to the 5 years we have currently,
would be a driver towards attracting debt and equity capital
into this market, which then, of course, would trigger building
of plants, which would allow us to have the supply that we
need.
So indirectly yes, it would help us in our process. I think
the industry and Wall Street is the one who would be the best
to answer what the right answer would be for this.
Senator Thune. I'm sure you have discussions with them. We
have too, those who are interested in developing that type of
an energy source. One of the things that we hear is that we
could lock in long-term contracts and the economics of this
thing work so much better for us.
Mr. Anderson. Right.
Senator Thune. So it's the reason I asked the question.
There was a Federal Times story Monday, March 10, earlier this
week, where a special assistant working for you, Paul
Bollinger, said in reference to a standard of manufacturing
synthetic fuels, ``Industry experts producing this fuel say
they can meet the standards, but there is not a standard. Until
we get a standard we can't buy the fuel.'' Can you comment on
that, or elaborate on that statement?
Mr. Anderson. I wasn't privy to the conversation, but I
would assume that the comment was made as a result in relation
to section 526 of last year's Energy Act, which essentially
mandates in legislation what the Air Force has said all along,
that it would not buy any alternative fuel, synthetic fuel that
didn't have a greener footprint than what is currently
available.
Now, when we talked about a greener footprint, we didn't
talk only about CO2. Section 526 only talked about CO2. We
talked about the entire array of contaminants. So we support
the concept. The problem is that the devil is in the details.
From our perspective the right answer is that we ought to,
we, collective, the royal we, globally, go forward and do a
Manhattan Project scale approach to taking a look at global
greenhouse gas emissions across every fuel source from cradle
to grave, if you will. From the mine or the oil well or the
field, for example, if it's ethanol, all the way until it comes
out the tailpipe, and determine where the greenhouse gas
emissions are so that we can identify the most serious
infractors, if you will figure out ways to economically address
CO2, and on a per unit basis, reduce the CO2 output from every
fuel source. But the first thing we have to do is inventory
what the actual greenhouse gas footprint is of every fuel
source. The comment is correct we are not in a position at this
point to be able to do that with any rigor.
Senator Thune. I guess in terms of adopting or coming up
with a standard. The reason I asked that question is because
the question is who would define what that is? To me it would
be a function of what is a workable fuel in terms of
performance in the fuels that you use and obviously a greener
type of fuel.
Ideally, you'd want to have that involved to incorporate
into your standard in some fashion. But I don't know exactly
who comes up with that standard. We could try and write a
standard here, but we'd have to obviously get input from the
industry.
I could probably come up with one for ethanol. But I don't
know how that works with regard to the needs that the Air Force
has for aviation fuels. So I think that's something that I
think I'd like to maybe hone in on a little bit more at some
point.
Secretary Penn, the Navy's currently involved in litigation
challenging the Navy's compliance with environmental laws
regarding the use of MFA sonar. MFA sonar is the most common
form of active sonar used by surface ships, submarines, and
helicopters. On January 23, 2007, DOD invoked the National
Defense Exemption (NDE) under the MMPA to exempt all military
readiness activities that use MFA sonar from compliance with
the MMPA for a period of 2 years.
Despite DOD's decision to invoke this NDE, in January of
this year a Federal district judge issued an injunction and
imposed significant restrictions on Navy sonar training in at-
sea ranges off of southern California. What is the status of
that litigation? Can you describe its impact on the Navy's
ability to train effectively for deployment using active sonar?
Mr. Penn. We're still in the process of litigation so I
can't go into it too far. But as I said earlier, the ocean is
the Navy's home. We take very good care of our home. For our
other procedures we've been working with National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), Department of Interior, and, in fact,
we have a memorandum of understanding with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration talking about the permanent
threshold shift which is the nonrecoverable damages to tissues
of the auditory systems of the mammals.
Direct injury to marine mammals from MFA sonar can only
occur at very close distances to the sonar which is
approximately 10 meters. We have to have a decibel level at
about 215 to actually create that disturbance. We have
implemented 29 NMFS-approved protection measures whenever we
operate regarding the NDE under the MMPA including the posting
of trained lookouts while underway in areas where marine
mammals are present, power down sonar at specific ranges, and
complete shut down if the mammal is within 200 yards.
As I said we have 29 different mitigation measures and
we're doing everything, in fact, one of the things we're doing,
we're putting so much money into the program to get scientific
data to show what the MFA is doing. On the LFA, we've been
operating that since 2003, there apparently is no damage at all
to using that.
Senator Thune. That's what I was going to ask you about
because you're facing similar litigation over your LFA sonar,
which, it's my understanding, is the most effective means to
detect super quiet diesel submarines at long range, which are
the types that are operated by China and North Korea.
Mr. Penn. Right.
Senator Thune. Can you tell me how these limits impact the
Navy's ability to train?
Mr. Penn. It means if we're unable to train, it means we
have to deploy people, the ships, the strike groups, without
completing their specific training required to go into harm's
way. That's what it does, and it isn't fair in my opinion to
send our people out, especially on a carrier with 5,000 people,
not being fully anti-submarine warfare qualified, which is why
we're pushing so hard for this.
We do the simulation. We have a simulation package which is
basically ``switchology,'' but unless you're out there looking
for a diesel submarine in 150 to 900 feet of water, it's very
difficult to do.
Senator Thune. I assume you're concerned about how these
restrictions that are being imposed on Navy sonar training
impact recent deployments of diesel submarines by China in the
areas where U.S. carrier battle groups are operating.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. There are 40 countries with
approximately 400 diesel submarines and we consider it a major
threat across the board. They can get off the coast, the west
coast, and fire a missile basically wherever they want.
We're working on the NDE at this time. We have to complete
it by January 2009, and hopefully that will give us the
clearance to continuing on.
Most of the restrictions we have to date are for specific
events and specific exercises. So we're able to work around
them. In fact, we just had clearance recently to conduct two
more exercises which we'll be doing. But it's absolutely
essential that we train our crews to operate.
Senator Thune. Thank you. I just have one final question. I
see my time has expired, but it has to do, Secretary Arny, with
the whole BRAC process. That process was concluded in 2005.
At that time it was estimated, I think, that the cost for
BRAC was going to be about $22.5 billion. Today, it's $33.2
billion. That's basically 2, 3 years. We're into the 2009
budget year. But that's a 50 percent increase in cost.
Now I know that there's normal inflation, but that seems
like an enormous increase in the cost of completing the BRAC
process. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir. I'd be happy to. This round of BRAC had
more relocation. It had a higher percentage of MILCON funding
as a major element. It's like 70 percent as opposed to 30, 35
percent before.
As you and the committee members have seen we've been all
hit hard by increases in construction. In the northwest, we're
looking at 15 percent a year. Hurricane Katrina affected a lot
of our estimates, once we actually had the projects in line.
But before that we faced a problem in that the BRAC
commission and the folks within the Navy who were analyzing
bases used a model called the Cost of Base Realignment Actions
(COBRA) model which was designed over the past 15 years to
allow analysts to examine one base against another in terms of
generalized construction kinds of buildings. That COBRA model
was never designed to produce budget quality numbers for the
buildings, but people unfortunately expected it to.
So I got involved in BRAC execution on the Navy side and
when we got the COBRA models we went out then went to the
engineers. As they began to actually flush out what these real
buildings were going to be different site locations, different
circumstances, made them have to change their 1391s.
We also--so consequently we got not only cost--once we
designed the building we got cost growth that no one expected
in certain parts of the country. We had cost growth before that
because the buildings in the COBRA model were not design
quality. Also we've had cost growth in terms of the Army
decided to do a lot of moves back from Europe that were not
really part of that initial analysis.
We've also, in each of the Services, gone back. The Army's
probably had the biggest growth because they've had growth in
missions. We've had some growth in defense agencies because we
had growth in missions. The Services have all gone back in and
scrubbed their numbers and frankly, we found a lot of cases
where we've lowered costs and lowered scope just because there
were misunderstandings during the analysis process.
So it goes both ways. You're right, the costs are higher.
We have detailed explanations as to why. We have fully funded
it because we believe those, that scope growth is necessary.
Senator Thune. In trying to scale back on and to keep costs
from rising any further, is it conceivable that some of these
organizations that have to be moved could end up in new
facilities that don't fully meet their requirements in due
time?
Mr. Arny. We are working very hard to make sure that
doesn't happen. As anybody who's been around this, I've only
been around for part time, but I've talked to people who have,
and I fought it in my old job too.
The engineers, they have ``x'' amount of money. As the cost
begins to grow they won't come to you and say look, the costs
have gone out of sight. We need more money. They'll try and
make it fit.
That's why we in DOD have developed a business plan process
that was unique to BRAC 2005. So that if there's a change in
scope that should be part of the business plan, we should be
able to see it. We want to work with the Services to make sure
that the proper scope is achieved for the facilities that we're
putting in there. We don't want to hamper people before they
even start in the door.
Senator Thune. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Secretary Penn, I have another concern with respect to
Pearl Harbor shipyard. Pearl Harbor is historic because of the
event of December 7, 1941. I understand the need for historic
preservation to honor the memory of that tragic day. However we
also need to recapitalize the facilities at the shipyard,
including those in the waterfront.
All workers deserve a safe and productive workplace and our
Pacific fleet deserves the highest maintenance standards we can
deliver there. My question to you is what steps can the Navy
take to be more proactive on working with the historic
preservation community? What do you think they can do to work
more productively with you?
Mr. Penn. Thank you, sir. Mr. Arny and I met with Sherman
Nell last week.
Mr. Arny. He sits on the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and I think both Mr. Penn and I were very
impressed with Mr. Nell's balanced approach to his dock
preservation especially industrial facilities like the
shipyard. He personally promised to take upon the challenge of
going out to Hawaii himself with his staff to look at the
facilities and work through that. Because you all have told us
and we know that if we can't modernize that shipyard then
productivity goes out the window.
There are things that need to be done and unfortunately a
lot of historic buildings. But Mr. Nell now understands that. I
think working with the Navy will have a very positive impact on
getting those improvements.
Mr. Penn. This was our first meeting with him.
Senator Akaka. Okay.
Mr. Penn. We always try to work cooperatively with the
State Historic Preservation Officer and other stakeholders in
historic preservation concerning Pearl Harbor. In fact, the
goals of the Historic Preservation and the needs of the
Operational Fleet are not mutually exclusive. So we're working
very hard. We're taking our role very seriously in this.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. I'm glad to hear that.
Secretary Eastin, I understand the Army is about to
initiate an EIS for that portion of the so-called ``Grow the
Army'' proposal that affects the U.S. Army Pacific. That's in
the Army in Alaska and Hawaii. As you know all too well from
the Stryker situation there are groups who are likely to
initiate a lawsuit related to ongoing environmental and
cultural preservation concerns. While I know that the decision
to bring a lawsuit is not under your control, there are some
things that the Army can do to help prevent future legal
challenges. The first is ensuring the Army does its homework to
defend itself from the possible legal challenges you can
expect. I think the Army can do better than it did in the
Stryker case.
Second, and just as important it is to reach out to the
local community throughout the EIS process to explain what
you're doing and why you're doing it. There are some people you
are never going to convince to agree with you. Believe me, as a
public official I have that experience myself. But based on my
experience, I do believe you can do yourself a lot of good by
reaching out to the average person, not just to tell your side,
but to listen to them.
So I invite any response you wish to make about how the
Army plans to proceed in this case, and what lessons may have
been learned from the past experiences.
Mr. Eastin. The Stryker litigation which you were referring
to was basically the result of a failed EIS that was commenced,
I don't want to say luckily, but before my term. This is a very
technical law, but it's not a hard one to comply with. If you
do your homework, as you suggested, you can get through this
very nicely.
That is why we're doing this particular EIS. I have
occasion to look at my staff's travel budget. I noticed that my
Deputy, Tad Davis, who handles environmental matters, seems to
have taken up residence in the State of Hawaii, at least that's
what it looks like. So he is involved in a lot of outreach with
these people, and hopefully that will alleviate some of their
concerns.
I'm with you. Some of these people will never be convinced.
But a lot of people want to feel they're part of the process
and have a proper role in the process. So we want to make sure
that happens.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Arny and Secretary Eastin, as I
mentioned in my opening statement, I'm concerned that there is
no money in the fiscal year 2009 budget to follow up on the
initiatives Congress and the administration took last year to
improve our care of wounded warriors and their families. I
understand that the Army has identified additional requirements
for more facilities. But they are not in the budget nor did
General Casey include them on his unfunded priorities list.
Secretary Eastin, are there additional unfunded
requirements for barracks or other facilities to care for
wounded warriors and their families? If so, what is the scope
of this unmet need? How many facilities? How much additional
funding is needed?
Mr. Eastin. We have put together medical centers for
warriors in transition at 35 of our locations. Some of them
have taken the path of renovating what has already been there.
Many of them are going to be new construction. This has been
funded out of basically, supplemental funding.
In 2008, we have $138 million in that. In 2007, we put a
lot of money in it. It was basically funded with operation and
maintenance money. The 2009 supplemental request is up at the
OSD for clearance, but I can assure you that it's in the
neighborhood of $1 billion for these.
I think what's implicit in your remarks, however, is that
we are not keeping an eye on these soldiers who have given more
for their country than most of us could ever have asked. We
need to take care of them in their healing time. What we are
finding in this is that if we treat them properly and take care
of them, something in the neighborhood of 80 percent of them
are returned back to the force. That amounts to two full
brigade combat teams in a year's time returned back to the
force.
What we have done here is change our procedures which
didn't cost us a whole lot, but it affected them a whole lot.
In terms of making their duty assignment, getting well. Their
duty assignment is not going back to the 3rd Infantry Division
and getting deployed. Their duty assignment is getting well, so
by changing that procedure and giving them a new duty station,
if you will, in the WTU, that's helped a lot. We need to find
now the infrastructure to back that up.
Senator Akaka. Yes. I'd like to have another answer for
both you and Mr. Arny on why is funding for such an important
requirement not included in the budget request?
Mr. Eastin. They thought the supplemental was a quicker way
of getting this done, to be honest with you. They're there now,
and they need help. Our budget process is such, it sometimes
moves at glacial speed, whereas supplementals are a lot more
nimble.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Let me just ask, Secretary Eastin, I
understand you recently held an industry forum in Korea to
explore ways to provide new family housing for U.S. Army forces
that are relocating from Seoul down to Camp Humphreys under the
terms of our agreement with the Korean government. Based on the
responses you got from industry, do you think you have found a
potential solution? Can you please describe what you have in
mind and how the Army intends to proceed on that?
Mr. Eastin. We were up here a couple of times trying to get
the lease cap raised for our normal build to lease operation.
It was, quite frankly, I think a matter of sticker shock. Part
of it was due to the fact that we would have to amortize the
cost of these facilities over a 15-year period which just drove
the cost basically out of anybody's reasonable range.
The SOFA we have with the Republic of Korea is such that it
is fairly wide. In the Yongsan relocation plan, moving our
forces from the north basically down south of Seoul grants us
use of the land for as long as we are there, also provides that
we are to rent or lease housing units for our accompanied
soldiers.
Since we cannot do it, the normal build-to-lease way, we
have put out a request for interest from the development
community as to whether they would build the same sort of
family apartment units on the same land where we would not
involve the guarantees that are involved in coming up here and
getting scoring or going to the OMB and getting scoring and
putting dollars against it. Basically, would they build if we
didn't guarantee it?
We had a lot of skeptics, and so we thought we'd put
together a forum to discuss this over in Korea with the
development community, the facility management community, and
the financing community over there. Quite frankly, I thought
we'd get maybe 100, 150 people at this thing.
We had registered 350 people from across Korean industry
and 550 showed up. So we didn't have enough chairs for them. We
didn't have enough materials. We had to mail it to them.
So I think there's a lot of interest out there. We're
talking about construction that is up in about the $1 billion
range. So it was enough to get peoples' interest.
What we've seen from that in the question and answer period
afterward, there is a lot of interest in the development
community over there. Parenthetically I think a lot of interest
from the U.S.-based financing community which is probably where
a dollar denominated financial instruments are going to come.
So we had a couple dozen people over from the United States at
the forum.
So I am encouraged. As everything when you're dealing with
foreign governments and MILCON and the Army we'll believe it
when we see the dotted line or the key to the door. But at
least this looks like an attractive alternative to things that
seem to be very expensive.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let
me first of all say, gentlemen, we have four projects, four
privatization housing projects in Georgia. We have five, four
of which have been very successful.
Mr. Anderson, the one at Moody Air Force Base has not been
very successful. Tell me in your opinion where we are with
respect to the disaster we have at Moody Air Force Base to
date, please, sir.
Mr. Anderson. Ok. Yes, sir. I think, Senator, you hit the
nail right on the head that overall housing privatization has
been extremely successful. Robins Air Force Base, we're on our
second phase and everything is going extremely well. Our
residents, our airmen and their families are very, very
pleased.
Where we are in Moody is that one contractor, American
Eagle, which is the source of all of the issues we're facing
today on the four Air Force projects that have gone sour, have
not been able to live up to their expectations. The bid that
they presented to the Federal Government, that was reviewed by
the Air Force, by OMB, by OSD, met all the required parameters.
It was a good bid.
I think all of the folks that approved to go forward with
American Eagle made an appropriate decision based on the facts
that they had at the time. What has occurred since then?
Occupancy rates are down at that project, as well as the other
three, because of the great interest rates, the ability to buy
homes in these areas, because the positive housing markets in
the four areas we're talking about.
Construction has ceased at Moody. The bond holders are
finally engaged. We had actually raised a red flag earlier than
the bond holders actually realized that there was an issue. But
the bond holders have been engaged. They understand the
seriousness of this. Of course, they and their customers have
money risk in this project.
Where we are currently is that we're seeking a buyer. When
I say, we, the Air Force isn't in a position to directly do
this work. But we're working closely with the bond holders to
make this happen.
The bond holders are working to find a purchaser for the
four projects. With the hope that the four, or the purchaser of
these projects will get them back on line, back under
construction. The subcontractors will be paid. We'll move
forward in getting the houses that were required at those bases
under construction completed with Air Force families in those
as soon as we possibly can.
Senator Chambliss. What do you expect to do from an Air
Force perspective about the subcontractors who are owed some $7
million today?
Mr. Anderson. From an Air Force perspective at the moment,
sir, we're not directly involved in that process. That's going
to be worked out through the process of finding a purchaser for
these deals. We're obviously very concerned about the
subcontractors. We're concerned about the airmen and their
families that are impacted by this.
We're keeping a very close eye on it. But because of our
particular legal position at this point we are staying where we
need to stay and allowing the legal process, the regulatory
process, to move forward.
Senator Chambliss. Obviously, I'm pretty concerned about
that too. We have 2,000 new air men and women that are going to
be coming to Moody within the next year. This housing project
was supposed to house many of those, and it's not going to be
ready.
As I understand it in relation to this project the source
selection was completed in September 2003.
Mr. Anderson. That's right.
Senator Chambliss. Financial closing occurred in March
2004. Site work began in August 2005 and the first construction
milestone was missed 7 months later in March 2006. Does that
correspond to your information?
Mr. Anderson. That's about right. Yes, sir.
Senator Chambliss. I have been on the ground in Broxton and
I've talked to the various subcontractors. I have talked to the
people at Moody, as well as the people who were supposed to be
in charge of this project. What they have told me is that
within months of American Eagle, which is the contracting
company, showing up in town which would have been March 2004,
they really felt like something was not right.
The reason they didn't feel like something was right was
that each time they met with American Eagle, they were meeting
with a different person. No one they met with had any
experience with construction or construction management. They
were property managers.
Mr. Anderson. That's right.
Senator Chambliss. Was your staff aware of the fact that
American Eagle is a group of property managers and not a
construction company?
Mr. Anderson. Actually, sir, American Eagle is just a trade
name, if you will. American Eagle Communities is actually two
separate companies: Carabetta Enterprises, LLC, out of
Connecticut, and the Shaw Group, out of Louisiana. So those
were the two companies that were actually involved in doing the
work, if you will.
You are absolutely correct that one of the issues related
to the American Eagle projects is a rapid turnover of project
managers. To some degree a lack of a skill set. We did
recognize that very quickly. As I mentioned to you with the
first question, we began raising red flags with the bond
holders very early.
Senator Chambliss. Can you tell me when?
Mr. Anderson. What I was able to find from the record, and
this was before my time, but within several months, probably
about the same timeframe that you're talking about, several
months from when the project was--the bid was accepted and the
deal was signed.
Senator Chambliss. Here is my understanding of it.
Beginning in March 2006, the project owner for the Moody
project was in a state of technical default due to not meeting
terms of the transaction documents. Those shortfalls continued
to grow for the next year and a half, not only without any
homes being delivered while the project accumulated a $30
million shortfall and over $7 million in debt to subcontractors
for the project, but that the Air Force never notified anybody
with a cure notice of any sort until the later part of 2007
which was some year and a half after the technical default
occurred. Do your records indicate anything other than that?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. I will make sure we provide you
with all of our information. I think, I thought we made, we
already had. The indications that I have and again before my
time, the indications that I had that red flags were being
raised with the bond holders very early in this process in the
2005 timeframe. But I will go back and check and make sure that
I get that information directly to you.
Senator Chambliss. If that is the case, we have not heard
that despite our extensive inquiries to the Air Force. American
Eagle was also heavily involved in Navy and Army projects,
which also ran into trouble.
But although they ran into trouble, the Navy and the Army
contacted American Eagle and straightened their matters out
within a matter of months. I understand their problems were
resolved. However, for the project at Moody, the project owner
was in a state of technical default for a year and a half.
Never delivered a single home and accumulated millions of
dollars of debt before any decisive action was taken by the Air
Force.
Can you tell me why you took no decisive action other than,
as you say, you may have notified the bond holders? I want some
verification of that; why didn't you do anything else for a
year and a half?
Mr. Anderson. I think, sir, that the comment that nothing
else was done for a year and a half, I don't think is exactly
accurate. Again, I will make sure that we provide you full
details of everything that was done. My understanding is that
the Army and the Navy projects started a little bit earlier
than the Air Force projects. So I would assume that they would
come through at the other side.
If I have it right one of the two projects actually has
been sold. The other one is still pending sale which is, of
course, where ours are. But from what I've seen of the record
the Air Force personnel involved in this process were following
the procedures that they should have followed notifying the
individuals that had the contractual responsibility and the
contractual ability to take action against Carabetta and Shaw
or American Eagle as it's called. It appears that the
appropriate items were done at the appropriate times in my
review of the process.
Senator Chambliss. I'm going to have to respectfully
disagree with you. But Moody was, as I understand it, was
Carabetta only and not Shaw.
Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I continue on for this? Thank
you.
I would say that if we can allow something like this to
happen where a developer goes 3\1/2\ years without performing,
accumulates $30 million in debt, owes $7 million to
subcontractors, resulting in at least one of those
subcontractors losing both his home and his business, but
doesn't deliver a single home, it seems to me that either the
process that we have on the part of the Air Force for managing
these projects is defective or the process was not followed the
way it should have been. We simply cannot blame the developer.
But we need a better process if we are going to continue down
this road of privatization.
I visited Moody back in November, talked with numerous
people about what happened and folks on the ground who had been
there from day one who knew exactly what had happened. What I
found was that there was not a single Air Force employee on
site watching that project. The only Air Force representative
on site was a contractor, and that person had no authority. The
extent of their responsibility was to file reports and inspect
the houses for code compliance.
There was no one on site employed by the Air Force
providing program management or providing any type of oversight
of the project. Now I have to believe that this has something
to do with why this project went on so long without serious
attention at how that it was permitted to get so far behind
schedule and get so far in debt. Now I hope you agree that
better on site management is required to ensure that this never
happens again.
There is one thing I would like to add about what I
observed while on the grounds. Someone who had been there at
the base for 2 years while this project was ongoing commented
to me that as best as they could tell the Air Force thought the
project owner was overseeing the project. In turn, the project
owner thought the Air Force was overseeing the project.
Now someone might say that this person did not understand
the process or was not informed. My response would be that this
person was there. He was watching what was going on and what
was happening. You and I and the folks at the Pentagon were
not.
So whether or not this person understood the official
management, they observed what was happening on the ground at
the site. I think the fact that they came away with this
impression is very significant. It shows that there was clearly
confusion on the ground about how this project was supposed to
be managed. This should never have been the case.
The two issues I have raised in relation to this project
serve to illustrate the general feedback that I have received
in relation to how DOD manages projects. That is that you
failed to have anybody on the ground, first, overseeing the
project to notify you about what was going on; second, you
failed to give them any kind of official cure notice.
I hope you find something where you gave notice to the bond
holders, but I don't think you're going to find it. There was
no cure notice given, and that is what the Air Force procedures
call for.
Over the past several months I have talked to every
military Service as well as DOD staff on this issue, as well as
to no less than three developers involved in housing
privatization. Everyone has said the same thing, they have all
commented that the Air Force has a less rigorous process for
overseeing these projects than the other Services. I think that
is what we are seeing now at Moody.
Now to both Secretary Anderson and Mr. Arny, I would really
like your assurances that you will reexamine the Air Force's
process to make sure that they provide proper oversight and
accountability. Because now, frankly, I am not convinced that
the Air Force process is adequate to make sure that these
housing projects are properly supervised; and that individuals
that are required to be notified, are in fact being notified
when defaults are taking place, when time schedules are not
being met, and when it's obvious that the folks that are
supposed to be building and providing these houses have gotten
themselves way over their heads and in financial trouble.
I'd like that assurance from both of you gentlemen.
Mr. Anderson. Senator, absolutely, and I would like to add
that I'm in violent agreement with you that the Moody project
could have been managed better. Very early on my watch we've
made a couple of changes. First, is the source selection
authority for all privatized housing in the Air Force has been
moved to one of my deputies, which I think will add
considerable rigor to the process.
Second, we now have people on the ground at our projects
that report directly to the Air Force Center for Engineering
and the Environment in San Antonio which is a headquarters
function to do the oversight that you suggested.
So, yes, sir, those things needed to be improved. They
were. I'm not going to tell you we're perfect. We are going to
continue to understand what the issues are and improve them as
we find we need to do so. So, you have my assurance that we'll
continue to look to improve this process.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Arny?
Mr. Arny. Absolutely. I did housing with the Navy and I've
watched Mr. Anderson's people change the procedures of the past
couple of years. That I think again, as you pointed out, these
were one bad apple in a huge group of housing areas, and the
Navy was able to get their project bought out.
These projects have to succeed. We'll make sure there's the
right oversight.
Senator Chambliss. We have four Air Force projects that are
in trouble. The one at Moody happens to be in more trouble than
the other three because we've already begun litigation in
Valdosta relative to that project which is in deep jeopardy
right now of ever being able to be completed. It is a shame to
look at those half and three-quarters completed houses out
there that are just now falling down.
There is one other thing that I think you need to check and
that is if Carabetta filed for bankruptcy several years ago. I
do not know whether they left the Federal Government holding
the bag on any of their projects or not. It is pretty obvious
in looking back, Carabetta should never have been allowed to
bid on this project.
So as you are going back and reviewing Air Force projects
or Air Force procedure, I'd ask you to look at the Navy and the
Army together with the Air Force and make sure that we are
doing everything we are supposed to do to make sure that these
folks who ultimately are allowed to bid on these projects are
folks who are going to complete them, not leave us holding the
bag like this. The fact is that Carabetta ought to be
responsible here, but managed to seal themselves off from any
liability. They are the only one of these companies that have
any financial wherewithal. American Eagle and the other
companies that are involved are basically shell companies.
At this point in time it looks that whatever money the
contractors get, the only money guaranteed to them is going to
come from the bonding company. That is unfortunate. That ought
not to be the case.
Companies like Carabetta ought to never be allowed to bid
on a government project again because it has created a real
disaster for the men and women of the Air Force at Moody. But
it has also created disaster in the business community in a
town that loves the Air Force and loves Moody Air Force Base.
So, Mr. Anderson, I look forward to staying in touch with you.
I am not blaming you. I am pretty emotional about this because
it is a sad thing to see down there from an Air Force
standpoint as well as the local community standpoint.
I understand you were not there at the time all of this was
done, but we have to make sure it never happens again. So I
look forward to staying in touch with you. I look forward to
getting your response back on your notification to the bond
holders.
Mr. Anderson. We'll get that to you quickly. Sir, as upset
as you are, and you have every right to be, Secretary Wynne,
Chief Moseley, and I share your frustration and your concern,
and it is my responsibility. This occurred on my watch. It is
my responsibility and I take it as such.
Senator Chambliss. Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me
go over my time.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know what the
Senator from Georgia really thinks on this subject. [Laughter.]
But I just want to make a suggestion based on his comment
at the end there about perhaps looking at how the Air Force and
the lessons learned from this incident and taking some of those
lessons and applying them, maybe syncing up the model that the
Army and the Navy use, it seems like that model has worked more
successfully and more effectively and that might be something
that we could take a look at doing.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your comment. Let me ask my
final question on this.
Senator Chambliss, do you have any more questions?
Senator Chambliss. I'm scared to start again, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. Secretary Arny, section 313 of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2007 required the DOD to submit to Congress a
comprehensive plan including goals, interim milestones, and
schedules for cleanup of unexploded ordnance at current and
former defense sites. Instead of submitting a comprehensive
plan including the required goals, milestones, and schedules,
the Department submitted a report which states that the
Department has established a working group to develop goals,
that: ``the speed of cleanup is largely dependent on funding
levels.''
So, Secretary Arny, when can we expect the Department to
submit a plan that meets the requirements of section 313?
Mr. Arny. We hope to have that report to you by the end of
this month, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. I'm glad that you are
in that position. [Laughter.]
I want to thank my colleagues here on the committee. I
think this has been a helpful hearing. I want to thank all of
our witnesses for being here, and I look forward to working
together with you to improve whatever we're doing and correct
whatever needs to be corrected.
With that, I want to say, again, thank you very much. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
counterintelligence field activity lease
1. Senator Akaka. Mr. Arny, in January 2008, Under Secretary of
Defense (Intelligence) Clapper submitted a report to the committee
stating that, while the Counter Intelligence Field Activity (CIFA)
entered into a lease using the Department of Interior's GovWorks
program and that neither CIFA nor GovWorks had the authority to enter
into such a lease, the use of funds to enter into this lease did not
constitute an Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) violation. Please explain why
the Department of Defense (DOD) believes that the use of government
funds for unauthorized activities is not an ADA violation.
Mr. Arny. The DOD conducted a preliminary investigation and
determined that there is no evidence to support an ADA violation. The
CIFA had an appropriation that was otherwise available for the purpose
of leasing office space--the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
appropriation. CIFA recorded these costs as obligations of this
appropriation and transferred funds to GovWorks to pay for them. In
addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reviewed
this situation and also concluded that no ADA violation occurred.
africa command
2. Senator Akaka. Mr. Arny, does the fiscal year 2009 budget
request include any funds to construct or lease or otherwise provide
facilities on the continent of Africa in support of the new Africa
Command (AFRICOM)? If so, identify the account containing such funds,
the specific line items where such funding is contained in those
accounts, and the specific purposes, including proposed locations, for
which such funds are proposed.
Mr. Arny. There are three Military Construction (MILCON) projects
at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, in the fiscal year 2009 President's budget
request. These projects are not related to the stand-up of AFRICOM but
may become part of it at some point in the future.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Project 2009 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Maintenance Hangar............................. 12.8
Aircraft Parking Apron.................................. 15.3
Telecommunications Facility............................. 3.3
---------------
Total................................................. 31.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2009 budget request also includes $20.0 million
(Operations & Maintenance, Army) to establish an AFRICOM initial
presence in Africa, consisting of small teams reinforcing the current
Offices of Security Cooperation, which is currently known as the Office
of Defense Cooperation. This funding for AFRICOM would not construct
facilities but lease required housing and office facilities directly or
utilize existing government facilities on a reimbursement basis.
Locations are being considered in several different African countries.
cost-effective renewable energy purchases
3. Senator Akaka. Mr. Arny, section 828 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181)
authorized the DOD to enter into multiyear contracts for up to 10 years
for the purchase of renewable energy, if such purchases would be ``cost
effective''. What guidance has DOD developed to define cost-
effectiveness for purposes of implementing this statute? For example,
is DOD interpreting this statute to require that the current market
price of renewable energy purchased under such an agreement be equal to
or less than the price of energy derived from fossil fuels?
Mr. Arny. The Defense Acquisition Regulations (DAR) Council
recently opened a case to consider amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to set forth language
authorizing the utilization of the authority provided under section 828
of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008. Upon promulgation of such DFARS
language, in accordance with the statute, DOD would give due
consideration to the cost effectiveness of utilizing a multi-year
contract in excess of 5 years in lieu of a contract or multi-year
contract of 5 years or less. Such business case determinations would
necessarily be made on a case-by-case basis.
4. Senator Akaka. Mr. Arny, if a DOD Directive or Instruction has
been approved, please include the text of such directive or instruction
in your response. If guidance is under development, please describe the
current status and parameters of that guidance.
Mr. Arny. The case opened by the DAR Council has not yet resulted
in any written documentation to include a directive or instruction.
home station training lanes
5. Senator Akaka. Mr. Arny, DOD requested $269 million in
supplemental funding for fiscal year 2008 for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization to construct home station training
lanes at installations across the various military departments to
conduct training against improvised explosive devices. After these
funds were requested and appropriated, it was discovered that the scope
of activity for which much of these funds were requested meets the
definition of MILCON. However, these funds were not requested,
authorized, nor appropriated as MILCON funding. How does DOD plan to
work with Congress to realign these funds to the proper MILCON
accounts?
Mr. Arny. The Department can provide additional information or
briefings to assist in appropriately realigning these funds to the
proper MILCON accounts.
6. Senator Akaka. Mr. Arny, does DOD intend to submit a legislative
proposal before Congress acts on the balance of the fiscal year 2008
supplemental request?
Mr. Arny. No, the Department has no intention of submitting a
legislative proposal before Congress acts on the balance of the fiscal
year 2008 supplemental request.
air force firefighter personnel reductions
7. Senator Akaka. Secretary Anderson, as a result of a decision
known as Program Budget Decision 720 (PBD 720) made inside DOD in
developing the fiscal year 2008 budget, personnel reductions in excess
of 30,000 positions in Air Force support functions such as base
operations were required. The committee has received reports from
numerous installations that these reductions will impact Air Force
mission performance. Please provide the Air Force's assessment of the
impact of these PBD 720 reductions on the effectiveness and safety of
Air Force operations.
Mr. Anderson. We could not quantify any increased risk at our
installations or to our operations resulting from the reduction of
firefighters. Air Force fire and emergency services experts conducted
an extensive study of fire service capability beginning with the levels
of service required. The study was reviewed at intervening command
levels and approved by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force in Program
Action Directive 07-02.
During the study, we realized that our fire departments had more
capacity than required due primarily to the unrealistic scenarios used
as the basis for manpower. The scenarios included a catastrophic fire
that involved the largest assigned aircraft or the most complex
facility on the installation. Each of these scenarios required large
numbers of firefighters to manage. In reality, catastrophic fires have
rarely occurred on Air Force installations. Moreover, when such events
did occur, the fire was catastrophic before firefighters arrived and
regardless of the number of firefighters that responded, they could not
prevent the damage and save the aircraft or facility.
The study concluded that successful fire protection can only be
achieved with effective fire prevention programs rather than
maintaining large numbers of firefighters. Minimizing fire damage is
only possible when firefighters arrive while the fire is small enough
for direct attack and extinguishment. When firefighters arrive to find
a catastrophic fire, their tactics involve defensive operations to
prevent the fire from spreading.
We are confident the focus on fire prevention and early
intervention is in the best interest of the Air Force and constitutes
the best use of scarce resources.
8. Senator Akaka. Secretary Anderson, please provide a specific
assessment of the number of firefighting positions reduced as a result
of PBD 720, whether the Air Force has changed firefighting standards to
comply with those personnel reductions, and, if not, how the Air Force
is accomplishing the same mission with fewer people without changing
safety or manning standards.
Mr. Anderson. First of all, no standards were changed. Two primary
standards continue to exist: (1) the amount of agent available to
extinguish aircraft and structure fires; and (2) response time or time
allowed for firefighters to reach the emergency. The Air Force and DOD
do not prescribe a number of firefighters that must be available
continuously, but a minimum for initial response.
The reductions were carefully calculated to preserve manpower
needed to perform the key tasks required during emergency operations.
At many installations, more firefighters were being maintained
continuously when fewer firefighters could perform all the tasks to
manage the most probable fire event. Consequently, firefighters were
identified for reduction without compromising the levels of service for
any mission.
With the reduction of firefighters, we could not quantify any
increased risk. Nor could we identify any increased risk to the safety
of firefighters since provisions that ensure firefighter safety are
built into firefighting operational procedures, guidelines, and
improvements in fire prevention.
We are confident the reduction of capacity in our fire departments,
while unpopular, will not increase the risk to our people, property,
and missions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
housing privatization
9. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Anderson, unfortunately, I don't
believe that the Air Force is pursuing all the options that are
available to it as a service to resolve the housing privatization
problem affecting so many of our bases. Some options are:
Default on the deal and allow over 200 acres to revert
back to the Air Force.
Infuse cash into a new deal that would allow other
bases to get their projects completed and Patrick Air Force
Base (AFB) to receive the additional houses that it is owed.
Default and pay bondholders their subsequent interests
in the deal and then re-compete the project, allowing
completion.
If there is a way to resolve the housing privatization situation
for all the affected bases (Little Rock, Moody, Hanscom, and Patrick),
would you support that plan?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, the Air Force will support a four-base plan. In
fact, that is what the Air Force currently is doing through its
participation in the ongoing negotiation of a consensual workout among
the project owners, the bondholders, a prospective purchaser, and the
Air Force.
10. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Anderson, from meetings that
I've had with Air Force Secretary Wynne and Chief of Staff General
Moseley, it appears that the Air Force plan is to ``bundle'' the
properties at Patrick, Hanscom, Moody, and Little Rock AFBs and take
the equity from Patrick AFB property and those, yet unfinished, 400
housing units, and spread that equity to the other bases for completion
of their housing. I believe the Air Force is being fiscally
conservative by not putting any money upfront on this deal, as opposed
to the Army who puts upfront money to their privatization contracts.
For their purposes, the Air Force has only offered equity in property.
Isn't it true that the Air Force has bundled this project with Patrick,
Hanscom, Moody, and Little Rock AFBs in order to take the equity from
Patrick AFB, in land, and 400 unfinished housing units at Patrick AFB
to salvage this deal?
Mr. Anderson. There were many factors that contributed to the
decision to bundle the four bases into a single project than just the
potential financial contributions from Patrick AFB. The most
expeditious solution to restarting the projects was a consensual sale
of all projects to a single buyer. Buyer inputs clearly indicated a
four-base deal was more attractive, given the sizes of each of the
individual projects. Grouping enhances the long-term viability of the
projects that are part of a group by increasing the resources available
(across all the bases) to support the individual projects within the
group, as needed, over the 50-year terms of these transactions. Since
overhead and management costs are shared across the projects, each base
benefits from the sale to a single buyer.
11. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Anderson, in the case of an Air
Force default on this project, the Air Force would get back its 200
acres that were conveyed to American Eagle Communities. The Air Force
has not exercised all its rights, so that they could recover damages
they've already suffered. What other options, besides taking the
equity, are available?
Mr. Anderson. The additional rights that the Air Force may exercise
at all bases include: (a) enforcement, in court, of its right to
specific performance by the project owner of its obligations under the
Use Agreement and Lease of Property; (b) its right to take possession
of the project and operate it in accordance with the Use Agreement and
Lease of Property; and (c) its right to secure appointment of a
receiver to operate the project in accordance with the Use Agreement
and Lease of Property.
12. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Anderson, couldn't the Air Force
use its own funding to rescue these projects?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force does not have the authority to use
appropriated funds for purposes other than those for which such funds
are appropriated. The Air Force has not received any appropriations
that may be used to cure defaults by the American Eagle project owners
under their contracts with local contractors or their written
agreements with the Air Force.
13. Senator Bill Nelson. Secretary Anderson, has the Air Force
explored all options? If so, what are they? If not, why haven't you?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force has explored and is continuing to
explore all viable options for resolution of the problems at the
American Eagle projects. The options include consensual solutions,
bankruptcy, and litigation. All parties believe that a consensual
solution will result in the best outcome for everyone. Bankruptcy and
litigation will be more costly, are likely to take years, and offer no
certainty as to outcome.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
base realignment and closure
14. Senator Pryor. Secretary Eastin, in past rounds of Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC), local redevelopment authorities (LRAs)
were integral to disposal planning and BRAC implementation. I'm told
that LRAs are no longer operating as a member of the Army Conveyance
Teams and that all communication with LRAs is centralized and heavily
controlled through your office. One of the lessons learned from past
rounds of BRAC is that integrating the LRAs into the planning and
decisionmaking process creates buy-in, fosters creative solutions, and
accelerates transfers. Why is the Army apparently so reluctant to put
the communities on the team this time around?
Mr. Eastin. LRAs continue to play an integral role in the Army's
disposal planning and BRAC implementation. During the initial planning
phase, the Army immediately reached out to establish LRA relationships
in order to open a line of communication and buy-in with the
communities affected by BRAC recommendations. The LRAs are an integral
component in the Army Conveyance Teams, whose purpose is to coordinate
and expedite the processing of property transfer actions.
15. Senator Pryor. Secretary Eastin, is the Army reprogramming BRAC
environmental funds or will the dollars that were provided based on
Department requests for each site be available for remediation activity
at those sites?
Mr. Eastin. The Army plans to spend BRAC environmental funds
received in a manner consistent with justification materials submitted
to Congress in support of the President's budget request. The Army does
not currently plan to reprogram BRAC environmental funds.
16. Senator Pryor. Secretary Eastin, 10 U.S.C. 2665 calls for 40
percent of net forest products sales proceeds and forest land sales
proceeds that occur on Army property to be distributed to the local
county. Does this distribution apply to the sale of BRAC property, in
your judgment?
Mr. Eastin. When we sell forest products on land that is part of an
active installation, we are required to distribute the net proceeds to
local communities in accordance with the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2665.
When we dispose of surplus real property located at an installation
that has been closed or realigned, we do so under the General Services
Administration's authority under 40 U.S.C. 541, the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and in accordance with the 41
CFR 102, the Federal Management Regulation. BRAC law delegates this
authority to the Army for real property disposal at closed or realigned
installations. BRAC law also requires that proceeds received from the
lease, transfer, or disposal of any property at a closed or realigned
installation shall be deposited into the BRAC account. Standing timber
is considered real property, and in accordance with BRAC law, the Army
will deposit all proceeds from the sale of surplus standing timber into
the BRAC account. Once deposited into the BRAC account, these funds are
then used to clean up and maintain BRAC property prior to its transfer
for community reuse.
housing privatization
17. Senator Pryor. Secretary Anderson, in early January the Air
Force was fairly confident that a letter of intent for the renegotiated
sale of the housing privatization projects at Little Rock, Moody,
Hanscom, and Patrick AFBs would be signed by the current project's
bondholders, Shaw/Carabetta, the Air Force, and a new developer. Why
was this letter never signed? What were the issues that led to a
failure to reach a deal?
Mr. Anderson. The letter of intent was executed by a prospective
purchaser of all of the assets of the American Eagle projects and the
owners of the projects effective April 2, 2008.
18. Senator Pryor. Secretary Anderson, Senator Chambliss and I
introduced legislation earlier this year in an attempt to provide some
oversight on this problem. Have you read it? One to the issues we were
extremely concerned with was the fact that our local subcontractors and
suppliers involved in the project were left unpaid for $2.6 million
(Arkansas) and nearly $7 million (Georgia) worth of work and materials.
Does the Air Force plan to conduct town hall meetings to communicate
the nature of the project and current sale negotiations, contractual
agreements, and potential liabilities to local construction management
companies and subcontractors?
Mr. Anderson. Yes, I have read your proposed legislation. I
recently met with leaders in the communities where the American Eagle
projects are located and with subcontractors adversely impacted by
their business relationships with the American Eagle project owners. We
are continuing to monitor the payment of liens and claims to the
subcontractors on all these projects. We plan to conduct more town-hall
meetings with the residents and leadership of these installations and
local community leaders as we move forward with the consensual workout.
19. Senator Pryor. Secretary Anderson, Carabetta Developers, the
parent company for American Eagle Communities, has a 25-year record
that includes business failures, bankruptcy, and unpaid subcontractors.
What type of background checks does the Air Force complete before
awarding contracts to developers, and how was Carabetta's history
missed or disregarded?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force considers Federal exclusion lists,
Federal past-performance databases, Dun and Bradstreet Reports,
information provided by other government agencies, and information
provided by or at the request of offerors. Carabetta's bankruptcy and
problems with HUD were considered in the 2003 evaluations of the past
performance of the American Eagle offerors and were not disregarded. At
that time, Carabetta's Chapter 11 reorganization plan had been approved
by the bankruptcy court and HUD had resolved its problems and was doing
additional business with Carabetta. Another important factor in the
evaluation of the American Eagle offerors for the Hanscom, Little Rock,
and Patrick projects was the favorable performance record of Shaw
Infrastructure, Inc., which owns 50 percent of the American Eagle
projects at Hanscom and Little Rock and 30 percent of the American
Eagle project at Patrick.
20. Senator Pryor. Secretary Anderson, explain what a cure notice
does.
Mr. Anderson. A cure notice is sent by one of the parties to a
written agreement to another party to that agreement to notify the
second party of its default under the agreement. If the second party
fails to cure the default within the cure period stated in the
agreement and does not dispute the alleged default, then the party that
sent the cure notice may exercise its remedies under the agreement.
21. Senator Pryor. Secretary Anderson, how many cure notices were
presented to American Eagle Communities before the project defaulted?
Why?
Mr. Anderson. In August 2007, formal cure notices were sent to the
owners of the American Eagle projects to provide notice to each of them
(a) of defaults under the Air Force documents and (b) that the Air
Force intended to exercise its rights and remedies if the defaults were
not cured within the cure periods stated in such documents. Prior to
delivery of the formal cure notices, the parties had engaged in an
ongoing dialogue about the alleged defaults.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
relocation of marines to guam
22. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, I note in your prepared
testimony concerning the 2005 agreement to relocate 8,000 marines from
Okinawa to Guam that the United States and Government of Japan (GOJ)
``have negotiated a GOJ contribution of $6.09 billion of the estimated
$10.3 billion cost for infrastructure on Guam.'' I understand that, of
the $6.09 billion, $3.29 billion will be provided loans to special
purpose entities (SPE) who will provide housing and utilities for the
marines and their families. Am I correct that the GOJ will recoup their
investment by collecting rent for housing units and charging utility
fees to Marine Corps personnel?
Mr. Penn. It is the intention of the GOJ to recover their
investments of cash and financial instruments on the housing through
payments made by the U.S. Government to the SPE for housing via the
Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA). It is the intention of the GOJ to
recover their investment in utilities through payments made by the
facilities utilizing the services.
23. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, can you provide more details
about the funding plan for military housing?
Mr. Penn. The GOJ has committed to funding $2.1 billion of equity
investments and loans to a SPE that would construct, operate, and
maintain the military housing for the marines relocating from Okinawa.
In May 2007, the GOJ passed a Special Measures Law Concerning Smooth
Implementation of the Realignment of U.S. Forces in Japan and Related
SDF Forces, as well as a Supplementary Resolution that authorized JBIC
funding for the SPEs. We continue discussions with representatives of
the GOJ on additional implementing details, funding priorities, and
schedules.
24. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, does the Navy currently lease
houses for the marines on Okinawa or pay for utilities? If so, what are
the annual costs?
Mr. Penn. The Navy does not currently lease any houses for the
marines on Okinawa. The Air Force is the DOD ``Executive Agent'' for
family housing in Okinawa and supports the Marine Corps requirement
there through the provision of government quarters. Based on
information provided by the Air Force, the total fiscal year 2007
utility cost associated with the housing occupied by Marine families
was $14.9 million, of which $11.3 million was reimbursed by the GOJ.
25. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, if the Navy will pay rent, has
the Department determined what will be the additional impact to annual
Navy budgets from this agreement?
Mr. Penn. Impacts to Navy budgets from this agreement continue to
be assessed. Until final agreement implementation details are
determined, any additional impacts cannot be fully determined.
26. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, I am concerned that the Japanese
annual contributions under the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program
(JFIP) have steadily declined from a 2003 annual level of $800 million
to under $300 million in 2007. These burdensharing funds construct and
improve facilities supporting U.S. forces stationed in Japan. Will any
funds annually negotiated as part of the JFIP be used to satisfy the
GOJ commitment of $2.8 billion to fund construction for the Guam
relocation?
Mr. Penn. The JFIP is one element of Japan's total host nation
support (HNS) to U.S. forces. The JFIP and GOJ funding for global
posture realignment are separate and distinct categories of the GOJ
budget. Although there have been cuts in the JFIP budget in recent
years, there is at most an indirect relationship between JFIP cuts and
increased funding for posture realignment.
The JFIP is a voluntary GOJ HNS program that funds improvements to
facilities that U.S. Forces in Japan use. Cuts in the JFIP began in the
late 1990s, with annual JFIP spending declining from over $800 million
to approximately $250 million. These cuts have accelerated,
particularly in each of the past 3 years. As part of a fiscal restraint
policy, Japan has also cut its own annual defense spending in recent
years to approximately $41 billion or 0.95 percent of gross domestic
product.
Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the JFIP, the U.S.
Government raised concerns with the significant and continuing cuts in
JFIP during recently-concluded successful negotiations on a 3-year
extension of the separate Special Measures Agreement (SMA) covering
Japan's HNS for labor, utilities, and training relocation. The
administration secured a verbal GOJ commitment to maintain JFIP at
``sustainable levels,'' which we understand to be roughly equal to the
current annual amount of at least $250 million. Additionally, the
administration secured a GOJ commitment that, over the next 3 years,
the United States and GOJ would conduct a comprehensive review of HNS.
That review will evaluate JFIP, SMA, and other elements of HNS and
defense spending within the larger context of ensuring balanced
contributions to the alliance.
27. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, if the total construction cost
estimates rise over the next 5 years beyond the current estimate of
$10.3 billion, who will pay the additional costs?
Mr. Penn. The U.S. Government will pay any additional costs. Japan
contributions of $2.8 billion in direct payments and $3.29 billion of
equity investments and loans to SPEs are estimates in terms of U.S.
fiscal year 2008 dollars and represent the maximum contributions by the
GOJ. If cost savings are realized in the execution of the project, the
GOJ will share in those savings.
28. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, per the agreement, is the GOJ
contribution for direct cash capped at $2.8 billion?
Mr. Penn. Yes.
29. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, the DOD Inspector General (IG)
noted in a March 2007 report that the Marine Corps had failed to budget
for increased operation and maintenance costs on Guam, costs that are
currently paid by the GOJ on Okinawa. Has the Department budgeted for
these increase costs?
Mr. Penn. Tentatively, yes. In a 9 January 2007 response to the DOD
IG, the Marine Corps stated: ``. . . the Marine Corps received $2.5
billion in funding from Program Decision Memorandum IV to execute this
[relocation to Guam] initiative across the Program Objectives
Memorandum 2008 Future Defense Program.'' A portion of these funds were
allocated to operation and maintenance costs on Guam. Construction on
Guam is not expected to begin until fiscal year 2010. Future budget
cycles will refine operation and maintenance costs requirements
consistent with the completion of construction projects and relocation
of units from Okinawa to Guam.
30. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, is the Department aware of any
other operation and maintenance costs to be incurred by the relocation?
If so, can you elaborate?
Mr. Penn. No. However, impacts to Navy budgets from this agreement
continue to be assessed. Until final roadmap realignment details are
determined, any additional impacts cannot be fully assessed.
synthetic fuels
31. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, in your written testimony to
the House last week on the subject of synthetic fuels, you stated,
``The Air Force goal is to cost-effectively acquire 50 percent of our
continental United States (CONUS) aviation fuel via a synthetic fuel
blend utilizing domestic feedstocks and produced in the United States
by 2016, with the intent to require that the synthetic fuel purchases
be sourced from suppliers with manufacturing facilities that engage in
carbon dioxide capture and effective reuse.'' How will the Air Force
assess whether the requirement is met for suppliers' manufacturing
facilities to engage in carbon dioxide capture and effective re-use?
Mr. Anderson. After the Air Force completes testing and certifying
the 50/50 synthetic blend, solicitations for operational synthetic fuel
procurements will be arranged through the Defense Energy Support Center
(DESC). The Air Force Petroleum Agency, the Air Force's Service Control
Point to DESC for all fuel related issues, will identify an operational
fuel requirement that will include language to ensure the synthetic
fuel is greener (engaging in carbon capture and reuse) than petroleum
based fuel. DESC will then manage the procurement, ensuring the
contract language required to support the carbon dioxide capture and
effective reuse requirement is included in the solicitation, and
requiring that the manufacturers that bid on the contracts show that
they meet the requirements and standards.
32. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, if Congress were to extend
the existing multi-year procurement authority for electricity to
include synthetic fuels, what impact would that have on your goals?
Mr. Anderson. This could only help. A long-term contract would
reduce the risks and uncertainties that dissuade industry from getting
involved in the first place. With less risk, industry has a better
chance to grow, thus helping the Air Force execute its strategic goals.
33. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, in an article in the Federal
Times on Monday, March 10, 2008, a special assistant working for you,
Paul Bollinger, said in reference to a standard of manufacturing
synthetic fuels, ``Industry experts producing this fuel say they can
meet the standards, but there is not standard. Until we get a standard,
we can't buy the fuel.'' Can you describe how the lack of a standard
affects the Air Force's synthetic fuel acquisition goals?
Mr. Anderson. Section 526 prohibits the Federal Government from
purchasing unconventional and alternative fuels for commercial purposes
that do not have green house gas (GHG) emissions on a life-cycle
analysis (LCA) basis that are equal to or less than petroleum. At this
time there are no standards that would quantify the GHG LCA emissions
for petroleum or unconventional/alternative fuels. The standard and
models used for the establishment of the standards are currently being
discussed by EPA with the InterAgency Working Group on Alternative
Fuels (which represents all Federal departments and agencies involved
in alternative fuels).
Mr. Bollinger's statement in Federal Times was in reference to
plants that will be producing domestic, alternative fuels in the near
future. If the GHG LCA emission standards are not developed by the time
these plants start producing alternative fuel, the Federal Government
would be prohibited from buying this new source of domestic,
alternative fuel due to section 526 of the 2007 Energy Independence and
Security Act. A consistent and fair baseline, and analytical framework,
needs to be established in a transparent fashion that meets the spirit
of the law without impeding the development of the alternative fuels in
order to help wean America off its dependence on foreign oil.
34. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, can you please describe the
Army's goals and policies regarding the uses of synthetic fuels?
Mr. Eastin. The use of synthetic fuels is specifically cited in the
U.S. Army Energy and Water Campaign Plan for Installations and
discusses reduction of fossil fuel usage in non-tactical vehicles. This
policy references synthetic fuels (including coal-derived liquid fuels)
as a fuel recognized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as an alternative
fuel used to reduce government consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
Research and testing of synthetic fuels for tactical vehicle use
has been conducted by the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research,
Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), primarily by their Fuels
and Lubricants Laboratory. TARDEC conducts research and testing of
alternative fuels to assess their potential for use in tactical
vehicles and related fuel storage, distribution, and handling
equipment. TARDEC has evaluated test fuel samples of synthetic fuel,
including samples provided from a demonstration facility in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, that was operated by Syntroleum Corporation to produce test
fuel samples for research and testing purposes.
At the present time, synthetic fuels are considered a subject of
research and testing only and are not currently used to meet the fuel
needs of tactical or non-tactical vehicles.
35. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, can you please describe the
Navy's goals and policies regarding the uses of synthetic fuels?
Mr. Penn. The Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Vehicle Alternate
Fuels strategy is to allow market forces to determine commercially
viable and environmentally compliant alternate fuels candidates. Navy
and Marine Corps will focus their efforts and funding on the
development and validation of Navy-specific evaluation and
certification protocols necessary to allow alternate fuels use in
tactical vehicles (ship, aviation and ground tactical vehicles) when
they become available. Naval Fuels and Lubricants Cross Functional Team
will lead the protocol development for Navy tactical vehicles by 2011
and protocol validation and certification of the most promising
synthetic fuel candidate(s) for potential use in Navy tactical vehicles
by 2013. Environmental issues (i.e., impact on greenhouse gas emissions
and land utilization), have emerged as a significant concern; section
526 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act legislation limits
the U.S. Government to only purchasing alternate fuels if their
greenhouse gas emissions are less than the standard for petroleum
(except for test and evaluation purposes). Collaborative efforts are
ongoing with the DOE and EPA to define these standards and
methodologies for calculating greenhouse gas burdens. Limited effort on
protocol development has been initiated using available funding.
Funding to complete protocol development, validation, and testing will
be considered in future budgets; this effort is in compliance with the
current legislation.
reduced funds for base realignment and closure activities
36. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, in the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus
Appropriations Bill passed late last year, Congress cut $939 million
from the 2005 BRAC account to pay for other projects. In your written
testimony, you state: ``Delays in funding and the $939 million
reduction present severe execution challenges and seriously jeopardize
our ability to meet the statutory September 15, 2011, deadline.''
Statements like this are causing much concern in communities around the
country trying to recover from closures as well as planning schools,
roads, and infrastructure for significant increases in military
populations. Assuming full funding is restored in the second fiscal
year 2008 emergency supplemental, which Congress will consider in
April, is the Department currently on track to meet the 2011 deadline
for all closures and realignments?
Mr. Arny. Assuming full funding is restored in the second fiscal
year 2008 emergency supplemental, the Department is still tracking to
complete the Base Realignment and Closure 2005 process by September 15,
2011.
37. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, which closure and realignment actions
will be affected by a reduction in funds?
Mr. Arny. The Department will experience disruptive delays in
constructing much needed facilities unless Congress restores the full
funding requested in the fiscal year 2008 President's budget in a
timely manner so programmed actions can be executed in accordance with
the planned schedule. MILCON and quality of life initiatives constitute
large, crucial portions of a carefully synchronized plan. Without full
funding, the Department's BRAC program will result in higher costs as
projects are deferred.
The Department allocated the $939 million cut against the Military
Department's BRAC programs as follows: Army $560 million, Navy $143
million, and Air Force $235 million.
The Army's $560 million decrement in BRAC funding, absorbed
completely by construction, places the Army at a very high risk for
meeting every aspect of the BRAC law. It would have three major
consequences: (1) Delay the facilities for the equivalent of one Grow
the Army (GTA) Brigade Combat Team (BCT) or 4,000 soldiers; (2)
Eliminate unit ``beddown,'' operational, and quality of life facilities
in support of the Army Modular Force, Global Defense Posture
Realignment (GDPR), and CS/CSS for GTA; (3) Impact Army Force
Generation in support of global war on terrorism (increasing BCT
``Boots on the Ground'' time for deployed soldiers, and decreasing
dwell time for soldiers at home station).
The Department of Navy absorbed $97 million (68 percent) of its
$143 million reduction in the BRAC construction program. The remaining
$46 million reduction was absorbed in the Operation and Maintenance
category. Until the funds are restored, the Navy will have to delay
starting construction for facilities to accommodate the collocation of
DOD's investigative agencies at Quantico, VA, and a smaller cargo
handling facility in Fort Lewis, WA.
The Air Force absorbed $129 million (55 percent) of its $235
million reduction in the BRAC construction program. The remaining $106
million reduction was absorbed in the Operations and Maintenance
category. The unfunded construction projects are comprised of 20
projects that would impact ``beddown'' of missions at Kulis Air Guard
Station (AGS), AK; Moody AFB, GA; MacDill AFB, FL; Davis Monthan AFB,
AZ; F.E. Warren AFB, WY; Great Falls IAP AGS, MT; Hill AFB, UT; and
Rome Research Lab, NY; would impact establishing the initial Joint
Strike Fighter training site at Eglin AFB, FL; and would impact quality
of life projects at Shaw AFB, SC, which supports Army members and
families arriving from the closure of Fort McPherson, GA.
cost growth control for base closure and realignments
38. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, the cost to carry out the decisions of
the 2005 BRAC round have risen 48 percent since 2006, from $22.5
billion to $33.2 billion. At the same time, this committee is aware of
numerous MILCON projects related to BRAC that are being scaled back to
keep the costs from rising even further. Organizations that are being
moved under BRAC may end up in new facilities that do not fully meet
their requirements. This unfortunate trade-off affects both readiness
and mission effectiveness. Can I get your assurance that each BRAC
construction project is and will be awarded at their full scope as
provided for in their approved business plans?
Mr. Arny. I am not aware of facilities that do not fully meet
mission requirements. Every project validated as a BRAC requirement has
already been or will be funded through BRAC.
DOD reviews each recommended 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 Office of Secretary of Defense's Office of General
Counsel is 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.
39. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, what is DOD doing to ensure that
organizations do not end up with less than what they had before BRAC?
Mr. Arny. DOD reviews each recommended 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 Office of Secretary of Defense Office of General
Counsel is 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.
40. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, what is DOD doing to ensure the
quality of construction, such as the designed life of a building, is
not reduced in order to keep costs lower?
Mr. Arny. DOD's design and construction agents have not reduced
facility design life parameters in order to reduce costs. For example,
the Army has preserved a design life of 50 years for life cycle cost
analysis and they value engineering considerations during the facility
design process. Construction budgets for projects in the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2009 reflect performance standards and
requirements of DOD Unified Facility Criteria, the Energy Policy Act of
2005, and Executive Order 13423 (which addresses facility
sustainability). DOD is committed to leverage industry strengths and
best practices to ensure the delivery of sustainably-designed and
constructed facilities that will perform efficiently over a complete
expected service life.
housing privatization for the air force
41. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, concerning the Air Force
housing privatization program, I realize the Air Force has a problem
with one developer, who has stopped work at four AFBs. While working
through these problems, what lessons has the Air Force learned that
will be applied to future housing privatization endeavors?
Mr. Anderson. Lessons learned from problems with the American Eagle
projects have led to improvements in the Air Force housing
privatization program. Among the changes we have made is the
centralization of the Air Force source-selection process for housing
privatization projects with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Installations). Additionally, Air Force oversight of
construction during the initial development of privatization projects
is now centralized at the Air Force Center for Engineering and the
Environment.
42. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, what would the impact be to the DOD
housing privatization program if Congress mandated an increase in
government control and a Federal guarantee of private sector loans in
the transactions?
Mr. Arny. Additional government control over military housing
privatization projects would be undesirable, unnecessary, and contrary
to the very nature of privatization. Military housing privatization
initiative (MHPI) projects are structured as private sector
transactions to facilitate private sector financing and to reduce the
amount of appropriated funding required for budget scoring. Legislation
prescribing requirements and procedures that substantially conflict
with how privately financed housing projects are executed could
undermine private sector financing and execution of MHPI projects, as
well as substantially increase the government contribution required to
support MHPI projects. Any such legislation could return the military
Services to a reliance on MILCON funding for new housing construction
to meet requirements generated by force restructuring requirements.
Specifically, legislation to require a Federal guarantee of private
loan funds in transactions involving privatized military housing would
likely result in total project funding being scored for budgetary
purposes, because the Department would be required to obligate funds
equal to the full amount of the loan at the time the guarantee is made.
Legislation increasing government control is unnecessary. The
Department has an effective oversight program for housing privatization
project performance, to include detailed upward reporting by the
military departments. In addition, Congress currently monitors housing
privatization program performance based on the Department's submission
of a program evaluation plan (PEP). DOD is willing to work with
Congress to further enhance DOD's monitoring efforts for earliest
identification of project issues.
military construction for missile defense requirements
43. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, the fiscal year 2009 budget request
includes MILCON authorization of $661 million to construct a Ballistic
Missile Defense (BMD) interceptor site in Poland and $176.2 million to
construct a BMD midcourse radar site in the Czech Republic. The U.S.
Government is currently negotiating a memorandum of agreement with each
host nation for siting and support. What is the current status of these
negotiations?
Mr. Arny. Host nation agreements are expected no later than the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2008 to support award and execution of
fiscal year 2009 MILCON projects.
44. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, when are the agreements planned to be
completed and signed?
Mr. Arny. Agreements are expected to be completed no later than the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2008.
45. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) plans
to use the Boeing Company, the prime contractor for delivery of the
missiles, to also solicit and award contracts for the construction of
the interceptor site through a series of task orders. This is a highly
unusual arrangement as the DOD usually relies on the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to carry out major construction efforts. It
also raises a whole host of questions about proper stewardship for
taxpayer funds. What are the pros and cons of using hardware
contractors to act on the Government's behalf to solicit and manage
MILCON activities?
Mr. Arny. DOD does not see clear advantages to using only hardware
vendors to manage MILCON activities, and does not plan to execute
MILCON in support of the Europe interceptor site and radar site without
the involvement of the USACE. However, the nature of this complex
project presents a compelling need for a close working relationship
between the hardware vendor and the MILCON agent to achieve the project
milestones. USACE and MDA are in the process of developing an
acquisition strategy intended to accomplish that goal that my office
will review and approve.
46. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, does DOD have any directives or
guidance for the use of a contractor in lieu of the USACE for this type
of activity?
Mr. Arny. Consistent with 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2851, DOD policy
prescribes geographically-assigned construction agents for MILCON
activities outside of the United States. For the missile defense sites
in Europe, the Department of the Army is the designated DOD
construction agent.
47. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, how will DOD ensure that the Federal
Government receives a quality product?
Mr. Arny. DOD plans to use a partnership between the MDA and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to exercise contractual control
over Boeing and other construction contractors to be determined. While
specific partnering arrangements are still being developed, DOD
anticipates each organization will leverage its unique expertise and
responsibilities to provide the required level of quality and
performance.
48. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, do you see this type of contract as a
precedent for future construction efforts in support of the beddown of
major weapon systems?
Mr. Arny. The contractual arrangements resulting from the
partnership between the MDA and the USACE are a function of the
characteristics of the missile defense program: fast-track, evolving
technology, and highly infrastructure-dependent. These arrangements
could well serve as a template for future programs that share similar
characteristics, but not necessarily for all major weapons systems.
49. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, the fiscal year 2009 budget request
for construction of the interceptor site and radar is not accompanied
by a request to construct any installation facilities such as barracks,
dining facilities, emergency response stations, and other base support
facilities which are absolutely essential to the operation of these
sites. Should DOD be building these facilities concurrently with the
construction of the operational sites?
Mr. Arny. The Services are reviewing requirements for non-mission
support facilities and plan to include projects in the Future Years
Defense Program after the facility requirements have been determined.
50. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, what is the investment and
construction plan for these support facilities and infrastructure?
Mr. Arny. The investment and construction plan for these support
facilities and infrastructure will be developed after the facility
requirements are determined.
costs for milcon to support growth in the army and the marine corps
51. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, in January 2007, the President
announced plans to grow the Army by 74,000 and the Marine Corps by
27,000 over the next 5 years. On December 19, 2007, the Army announced
basing decisions for six brigade combat teams that form the majority of
the new combat forces. To support this initiative, the Army is
requesting $4.2 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone for new barracks,
company operations facilities, and community support building. Does the
Army have an estimate of the total MILCON and family housing costs to
support the growth of the Army?
Mr. Eastin. The current estimated cost for facilities which support
Army growth is $11.2 billion, from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year
2013. This includes MILCON, Army; MILCON, Army Reserve; MILCON,
National Guard; and Army Family Housing dollars to directly fund
facility projects. It also includes Other Procurement, Army and
Operation and Maintenance funds for furniture, information technology,
and other requirements which support MILCON projects. The total also
encompasses three medical projects which were programmed by the Army
and transferred to the TRICARE Management Agency for execution. As
future budget submissions are developed using refined budget estimates
based on more fully developed project designs, costs may fluctuate.
This cost estimate represents all known Grow the Army requirements for
the Active and Reserve components at this time.
52. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, can you provide by fiscal year
an estimate of the amount to be invested?
Mr. Eastin. Congress has provided a total of $2.8 billion to date
to meet facility requirements supporting Army growth, including $402
million in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental budget and $2.4 billion in
the fiscal year 2008 base budget. The Army requested $4.2 billion for
fiscal year 2009. It currently projects requirements of $2.4 billion
for fiscal year 2010, $456 million for fiscal year 2011, $289 million
for fiscal year 2012, and $124 million for fiscal year 2013. These
figures include only the MILCON appropriations; the Other Procurement,
Army and Operation and Maintenance funding requirements for fiscal year
2009 through 2013 total $923 million. The Army is currently reviewing
all requirements during the fiscal year 2010 through 2015 programming
process.
53. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, will the funding plan allow
the Army to ensure permanent facilities are in place for the additional
forces?
Mr. Eastin. The Army's fiscal year 2009 MILCON budget request and
fiscal year 2010 through 2013 MILCON program have been carefully
synchronized to deliver facilities on a timeline which supports the
effective dates for activation of six growth Brigade Combat Teams,
Combat Support units, and Combat Service Support units across all Army
components. The construction program includes permanent operational
facilities, barracks and dining facilities, training ranges, medical
facilities, child development centers, Army family housing, and other
quality of life facilities. It also includes infrastructure projects,
such as roadways and utility lines, to support the increased number of
soldiers on installations, training base projects to enable the Army to
instruct additional soldiers, and industrial base projects to increase
the Army's depot-level maintenance capacity. Successful implementation
of Army growth will require full and timely MILCON funding.
54. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, within the plan to grow the
Army, is the Army planning to enlarge or expand training ranges? If so,
how much funding is planned for this requirement?
Mr. Eastin. As the Army has reported to Congress in the annual 366
report and in previous testimony, the Army operates at an overall
training land deficit (2 million acres in CONUS; the shortfall will
more than double by 2011). The Army is always working to mitigate this
shortfall through a variety of means. However, all of these mitigation
measures, including training on other federally owned lands, cannot
eliminate the training land deficit. Therefore, one of the options that
must remain available to the Army is the acquisition of land where it
is feasible and fiscally prudent.
Of the Army IBCT-growth locations; Fort Bliss, Fort Carson, Fort
Stewart, and White Sands Missile Range, the Army is only reviewing a
possible land acquisition at a sub-installation of Fort Carson called
the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS). This potential acquisition was
proposed before the Army growth plan was developed. The Army's interest
in land acquisition at PCMS is based on a long-term review of all Army
land assets. The decision to station a growth IBCT at Fort Carson was
based on many factors and the Fort Carson growth is not the basis for
the Army's interest in buying land at PCMS.
Fort Carson and PCMS, like most other Army installations, do not
have sufficient training lands according to the requirements
established by Army Doctrine. The additional IBCT at Fort Carson will
increase that deficit. Without buying land at PCMS, the Army will have
to adapt from doctrinal standards, which address multiple contingencies
that our forces may face both now and in the future. There will be
costs and implications associated with working around the doctrinal
standards.
In terms of expanding Army firing ranges within the current
boundaries of PCMS to accommodate Army transformation and growth, the
Army has identified a requirement to construct several ranges and
support facilities. These facilities would require approximately 30
full time positions that would benefit the local community around PCMS.
It is important to reiterate that any land purchases at PCMS will
use MILCON appropriations and would have to be specifically approved by
Congress. The current estimate is that the Army would request about $52
million to purchase approximately 130,000 acres.
55. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, the Marine Corps will grow their
force by 27,000 in the next 5 years. Your statement for this hearing
describes a $1.3 billion budget request for barracks to support growth
in the force, but in reality, the funds will be used to address
existing deficits in dormitory space and ancillary facilities required
for the bases' force of 185,000 marines. The construction investment
for the additional marines starts in fiscal year 2010. Your testimony
states, ``because marines will begin to arrive before construction at
many locations is complete, the Marine Corps is planning to lease or
purchase temporary support facilities.'' Does the Navy have an estimate
of the total MILCON and family housing costs to support the growth of
the Marine Corps?
Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps' 2+0 Barracks Initiative was originally
programmed to eliminate space deficiencies in support of our fiscal
year 2008 baseline end strength. While it is true that some of our $1.3
billion in barracks funding in our fiscal year 2009 budget was
partially programmed to support this baseline end strength, it is
nevertheless a critical enabler to our ability to expeditiously
eliminate all of our total force space deficiencies, including those
associated with an end strength of 202,000. As stated in our Grow the
Force Initiative report to Congress in October 2007, our total MILCON,
family housing, and temporary facility estimate is still currently $7.1
billion.
56. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, can you provide an estimate of
the amount to be invested by fiscal year?
Mr. Penn. Please refer to the table pasted below. Funding
requirements beyond fiscal year 2009 may change due to programming or
pricing adjustments.
The Grow the Force MILCON and family housing investment by fiscal
year included in the President's budget fiscal year 2009 Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP) is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
-------------------------------------------------------- Total Fiscal
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Years 2007-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCON................................. 324 540 1,300 1,887 1,346 939 0 6,336
Family Housing....................... 0 87 126 84 127 148 0 571
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 324 627 1,425 1,971 1,472 1,087 0 6,907
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, does the funding plan include
replacing temporary facilities with permanent ones?
Mr. Penn. Yes, the Marine Corps intends to replace all temporary
facilities with permanent facilities.
58. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, how long will marines live and
work in trailers and temporary facilities?
Mr. Penn. Due to the long lead time for permanent facilities, units
may be in temporary facility solutions for 2-4 years after unit
standup. Temporary facility solutions include: doubling up in existing
facilities, slowing planned building demolition for use in the short
term, and relocatable facilities (trailers, sprung shelters, and pre-
engineered buildings).
59. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, within the plan, is the Marine
Corps planning to enlarge or expand training ranges? If so, how much
funding is planned for this requirement?
Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps will continue to modernize our existing
ranges in order to provide the most efficient and effective training
environment for our marines. Many of these modernization efforts pre-
date the Grow the Force initiative.
Currently, we are studying the requirement to expand MCAGCC
Twentynine Palms in order to advance warfighting skills at the Marine
Air Ground Task Force level by allowing training of three battalions of
marines simultaneously. An environmental review of this proposed
action, and any attendant training airspace requirements to support it,
will be undertaken as required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The President's fiscal year 2009 FYDP includes a total of $39.9
million in fiscal years 2012/2013 for this acquisition. This estimate
will be refined once the study and environmental analysis is completed.
enhanced use leases
60. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, enhanced use leases in the DOD have
proliferated in the past 3 years as the military Services learn to
market under-utilized Federal property to the private sector for
commercial use in exchange for ground lease proceeds and/or in-kind
consideration. While Congress originally intended this authority to be
an innovative way to generate funds for chronically depleted facility
repairs accounts, like many authorities, it has had unintended
consequences. Many local communities have raised concerns that local
developers prefer the use of Federal land as a way to avoid State and
local taxes. Private land owners are at a disadvantage competing
against the Federal Government for development. Also, local communities
have little or no control over development and are saddled with
increased costs for traffic, schools, and infrastructure with no
accompanying increase in local tax revenue. How can the DOD work with
local communities to compensate for impacts to local conditions arising
from enhanced use lease transactions?
Mr. Arny. DOD will continue to ensure that the military departments
fully coordinate with local and State governments regarding potential
enhanced use leases (EULs) under section 2667 of title 10, U.S.C., to
ensure that potential projects comply with zoning for adjacent parcels
and are generally supported by the local government. However, in all
cases, compensation for any impacts to local conditions arising from
EUL transactions is the sole responsibility of the lessee, to include
resultant property taxes or impact fees.
Property taxes and impact fees assessed to EULs depend upon State
and local tax authorities and the nature of the development. The
military departments will continue to advise potential lessees that in
the absence of clear written direction from State and local tax
authorities that property taxes are not applicable, or are reduced, the
lessee should assume that property taxes will be assessed on the
project and include such costs in their financial projections.
61. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, certain States are considering
legislation that would tax any improvements made to Federal land, which
are subsequently occupied by non-Federal tenants. What would be the
impact of this type of legislation on the Department's enhanced use
leasing program?
Mr. Arny. Legislation that would tax improvements made to Federal
land, which are subsequently occupied by non-Federal tenants, would
likely lower the fair market value of the property and reduce the
potential lease consideration (ground rent) paid to the military
departments.
Section 2667(e) of title 10, U.S.C., specifies that State or local
governments may tax the lessee's interest in the property leased to it.
It further provides that any leases under 2667 include a provision that
if and to the extent that the leased property is later made taxable by
State or local governments under an Act of Congress, the lease shall be
renegotiated. In all cases, the tax consequences of the enhanced use
lease development are the sole responsibility of the lessee. When
entering into enhanced use leases, DOD advises the lessee that in the
absence of clear written direction from State and local tax authorities
that property taxes are not applicable, or are reduced, the lessee
should assume that property taxes will be assessed on the project and
include such costs in its financial projections. These lessees can seek
agreement from the local authorities to limit their fees to the actual
services provided by the State or locality.
military family housing in korea
62. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, in a Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing on March 11, 2008, General Bell, Commander of U.S.
Forces in Korea, testified about the construction of military housing
in Korea that ``Right now we are dead in the water.'' I note that, in
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2009, $125 million is
requested for the construction 216 units in the first phase of family
housing in Korea. What is the total number of units currently planned
to be constructed and the estimated total cost for the housing?
Mr. Eastin. Including the fiscal year 2009 request, the total
number of units planned for construction is 2,376. The total estimated
cost of construction using Army Family Housing Construction funds is
$1.3 billion.
63. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, are these costs currently
included in the Department's future budgets?
Mr. Eastin. No. These costs are under consideration for funding and
will compete against other Army priorities.
64. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, in addition to MILCON plans, I
believe the Army conducted an industry forum in Seoul, Korea, on
February 26, 2008, to assess the interest of the private sector in
entering into partnership with the Army to construct military housing.
Does the Army have any plans to pursue a request for proposals from the
private sector for construction of family housing? If so, what is the
timeline for these actions?
Mr. Eastin. The purpose of the February 26 industry forum was to
gauge private sector interest to provide family housing for U.S. Forces
in Korea. Over 500 participants representing 200 development,
construction, property management, and financial institutions were in
attendance. The event confirmed there is sufficient interest to proceed
with a Request for Qualification and Request for Proposal. The
feasibility report from the forum will be published on or about April
30. The report will provide a basis to draft the Request for
Qualification, which will be released in the summer of 2008. We
anticipate a final selection by the end of 2008.
65. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, if the Department successfully
negotiates for the construction of housing with funds provided by the
private sector, will the funds currently planned for MILCON be needed?
Mr. Eastin. Yes. The Army believes that the housing will comprise
of a mix of Army constructed housing and private sector funded housing.
It is not known at this time how many units can be provided by the
proposed Humphreys Housing Initiative, and the Army will continue to
plan for Army Family Housing Construction to provide the balance of the
housing requirement at Camp Humphreys.
electrical infrastructure at fort meade, md, for the national security
agency
66. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, about a year ago, the National
Security Agency (NSA) reported that, due to a lack of adequate
electrical distribution infrastructure, it expected its power demands
to exceed its supply within 2 years. The Baltimore Sun reported on
January 31, 2007, that ``The National Security Agency's impending
electricity shortfall is ``sort of a national catastrophe,'' Sen. John
D. Rockefeller IV, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
said yesterday.'' What are the Department's actions and future plans to
correct this problem?
Mr. Arny. The NSA brought on additional data center capacity during
fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008, and has managed and
redistributed its power on its footprint using funds appropriated in
those years. NSA's Power, Space, and Cooling (PSC) plan was briefed to
all committees. NSA's phased approach to addressing the power issue is
funded and on track.
67. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, in a briefing my staff received from
the NSA last week, it was revealed that a project is planned for fiscal
year 2010 to replace a critical electrical substation supplying power
to NSA at a cost of $184 million. Since this project is of vital
importance to national security, why didn't DOD ask for authorization
to construct this project in the budget request for fiscal year 2009?
Mr. Arny. The NSA's PSC plan implements a systems engineered
solution. Funds are sequenced in accordance with our immediate need for
capacity and integrated with upgrades to the distribution system so
power can be delivered to the point of need in order to maximize the
return on investment. The substation is key to the final solution and
is appropriately sequenced in fiscal year 2010 based on dependencies,
construction realities, and the systems-engineered solution.
recapitalization master plans for ammunition plants and arsenals
68. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, the Army's inventory of
arsenals and ammunition plants across the country are absolutely
essential to the readiness of the Army's combat forces. In many cases,
one arsenal is the sole supplier to the Army for essential materials
like gunpowder, artillery shells, and certain types of ammunition. Any
type of accident or failure at one of these plants represents a single
point of failure and would be catastrophic not only for the personnel
working at the plant, but for the entire Army. Many of these plants are
currently operated by a contractor who has the task of maintaining some
of the most deteriorated facilities and ancient equipment in the Army.
Does the Army currently have a plan and investment strategy for each
arsenal or ammunition plant to recapitalize the facilities and
modernize the equipment? If so, are these plans funded in the budget
request for fiscal year 2009?
Mr. Eastin. Yes and yes. The U.S. Army's government-owned
ammunition industrial base is critical for meeting the current and
future needs of the Joint Warfighter. To ensure its readiness, the Army
is addressing the critical needs of the ammunition industrial base to
sustain operations, modernize capabilities, and mitigate supply chain
disruption risks. The Army has a plan for each arsenal and ammunition
plant.
The Army's investment to modernize the ammunition plants and
arsenal are reflected in the fiscal year 2009 President's budget
submission under Procurement of Ammunition, Army Production Base
Support; Army Working Capital Fund Capital Investment Program; and
MILCON, Army. The Army's priorities for the ammunition industrial base
are focused on recapitalization of legacy systems to comply with ever-
increasing environmental requirements; replacement of aging and beyond-
useful life production capabilities and infrastructure; mitigation of
critical single points of failure; and modernization of key electrical
systems, production control, and computer systems. Accordingly,
significant investments are being made to address the immediate needs
at Radford Army Ammunition Plant (AAP), Holston AAP, and Lake City AAP
for propellants, explosives, and small caliber ammunition,
respectively, and the near-term needs at the other remaining
government-owned production facilities.
For fiscal year 2009, the Army's Ammunition Plant and Arsenal
recapitalization budget request is reflected in three accounts: (1)
Procurement of Ammunition, Army Production Base Support ($187.4 million
in fiscal year 2009), (2) Army Working Capital Fund Capital Investment
Program ($22.3 million combined in fiscal year 2009). An extended
summary of fiscal year 2005-2008 investments and planned investments
for 2009 is available upon request.
69. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, are the MILCON projects contained in
these plans incorporated into the Army FYDP? If not, why?
Mr. Arny. The Army funds MILCON differently at ammunition plants
and arsenals.
Ammunition plants, which are contractor operated, are funded from
Procurement Army (PA) appropriations. The contractor identifies
construction projects that are vetted through the Army staff. Projects
are submitted in two categories, critical and other (essential). The
critical projects have been successfully programmed in the FYDP. The
Army continues to champion future funding for the rest of the
construction requirements.
Arsenals compete with the rest of the Army for MILCON Army (MCA)
funding. In the near-term (fiscal years 2010-2013) MCA funding is
scarce, as the Army funded multiple BRAC construction requirements.
Arsenals typically review their supporting infrastructure on an annual
basis and will have many more projects identified for possible funding
then will end up programmed in the FYDP.
70. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, would an investment in the
recapitalization of the plants and modernization of the equipment lead
to efficiencies that can be recouped from the contractors operating
these plants, to include additional marketing advantages under
authorities provided by Congress in the Arsenal Support Program
Initiative (ASPI)?
Mr. Arny. From the perspective of AAPs, when the ASPI funds go to
the 10 government-owned, contractor-operated AAPs the investments in
the recapitalization of the plants and modernization of the equipment
lead to efficiencies that can be recouped from the contractors
operating these plants. The useful life of the investment must consider
contract terms and equitable adjustments. However, many of the current
investments are to avoid supply disruptions or catastrophic failures,
with no expected increase in efficiencies.
To address the question from the arsenal perspective, authorities
provided by Congress in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) pertaining to the ASPI only apply to manufacturing arsenals
(Watervliet, Rock Island, and Pine Bluff). There are efficiencies
gained with investments in equipment and facilities at the
manufacturing arsenals. Investments that are based on both process
improvements and efficiencies (savings) are economically justified. As
the manufacturing arsenals become more efficient, they become more
attractive to potential partners and to industry. ASPI is in place to
provide a vehicle to take advantage of these opportunities including
marketing of these improvements and efficiencies.
unexploded ordnance clean-up
71. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, section 313 of the John Warner NDAA
for Fiscal Year 2007 required a comprehensive plan for clean-up of
unexploded ordnance (UXO) at the Department's active bases, formerly-
used defense sites (FUDS), and facilities closed by BRAC to be
submitted to Congress by March 1, 2007, with annual updates by March
15, 2008, 2009, and 2010. What is the status of the annual report that
is due to Congress on March 15?
Mr. Arny. The initial section 313 report for the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2007 was provided as a ``stand alone'' report to Congress on March
16, 2007. The first required update was signed on March 19, 2008, and
received by Congress on March 21, 2008, as Appendix M of the Defense
Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report to Congress.
72. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, have the preliminary assessments been
completed at all active installations and FUDS properties consistent
with section 313's requirement to accomplish that task by the end of
fiscal year 2007?
Mr. Arny. No. However, DOD completed 96 percent of the preliminary
assessments at active installations by September 30, 2007. DOD
completed 99 percent of the preliminary assessments at FUDS properties
by September 30, 2007. We expect to complete the assessments on active
installations by December 31, 2009, and on FUDS installations by
September 30, 2013.
73. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, last year's DOD report indicated that
DOD would complete site inspections at 78 percent of active
installations and 71 percent of FUDS properties by 2010, falling short
of the requirement set by section 313 that those site inspections be
completed by the end of fiscal year 2010. What is the projection now?
Mr. Arny. For active installations, the DOD projects to have 98
percent of all site inspections complete by September 30, 2010. This
far exceeds last year's prediction of 78 percent. For FUDS properties,
the Department projects to have over 70 percent of all site inspections
complete by September 30, 2010. This is consistent with last year's
prediction.
74. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, to address UXO clean-up at bases and
installations closed by BRAC before the 2005 round, section 313
required that DOD achieve a remedy in place or response complete for
clean-up actions for UXO and related constituents on property closed by
the first four rounds of BRAC by the end of fiscal year 2009. That
means the fiscal year 2009 President's budget request must be
sufficient to complete UXO clean-up for BRAC rounds I-IV in this budget
cycle. Last year's DOD report did not provide an estimated date for the
completion of these actions. Will DOD achieve a remedy in place or
response complete for UXO clean-up at installations and bases closed
prior to the 2005 round of BRAC by the end of fiscal year 2009 as
required by section 313?
Mr. Arny. No. However, the Department currently has a remedy-in-
place or response-complete (RIP/RC) for 63 percent of all military
installations closed or realigned as part of a round of defense base
closure and realignment occurring prior to the 2005 round. The
Department projects to have a RIP/RC for 78 percent by September 30,
2009. Munitions response sites not meeting the goal are the most
challenging in terms of scope and complexity in the Department's
inventory, and we expect them to achieve RIP/RC by January 31, 2028.
75. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, section 313 also required the
Secretary of Defense to achieve clean-up of UXO on bases and
installations closed during the 2005 round of BRAC by a firm date that
the Secretary was left free to establish. In last year's report, DOD
said that a working group had been established to accomplish that
requirement and that the goals would be in place during fiscal year
2007. What firm date has been established for clean-up of property
closed by the 2005 round of BRAC?
Mr. Arny. For all military installations realigned or closed under
the 2005 round of BRAC, the Department has established the goal of
September 30, 2010, for a RIP/RC for UXO, discarded military munitions,
and munitions constituents at munitions response sites.
76. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, last year's section 313 report
estimated that the cost to clean up UXO at all active installations and
FUDS properties was $17.8 billion and that another $902 million would
be required to clean up UXO at bases and installations closed by all
five rounds of BRAC. Last year's report provided no estimated date when
all active installations, FUDS properties, and BRAC sites would be
completed. What are the cost-to-completion estimates this year?
Mr. Arny. The cost-to-complete estimate for active installations
and FUDS is $18.278 billion. The cost-to-complete estimate for BRAC
installations is $947.3 million.
77. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, what is the projected date by which
all UXO clean-up will be completed?
Mr. Arny. We believe we can achieve RIP/RC for all UXO clean-up
sites at active installations by September 30, 2018. However, the
complexity and the number of UXO sites at FUDS makes adopting a date
for completion of clean-up impossible at this time.
78. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, could Congress accelerate the time it
will take to complete these clean-ups by increasing funding? If so,
where could increased funding be best used?
Mr. Arny. The Department believes that it has sufficiently budgeted
for the execution of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program in a
timely manner commensurate with established program goals. However,
additional funding will shorten the time line for completion.
clean-up of formerly used defense sites
79. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, for the last several years, Congress
has increased the funding for clean-up of FUDS. For example, the
President's budget for fiscal year 2008 was $250 million--an amount
lower than the $254 million appropriated by Congress for fiscal year
2007. Congress increased the amount for FUDS in fiscal year 2008 to
$270 million, an increase of $20 million over the President's budget.
How much has the Department requested for FUDS clean-up for fiscal year
2009?
Mr. Arny. The Department requested $257.8 million for the clean-up
of FUDS in fiscal year 2009.
80. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, how long will it take to clean up FUDS
at the level of funding in the President's budget?
Mr. Arny. There are 4,684 FUDS within the United States and its
territories that require response actions for clean-up of either
hazardous waste or UXO. The Army, as executive agent for the program,
has completed clean-up of 67 percent of the FUDS hazardous waste sites,
and expects to complete clean-up at 90 percent of all remaining FUDS
hazardous waste sites by 2020. The Army has completed clean-up at 30
percent of FUDS munitions response sites. Once the Army completes
investigations at the remainder of the munitions response sites, the
Department will have a better understanding of the hazards associated
with these sites. This in turn will guide decisions on additional
funding requirements needed to reduce or eliminate those hazards within
a reasonable timeframe.
81. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, if Congress increased the funding
level for FUDS clean-up, could the Department effectively use the money
to increase the level of effort and shorten the time line for
completion?
Mr. Arny. Yes. Any additional funding will shorten the time line
for completion.
buffer zone funding to limit encroachment
82. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, over the last 3 years, Congress added
legislative flexibility and increased funding to support the
Department's Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI)
to address environmental encroachment concerns by partnering with State
and local governments and non-governmental groups to acquire buffer
zones around military installations. This program is widely
acknowledged as a success by DOD, State and local governments, and
environmental groups. What level of funding is proposed for this
program in the fiscal year 2009 President's budget?
Mr. Arny. Considering the importance of maintaining readiness by
buffering our installations from encroachment, the President's budget
for fiscal year 2009 requests $40 million for the REPI program.
83. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, how does that compare with the fiscal
year 2008 President's request and the fiscal year 2008 appropriated
levels?
Mr. Arny. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget request of $40
million is a $10 million increase over the fiscal year 2008 request of
$30 million, and it is $6 million below the fiscal year 2008
appropriated level of $46 million.
84. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, if Congress were to increase funding
for this program to meet or exceed the levels appropriated in fiscal
year 2008, how would DOD use the additional funds?
Mr. Arny. Any increased funding for the REPI program would continue
to support new buffer projects. The Services have projected an
estimated 250 additional REPI projects for fiscal years 2009-2013,
including estimated requests totaling over $150 million in fiscal year
2009. As we continue to emphasize project effectiveness and return on
investment, we are encouraging joint project proposals at multiple
installations, such as the Midlands Area Joint Installation Consortium,
which serves Air Force, Army, Navy, and National Guard installations in
South Carolina. The DOD is also seeking investment leverage on a
regional scale through efforts like the Southeast Regional Partnership
for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS) and the Western Regional
Partnership.
army litigation over stryker brigade transformation in hawaii
85. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, the Army has faced challenges
to the transformation of units of the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii
to a Stryker brigade configuration as a result of a lawsuit challenging
the Army's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) supporting that action.
In February, the Army completed a new Supplemental EIS and again
reached the conclusion that the preferred alternative is a Stryker
brigade based in Hawaii at Schofield Barracks. A formal Record of
Decision making the final determination has not yet been announced.
Despite the Army's efforts, the Supplemental EIS has already been
criticized by environmental groups for not including Fort Lewis, WA,
among the possible basing sites studied. Is the Army confident that its
Supplemental EIS for transforming elements of the 25th Infantry
Division to a Stryker brigade configuration will withstand further
scrutiny by the courts?
Mr. Eastin. The Army is confident that the Supplemental EIS meets
all legal requirements. The EIS has a lengthy discussion about why Fort
Lewis would not be a reasonable alternative for stationing of the 2/
25th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT). Fort Lewis does not have the
garrison infrastructure to support the SBCT, and there are significant
constraints that would make construction of the necessary facilities
very difficult. In any event, the necessary infrastructure could not be
built at Fort Lewis in time to support the proposed action. Finally,
Fort Lewis is already the home to three other SBCTs. SBCTs must have
some geographic dispersion to achieve rapid-deployment capability. Only
one SBCT would be able to deploy at a time from Fort Lewis.
86. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, when will the Army announce
its Record of Decision?
Mr. Eastin. The Army announced its Record of Decision on April 15,
2008.
87. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, the committee is concerned
about the delays that impact operations and readiness for deployment
and the increased costs related to environmental litigation. This is
not just an Army problem. For example, the Navy faced significant
public opposition, litigation, and delays related to its environmental
studies supporting the Navy's plan to build an outlying landing field
(OLF) in Washington County, NC. As a result, the Navy abandoned its
original plan and is now studying other alternatives. What has the Army
learned from its experience in this litigation?
Mr. Eastin. The Army learned that it must clearly articulate its
consideration of the full range of reasonable alternatives in documents
prepared pursuant to the NEPA. The Army recently prepared an EIS for
Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment. The Record of Decision for
this action was published on January 7, 2008. On March 13, 2008, the
Army published a Notice of Intent for a supplement to the Growth EIS,
designed to look at changes in the Pacific Theater, including Alaska
and Hawaii. These documents will enable installations to perform NEPA
analyses for growth at their locations without having to consider
alternative destinations for incoming soldiers. In NEPA terms, we have
engaged in a process called ``tiering.'' I believe that the Army has
done excellent planning, to include preparation of studies under NEPA
or its future stationing actions.
88. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, the Army is engaged in an
enormous effort to re-station its forces as a result of BRAC and
changes to the global basing of U.S. forces overseas. Are you confident
that the other environmental studies the Army is conducting are
sufficiently thorough so that they can withstand scrutiny by the
courts?
Mr. Eastin. Yes. We prepare each NEPA document carefully, fully
involve the public, and review the analysis thoroughly before making
final decisions.
study of historic at-sea dumping of munitions
89. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, section 314 of the John Warner
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2007 required the Secretary of Defense to conduct
a historical review of available records to determine the number, size,
and locations of sites where the Armed Forces disposed of military
munitions in coastal waters and to assess the potential public health
hazard and any remedial measures that may be necessary to address such
risks. The Department will make its final section 314 report in the
Department's fiscal year 2009 Environmental Report to Congress. What
has the Department learned so far about the number of such sites and
does the Department assess that any of them present a potential danger
to the public?
Mr. Eastin. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has been
working closely with the Services to comply with section 314. To date,
the Army has completed and reported to OSD the results of its archival
search of sea disposal operations in U.S. coastal waters that involved
chemical munitions and containers of bulk chemical agent (referred to
as chemical warfare material or CWM). As DOD reported in its Defense
Environmental Program Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report to Congress,
Appendix S (see attached), we have identified 19 sites in coastal
waters where CWM was sea disposed, and 10 sites where conventional
munitions or related material were sea disposed. OSD initially reported
this information in its Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 2006,
and updated it in its Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 2007
report. The Army and Navy continue their research of operations that
involve sea disposal of conventional munitions.
Based on research conducted to date, undisturbed sea-disposed
munitions, including any munitions constituents released to the
environment, do not pose an imminent or substantial endangerment to the
public. However, as you may be aware, when sea disposed munitions are
inadvertently recovered during maritime activities, there may be an
explosive hazard. To address this risk, the Department has taken
several actions. First, to work with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to ensure NOAA mapsheets clearly
depict both the chemical and conventional munitions sites. Second, the
Department has implemented an aggressive explosives safety education
program. This program is based on learning and following an easy to
remember message--the 3Rs: Recognize--when you may have encountered a
munition; Retreat--leave it alone, that is do not touch or disturb it;
and Report--call 911. The Department immediately responds to calls from
local law enforcement to address recovered military munitions.
90. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, do you commit to keep this
subcommittee informed of the Army's actions and any needs that may
arise from this situation?
Mr. Eastin. Yes.
navy litigation over sonar
91. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, the Navy is currently involved
in litigation challenging the Navy's compliance with environmental laws
regarding use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar. MFA sonar is the
most common form of active sonar used by surface ships, submarines, and
helicopters. On January 23, 2007, the DOD invoked the National Defense
Exemption under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to exempt all
military readiness activities that use MFA sonar from compliance with
the MMPA for a period of 2 years. Despite the DOD's decision to invoke
this National Defense Exemption in early January 2008, a Federal
District Judge in San Francisco issued an injunction and imposed
significant restrictions on Navy sonar training in at-sea ranges off
southern California. What is the status of the litigation and describe
its impact on the Navy's ability to train effectively for deployment
using active sonar?
Mr. Penn. The injunction, issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on January 3 and modified on January 10,
is a very serious matter because of the impact it could have on
readiness of our deploying naval forces. In the opinion of the Chief of
Naval Operations, the injunction unacceptably risks naval training, the
timely deployment of strike groups, and national security. The
injunction, therefore, prompted a series of urgent actions within the
Executive Branch. On January 15, 2008, the President exercised his
statutory authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to
exempt the Navy's activities at issue in this case from CZMA
compliance, 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1)(B). The President determined that
``the [exercises], including the use of MFA sonar in these exercises,
are in the paramount interest of the United States'' and that, in light
of the District Court's injunction, an exemption was necessary ``to
ensure effective and timely training of the United States naval
forces'' because compliance would ``undermine the Navy's ability to
conduct realistic training exercises that are necessary to ensure the
combat effectiveness.'' The President accordingly issued the exemption
to ``enable the Navy to train effectively and to certify * * * strike
groups for deployment'' in support of operational and combat activities
``essential to national security.''
Contemporaneous with the President's action, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) authorized alternative arrangements for
NEPA compliance for ``emergency circumstances'' pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
1506.11. CEQ acted only after extensive consultation with the Navy and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agency within the
Department of Commerce responsible for protecting marine mammals, and
reviewing relevant documentary materials. Noting that NMFS had
determined that the Navy's southern California exercises were not
expected to cause any ``adverse population level effects for any * * *
marine mammal populations'' and that the next southern California
exercise was imminent, CEQ concluded that ``emergency circumstances''
warranted ``alternative arrangements for compliance with NEPA''
involving enhanced environmental assessment and public participation
measures until the Navy's ongoing southern California EIS is completed.
The Navy then filed a motion to vacate the injunction, which the
District Court denied. The court opined that the President's exemption
under the CZMA was of questionable constitutionality. Rather than
decide that question, however, the court held that its preliminary
injunction remained an appropriate remedy for a NEPA violation and that
CEQ's approval of alternative NEPA arrangements under 40 C.F.R. 1506.11
was invalid.
The Navy appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the District Court. In view of the ``importance of the Navy's
mission'' and ``the representation by the Chief of Naval Operations
that the District Court's preliminary injunction in its current form
will `unacceptably risk' effective training and strike group
certification,'' however, the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary partial
stay from the injunction's more onerous provisions (2,200-yard
mandatory shutdown and surface-ducting power-down requirements). That
stay will expire, however, upon the Supreme Court's final disposition
of the case.
On Monday, March 31, 2008, the Solicitor General of the United
States filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court.
92. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, the Navy faces similar
litigation over its use of low-frequency active (LFA) sonar, which is
the Navy's most effective means to detect super-quiet diesel submarines
at long range, such as those operated by China and North Korea. What
additional limits on the Navy's use of LFA sonar have been imposed by
the courts and what is the Navy doing in response to this litigation?
Mr. Penn. The Navy's use of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System
Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar was restricted to areas of the
western Pacific Ocean from 2002 until August 2007 as a result of a
preliminary and later a permanent injunction issued by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California in response to a
lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others.
The terms of those injunctions resulted from court-ordered mediation.
As part of the formal regulatory process administered by the NMFS, the
agency within the Department of Commerce responsible for administering
the MMPA, the Navy had already agreed to and was required to comply
with extensive mitigation measures for the use of SURTASS LFA sonar,
including visual, passive, and active acoustic monitoring (using a
special sonar adapted for the purpose) and limiting the sound-received
levels near coastlines and in certain sensitive areas designated as
Offshore Biologically Important Areas (OBIAs). During those 5 years,
there was no evidence that SURTASS LFA harmed any marine mammals. The
permanent injunction expired in August 2007 with the expiration of the
2002 SURTASS Final Rule issued by NMFS. NMFS issued a new regulation
(Final Rule) in August 2007 to replace the expiring rule. The new Final
Rule was supported in part by a Supplemental EIS, which the Navy
prepared to correct deficiencies that the Court had identified
concerning the Navy's efforts to comply with the NEPA in 2002. Despite
the new analysis, the results of additional research on the effects of
SURTASS LFA, and the lack of any documented harm from 5 years of LFA
sonar use, NRDC and others brought a new lawsuit in September 2007
challenging the new Final Rule issued by NMFS. The Navy agreed to abide
by the previous permanent injunction with some modifications while
NRDC's request for a preliminary injunction on the new rule was heard.
On February 6, 2008, the Court issued a new preliminary injunction that
temporarily extended the same restrictions that had been in effect
since the new lawsuit began. The Court was concerned about NMFS's
decision not to designate a number of new OBIAs, including areas such
as the Galapagos Islands and the Great Barrier Reef. The Court directed
the parties into meditation to negotiate the details of the new
injunction. That mediation is ongoing.
93. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, how do these limits impact the
Navy's ability to train?
Mr. Penn. Over the last 5 years, the Navy's use of SURTASS LFA
sonar has not only resulted in no documented harm to marine mammals,
but has also confirmed the promise of SURTASS LFA sonar as a very
effective long range sensor, uniquely able to detect and track very
quiet submarines before they get close enough to launch an attack.
Information gained by the use of SURTASS LFA sonar also can make other
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) sensors more effective. The Navy is
troubled that, despite these extensive efforts and careful study,
additional restrictions could again be imposed on use of this
critically-needed system that could prevent the Navy from effectively
using SURTASS LFA sonar for its assigned mission. The SURTASS LFA sonar
restrictions under the current injunction limit the Navy's ability to
train, test, and conduct military operations closer to shore than would
be permitted under the current MMPA final rule. Until mediation is
concluded and the full details of the preliminary injunction are known,
however, it is impossible to say what additional limits may be imposed.
94. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, are you concerned about the
restrictions imposed on Navy sonar training in light of recent
deployments of diesel submarines by China into areas in which U.S.
carrier battlegroups are operating?
Mr. Penn. Navy is extremely concerned by court imposed restrictions
on training with MFA and LFA sonar systems. The continued deployment of
increasingly capable, quiet diesel-electric submarines that could be a
threat to our Carrier and Expeditionary Strike Groups. LFA and MFA
sonar are the Navy's primary sensors for detecting these submarines and
critical to our ability to properly address this serious threat. Given
the complexity of the marine environment and associated difficulty in
mastering the art of detecting and tracking submarines, training
sailors in sonar use under realistic conditions is critical to
countering and defeating this threat. These realistic conditions can
only be found at sea. Consequently, at-sea training using MFA and LFA
sonar is essential to the Navy's efforts to train and certify deploying
Strike Groups and forward deployed LFA-equipped ships. Therefore,
restrictions that interrupt the flexibility, quality, continuity, and
consistency of this training threaten our national security and are
viewed with grave concern.
eis for navy sonar on the east coast
95. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, last year, the Navy began the
process of conducting an EIS to support its plan to develop an at-sea
sonar training range on the east coast of the United States. Where is
the Navy in this process and when do you expect it to be complete?
Mr. Penn. The Department of Navy is revising the Draft EIS (DEIS)
based on the new marine mammal affects methodology developed by NMFS.
The DEIS is projected to be released for public review in July 2008,
and a Record of Decision projected for July 2009. We anticipate
initiating construction in 2013.
96. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, why is this range so important
to the Navy?
Mr. Penn. The range is important for the following reasons:
1. Worldwide Deployment Involving Littoral Conditions.
Atlantic Fleet units deploy worldwide, and shifts in the
military strategic landscape require increased naval capability
in the world's shallow, or littoral seas, such as the Arabian
Sea, the South China Sea, and the Korean Sea. Training
effectively for these littoral environments requires the
availability of realistic conditions in which actual potential
combat situations can be adequately simulated.
2. Threat of Modern Diesel Submarines. Global proliferation of
extremely quiet submarines poses critical threats to maritime
interests of the United States. These silent diesel submarines
are capable of operating extremely effectively in confined,
congested littoral regions where acoustic conditions make
detection significantly more challenging than in deep water and
can get well within torpedo striking range of U.S. forces
before being detected by passive sonar.
3. U.S. World Role. The role of the United States on the world
stage makes it imperative that U.S. military forces are the
best trained, prepared, and equipped in the world. ASW is a
Navy core capability and is a critical part of that mission.
The Navy is the only DOD Service with ASW responsibility, and
must be trained and capable in littoral water operations.
4. Mission Readiness and Fulfillment. The Navy's primary
mission is to maintain, train, equip, and operate combat-ready
naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and
maintaining freedom of the seas. Training with the actual
sensors and weapons systems aboard their own ships, submarines,
or aircraft in a complex operational setting with a realistic
scenario is key to maintaining Fleet combat readiness and to
survival in actual wartime conditions. Timely and accurate
feedback of training performance to exercise participants and
the ability to rapidly reconstruct the training event
contribute significantly to the quality of this complex
training. These capabilities may only be realized through the
use of an instrumented, at-sea training range. At present, the
only operational Atlantic instrumented training range is
located in a deep-water environment, requiring that results be
extrapolated to apply to the critically different conditions of
shallow water.
5. Benefit to All DOD Forces. The training value of the
proposed action ultimately benefits all DOD forces whose
missions are in any way tied to maritime operations, homeland
security, or access to strategic littoral areas of the world.
The threat from silent submarines to U.S. forces, civilians,
and materiel and potentially to national security and the
increasing focus of combat in shallow, littoral areas mandate
appropriate training. Such training can only be accomplished
with an instrumented undersea warfare training range
appropriately located in a shallow water environment.
camp lejeune water contamination
97. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, section 315 of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2008 required, not later than a year after the law was
enacted, that the Secretary of the Navy make reasonable efforts to
identify and notify directly all civilian employees and former military
and civilian residents of Camp Lejeune, NC, who may have been served by
the Camp Lejeune water system from 1958 through 1987 that they may have
been exposed to water contaminated with tetrachloroethylene (PCE) or
trichloroethylene (TCE) that may be related to birth defects, diseases,
or other adverse health effects. Those individuals contacted will be
provided a health survey in which they may voluntarily provide personal
health information that may be helpful in establishing scientific links
between exposure to PCE or TCE and adverse health impacts. This direct
outreach is in addition to ongoing studies by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) on the potential adverse health
impacts of exposure to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune.
What have the Navy and Marine Corps done so far to implement the direct
outreach to former residents and civilian employees at Camp Lejeune
required by section 315?
Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps has made it a top priority to identify
and directly contact the potentially impacted population (individuals
who lived or worked at Camp Lejeune between 1957 and 1987) so that they
can be notified of their potential exposure and updated as additional
information becomes available.
To this end, in September 2007 the Marine Corps established a Toll-
Free Call Center and Notification Registry to inform former Camp
Lejeune residents that they may have been exposed to impacted drinking
water and receive additional information when ongoing studies are
complete. The registry can be accessed at www.usmc.mil/clsurvey or via
the toll-free line at 1-877-261-9782. Interested parties can also email
questions to [email protected].
To reach former marines whose contact information is not contained
in our records, the Marine Corps has placed advertisements in local
command and other military publications, articles in local newspapers
(nationwide), and radio announcements (nationwide). The Marine Corps
has funded paid advertisements in national publications such as ``USA
Today''. These public outreach efforts, in conjunction with mailing
addresses from our surviving records, have enabled the Marine Corps to
identify thousands of former base residents and employees and mail over
55,000 letters notifying them of their potential exposure, informing
them of the issue, and providing contact information so they can learn
more. Updates will be mailed as additional information becomes
available (e.g. the completion of the ATSDR health survey, Hadnot Point
Water Model, ATSDR ongoing epidemiological study, and the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) study).
98. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, has appropriate funding been
identified and is it available to conduct the outreach?
Mr. Penn. Yes. The Marine Corps allocated approximately $1 million
in 2007 and $3.5 million in 2008 for outreach activities associated
with the Camp Lejeune Water Study. The following activities are
examples of outreach activities in progress or planned. As additional
resources are identified, they will be implemented as appropriate.
Outreach Activities Planned or In Progress
Communication Plan
Stakeholder analysis study
Dedicated Call-Center with toll free line (877-261-9782)
Remodeled website dedicated to Camp Lejeune Water Study
(www.marines.mil/clsurvey)
Notification Registry integrated with website
Advertisements in Marine Corps publications (e.g.
Leatherneck, Gazette, Semper Fidelis)
Paid advertisements in local newspapers (nationwide)
Paid radio announcements (nationwide)
Paid advertisements in national publications (e.g. USA Today
and USATODAY.com)
Letter mailing costs (address verification, paper products,
stamps, copying, labor)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) costs associated with using
IRS database to mail letters to individuals with name and
social security numbers, but without current known addresses
Contractor support to develop databases and website,
implement call center, and assist with outreach activities
99. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, are the Navy and Marine Corps
continuing to provide timely and sufficient funding for the ongoing
study being conducted by ATSDR?
Mr. Penn. The Navy and Marine Corps continue to support the ATSDR
ongoing study. Each year, the ATSDR submits an Annual Plan of Work to
the Navy in accordance with a mutually agreed-upon Memorandum of
Understanding. The Navy and Marine Corps then work with the ATSDR to
reach agreement on the particular projects to be funded and completed
during that year.
100. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, what is the current status of
the ATSDR study? When is it expected to be complete?
Mr. Penn. Questions regarding the ATSDR study should be directed to
ATSDR. The original completion date provided by ATSDR was 2005. ATSDR's
latest study completion date was December 2007. However, according to
the ATSDR, the complicated nature of the water modeling has delayed
their study completion date once again. At this point, ATSDR has not
formally indicated when their ongoing study will be complete; however,
through informal discussion with staff, the second water model for the
Hadnot Point Water Distribution System should be complete in June 2009.
ATSDR believes that completion of this water model is necessary to
complete the associated epidemiological study.
101. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, please describe what the Navy
and the Marine Corps have done to address this issue and the concerns
of marines and their families who believe they have health-related
impacts due to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune.
Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps remains committed to finding answers to
the many questions surrounding historic water quality at Camp Lejeune
and providing this information to our marines and their family members
who may have been impacted.
Exposure to the chemicals in the drinking water at Camp Lejeune has
not yet been linked to any illnesses. The Marine Corps has worked
closely with the ATSDR, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GAO,
and NAS to study and address the issue. Since 2003, the Marine Corps
has spent over $10 million supporting the efforts of these agencies to
determine whether our marines, families, and civilian workforce may
have been adversely affected by the water. To date, we are unable to
answer this question definitively.
Presently, the ATSDR is attempting to project when the drinking
water was first impacted, who may have consumed the impacted water, and
whether there is any association between exposure to the chemicals in
the drinking water and certain adverse health conditions in children
born to mothers who lived at Camp Lejeune between 1968 through 1985
(thought to be the most sensitive population). ATSDR estimates that
this study will be completed in mid-2009. In April 2007, the Marine
Corps contracted with the NAS to conduct a comprehensive review of
available scientific literature in order to recommend future actions
that could be taken (estimated completion October 2008). Other
completed studies include a review by the GAO, a Department of Justice
investigation, an EPA Criminal Investigation Division investigation, as
well as a panel review commissioned by the Commandant of the Marine
Corps.
The Marine Corps fully supports the efforts of these agencies and
is providing data, access, and logistical assistance to them; upon
completion of their studies, the Marine Corps will publicize the
results.
environmental litigation and local opposition force change
102. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, the Navy has now abandoned it
efforts to build a new OLF in Washington County, NC, to support Navy
aircraft stationed on the east coast due to public opposition to the
plan and related environmental litigation. The Navy is conducting a new
EIS to consider other alternative sites. When does the Navy expect to
complete this new EIS?
Mr. Penn. The Navy is working to complete and publish the Notice of
Intent to conduct an EIS in the Federal Register in the second week of
April 2008. Following that publication, the Navy will conduct public
scoping meetings in seven counties in Virginia and North Carolina
potentially impacted by a decision on a site for the proposed OLF.
These hearings are tentatively scheduled to begin April 28, 2008, and
continue through May 7, 2008. The environmental analysis will follow
these public scoping meetings. Our goal is to publish a draft EIS in
June 2009 to be followed by public hearings in each potentially
affected county. The Final EIS is scheduled for April 2010, followed by
a Record of Decision in July 2010.
103. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, the committee is concerned
about the delays that impact operations and readiness for deployment
and increased costs related to environmental litigation. This is not
specifically a Navy problem. The Army has faced similar delays as a
result of environmental litigation over the transformation of Army
units in Hawaii to a Stryker brigade. What has the Navy learned from
its experience in this litigation?
Mr. Penn. Many environmental statutes require completion of a
formal process to inform a decision before an activity can begin. These
processes typically take several months or years to complete. We are
fully in favor of informed decisions, but when these statutes are
applied to dynamic scientific, military, and international situations,
military readiness can be the first casualty. Because these statutes
were not drafted in a way that facilitates their application to dynamic
situations, an assessment process can be almost complete when a new
development or changed circumstance arises that requires the process to
start all over again. If a required action, such as a training
exercise, has to proceed before completion of the process, it does so
at risk of litigation, has to rely on another form of compliance, or be
altered to reduce the risk of litigation. Even after completion of the
process, litigation often ensues, and this litigation ensues even if,
in the end, the conclusion of the analysis is that there is little or
manageable risk to the environment. The requirement to be ready to
fight and win cannot be suspended for a period of years while
procedural steps are completed, all the while subject to litigation.
The Navy is committed to responsible environmental stewardship
while executing its national defense mission and is working very hard
to anticipate and get out in front of the requirements for
environmental compliance. The Navy must comply with a number of
Federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations that apply
to terrestrial and aquatic environments. In furtherance of that
responsibility, in 2004, the Navy established the Tactical Training
Theater Assessment and Planning (TAP) Program to ensure comprehensive,
long-term environmental compliance for critical maritime ranges and
operational areas. This program integrates environmental, operational,
and facilities management and provides the framework for range
management initiatives.
As a result of the TAP program, the Navy submitted Notices of
Intent to prepare EISs for 12 maritime ranges and operating areas and
recently released 2 Draft EISs, the Hawaii Range Complex Draft
Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar
Training DEIS, for public comment. All 12 EISs and all applicable
environmental compliance requirements including, but not limited to,
Letters of Authorization under the MMPA and Biological Opinions under
the Endangered Species Act, are expected to be completed by the end of
calendar year 2009. In the interim, Navy has been preparing
environmental assessments for all major training exercises, including
but not limited to, obtaining Biological Opinions when appropriate and
complying with the provisions of the National Defense Exemption under
the MMPA.
Nevertheless, court-imposed restrictions resulting from litigation
threaten the efficacy of vital training exercises and, therefore,
threaten to negatively impact national security.
104. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, does the Navy continue to have
a compelling operational need for an OLF?
Mr. Penn. Yes. Training requirements for aircraft based at NAS
Oceana and Naval Station Norfolk currently exceed capacity at the
existing OLF facility at Fentress up to 63 percent of the time during
summertime when hours of darkness are limited. Capacity problems are
exacerbated when operational demands require surging additional carrier
strike groups under the Fleet Response Plan, which requires that 6 of
the Navy's 11 aircraft carriers be available for deployment within 30
days and another one be available in 90 days. A new OLF will provide
the required capacity to support the training necessary to respond to
national defense requirements.
The Navy operates on the open ocean, away from visible landmarks
and man-made lighting, and with darkened ship conditions. Immediately
prior to a deployment, pilots need to hone their skills in an
environment that simulates conditions they will experience at sea. We
must have a place where our pilots can fly that best replicates the
environment they will experience when they come aboard a ship in the
middle of the night in darkness without visual reference. Due to
residential encroachment, Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP)
training at both NALF Fentress and NAS Oceana does not provide
realistic aircraft carrier landing conditions, especially at night. To
account for the encroachment near NALF Fentress, landing pattern
altitudes have been raised above those used for aircraft carrier
landings at sea, and the standard race track shape of the landing
pattern has been modified. Additionally, light pollution from
residential housing and other structures results in conditions that
significantly reduce the quality of training.
While NALF Fentress will continue to provide support for FCLP and
other training requirements, it alone cannot fully support the training
requirements of aircraft based at NAS Oceana and cannot provide optimal
landing conditions for FCLP training, especially night time FCLP. The
addition of a new OLF ensures that year round capacity exists for
planned and surge training requirements and optimizes FCLP training.
105. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, where are the current
alternative sites located?
Mr. Penn. There are three sites in southeastern Virginia and two
sites in northeastern North Carolina. The Virginia sites are located in
Surry County (Cabin Point), Southampton County (Dory), and Sussex
County (Mason). The North Carolina sites are located in Gates County
(Sandbanks) and Camden County (Hale's Lake).
106. Senator Thune. Secretary Penn, does the decision to consider
other sites in Virginia impact the Navy's decision to base two
squadrons of F/A-18 aircraft in North Carolina?
Mr. Penn. The Navy decision to terminate the Draft SEIS and
initiate a new EIS to analyze five different OLF site alternatives has
no effect on the previous Super Hornet basing decision.
barracks upgrades plans
107. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, both Secretary Penn and
Secretary Anderson include in their written statements an update on
their Department's efforts to eliminate inadequate barracks. In
particular, with the fiscal year 2009 budget enacted, both Services
will have eliminated the use of permanent party unaccompanied barracks
which have central, also known as gang latrines. Can you update the
committee with the Army's plans to eliminate inadequate barracks?
Mr. Eastin. The Army is on track to fund the replacement of central
or common area latrines with 1+1 or equivalent barracks by fiscal year
2013. The fiscal year 2009 budget will provide new barracks for 6,362
soldiers and fund the program at 83 percent of the total requirement.
108. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, does the Army still have
single soldiers living in barracks with central latrines? If so, what
is the Army's plan to upgrade these barracks to Army standards? In what
year will they be eliminated?
Mr. Eastin. The Army does have single permanent party soldiers
living in barracks with common area latrines. The Army is on track to
fund the replacement or modernization of these barracks by fiscal year
2013.
109. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, how will the Army's plans to
grow the force affect plans to eliminate inadequate barracks?
Mr. Eastin. Grow the Army will not affect the Army's buyout goal to
fund inadequate barracks by fiscal year 2013.
110. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, to respond to the needs for
bachelor officers and senior enlisted personnel, the Army has initiated
unaccompanied housing privatization initiatives at Fort Bragg, NC; Fort
Stewart, GA; Fort Drum, NY; Fort Bliss, TX; White Sands Missile Range,
NM; and Fort Irwin, CA. Can you provide a status of each of these
initiatives?
Mr. Eastin. Four of the five pilot projects are closed and the
fifth will close during 2008. All five provide quality apartment
communities for bachelor officers and senior enlisted single soldiers
with all of the amenities found in quality, off-post apartment
complexes. Below is the status of the Army's five unaccompanied housing
privatization initiatives:
1. The Fort Irwin project closed in March 2004 and 125
accommodations were transferred to the project. These
accommodations will be replaced by 200 one-bedroom apartments.
Construction started in 2006 and is expected to be completed in
2011 as part of a town center.
2. The Fort Drum project closed in July 2007 and will build
192 one- and two-bedroom apartments. Construction will be
completed in 2009.
3. The Fort Bragg project closed in December 2007 and will
build 312 one- and two-bedroom apartments. Construction will be
completed in 2010.
4. The Fort Stewart project closed in January 2008 and will
build 334 one- and two-bedroom apartments. Construction will be
completed in 2010.
5. The Fort Bliss project is in transition and will close in
2008. It will include 358 one- and two-bedroom apartments.
Construction will be completed in 2010. Fort Bliss and White
Sands Missile Range make up the combined Residential
Communities Initiative Family Housing Privatization Project;
however unaccompanied personnel housing privatization was only
planned for Fort Bliss, not White Sands Missile Range.
111. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin, with the significant barracks
requirements required by plans for the Army to grow the force, will the
Army be using this method for the acquisition of unaccompanied housing
at other locations? If so, how many units and at what locations?
Mr. Eastin. At this time the Army supports five unaccompanied
personnel housing projects for senior single soldiers, staff sergeants,
and above, and officers who cannot find adequate affordable rentals
off-post. Soldiers volunteer to rent these accommodations. The Army
currently has no plans to use the unaccompanied housing privatization
initiative method to satisfy barracks requirements for sergeants (E-5)
and below who are required to live on post. The Army has programmed for
unaccompanied personnel housing to account for grow the force
requirements.
management of housing privatization transactions
112. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, I have a
question about the management of housing privatization transactions
involving partnerships. In 2005, the GAO reported that the military
Services did not have management practices in place to provide adequate
oversight for the use of funds accumulating in reserve and escrow funds
within each transaction. The overwhelming majority of each of your
Department's housing inventories are now privatized and under
management of the partnership. The DOD's efforts over the past 10 years
to increase a servicemember's base allowance for housing has resulted
in sizeable reserves growing in housing privatization reserve accounts,
which can be used to accelerate renovation and recapitalization
activities. Eventually though, the housing inventory for each
transaction will reach a point of optimal performance as measured by
occupancy rates, and reserve funds will still be growing. What is your
assessment of the current management practices used by your Department
for reserve accounts?
Mr. Eastin. The GAO conducted a study of military housing oversight
programs in 2005 and had no concerns regarding the oversight it
observed by the Army in the Army Projects. The Army's Portfolio and
Asset Management (PAM) program was developed from private sector
investment management best practices to ensure proper oversight of the
financial, operational, and development performance. This allows the
Army to comprehensively review project performance and assess the
health of the portfolio as a whole.
The Army reviews project reserve accounts through the Portfolio and
Asset Management quarterly reporting process and during annual site
visit meetings. These reviews include the monitoring of project reserve
accounts, balances, deposits, disbursements, and other activities of
each lockbox account. Significant variances from projected lockbox
account balances are assessed relative to the requirements and
performance of the individual project. Unplanned variances may require
an adjustment to the development or renovation plan to reduce or
enhance the use of funds from the accounts through the reduction or
enhancement of the development scope.
All of the Army's privatization projects, except Fort Carson, CO,
and Fort Hood, TX, are currently in their initial development period.
Accordingly, the funds held in reserve or escrow accounts for each
project are committed to funding agreed upon development scope.
Further, the lenders/bondholders have received assurances through the
legal documents that the use of those funds will be the renovation,
replacement, and construction of housing units and amenities for the
project, which will ensure that the housing is marketable and future
income streams upon which the financing was based will be realized. The
Fort Carson and Fort Hood projects have completed their initial
development period and begun out-year development renovation and
replacement programs, funded through a combination of reinvestment
account funds and additional loan proceeds. Since these installations
were part of the initial pilot projects, they were conservatively
underwritten and significant loan capacity existed prior to the take
down of additional debt.
Reserve funds for each project are the sole source of funding for
future replacement/construction and renovation of housing. A home that
is renovated during the first 10 years of the project will require a
major renovation or replacement in 20 to 30 years to remain marketable.
The goal of the Army's Residential Communities Initiative is to create
a self-sustaining source of funding for the management, development,
replacement, renovation, and operation of family housing. However, the
economies of scale that are realized by renovating or replacing a
critical mass of housing during a defined period of time dictate that
funds will need to accumulate before being used for development
activities. Accordingly, a project may build up funds in reserve
accounts, but those funds are required for out-year development and are
not excess to the requirements.
The previous historical failure by the Service departments to
adequately prioritize the recapitalization of the housing stock is the
very reason why the Residential Communities Initiative was created.
Without a slow and steady build-up of funds in reserve accounts after
the initial development period, the Army could be at risk of repeating
the mistakes of the past, allowing the housing stock to deteriorate and
be undercapitalized once again.
Mr. Penn. Our assessment is that the management practices for
reserve accounts used are strong. Under the terms of our business
agreements, the private partner is obligated to provide: independently-
audited annual financial statements; quarterly financial statements;
and monthly summary reports (which include reserve account balances).
Correspondingly, the Department of the Navy has the contractual right
to review annually or, as warranted, on a more frequent periodic basis,
all elements of the privatization project's finances. In addition, the
Navy military housing privatization projects also include an
independent, third-party trustee or ``lockbox agent'' who is
responsible for the management of these accounts in accordance with the
governing project agreements. The Navy's approval is required for any
expenditures out of project reserve accounts.
The performance of each of the Navy's privatization projects is
assessed through the Department's receipt, review, analysis, and
validation of these various monthly, quarterly, and annual reports in
order to confirm compliance with the project business agreements.
113. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, can you
provide a list of the transactions in your inventory that are
accumulating a significant reserve or escrow?
Mr. Eastin. As stated previously, all except two of the Army's
privatization projects are in their initial development period, and
accordingly, funds within the lockbox accounts are committed to funding
the initial and out-year development scope. The Fort Carson and Fort
Hood projects have completed their initial development period and begun
out-year development renovation and replacement programs, funded
through a combination of reinvestment account funds and additional loan
proceeds. Since these projects were structured early in the Residential
Communities Initiative program, they were conservatively underwritten
and significant loan capacity existed prior to the take down of
additional debt.
Residential Communities Initiative projects, in general, have
accumulated reserve and escrow balances at a rate necessary to meet
future development scope.
Mr. Penn. All of the projects have had some escrow amounts and
many, in fact, still do have significant escrow balances in their
respective construction escrow accounts. These escrow accounts are used
for the purpose of completing construction during the initial
development period.
The project reserve accounts, much like the construction escrow
accounts during the initial development period, are used to complete
construction requirements after the initial development period and over
the term of the projects. The reserve accounts for Department of the
Navy military housing privatization projects are generally funded from
the net project cash flow (after expenses and debt service). Most Navy
projects are still in the initial development period and will not
distribute net cash flow into these reserve accounts until after
construction completion. It is anticipated that all of the projects
will accumulate significant reserve accounts over their duration which
will be used to fund sustainment and recapitalization over the life of
the project.
To date, the following family housing projects have accumulated
reserve account balances in excess of $1 million: San Diego; Pacific
Northwest Region; Northeast Region; and Hawaii. As stated above, these
reserves will be used to fund sustainment and recapitalization over the
life of the project.
114. Senator Thune. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, what
flexibility do you have to manage and control the uses of reserve
accounts?
Mr. Eastin. The management and control of reserve account funds are
consistent with the management of funds in a private sector real estate
transaction. The Army participates in the management and control of the
uses of reserve accounts through the Major Decision process outlined in
the Operating or Partnership Agreement, subject to the terms and
conditions of the loan documents. The legal documents include limits on
the ability of the Army, the Managing Member (private sector partner),
or the lenders/bondholders to make unilateral decisions regarding the
use of funds. These limits safeguard the funds in the reserve accounts
and ensure that decisionmaking regarding their use is in the best
interest of the overall project and, ultimately, soldiers and their
families. Without these safeguards, there would be temptations to
divert the reserve funds for other purposes, and when the time came to
recapitalize or renovate the housing stock, the funds would no longer
be available to do that. This would once again put the Army in a
position of not being able to provide quality sustainable housing for
soldiers and their families.
The collection and disbursement of project funds is governed by the
lockbox agreement, which is administered by the lockbox agent. The
lockbox agreement also outlines the permitted investments of the funds.
Mr. Penn. The reserve accounts are established for the sustainment
and maintenance of project assets over the long term. Under terms of
the business agreements, the Navy must approve any proposed
expenditures from the project reserve accounts. The Managing Member of
the housing privatization business entity analyzes the assets, and
prepares and submits budgets for such proposed expenditures.
Furthermore, the Department of the Navy reviews annually (or more
frequently, if warranted) all elements of the privatization project's
finances including project reserve accounts.
use of military installations and training ranges for energy
initiatives
115. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, within the past few months,
this committee has heard about a series of initiatives to use under-
utilized land on AFBs and training ranges to install or construct
various energy production facilities, ranging from a photovoltaic array
at Nellis AFB, NV, solar powered electrical plants in New Mexico and
Arizona, to coal-to-liquid refineries in Montana, windmill farms in
Nevada, and even the possibility of a small modular nuclear reactor at
a location yet to be determined. Your written statement today refers to
an energy strategy where ``the Air Force continues to look for
opportunities at our installations for installing and developing
renewable energy projects for wind, solar, biomass, waste-to-energy,
landfill gas, and geothermal power as well as commercial-scale ethanol
and biodiesel fuel plants.'' Other than the fact that the Air Force can
offer up under-utilized Federal land, what advantages does the Air
Force offer a commercial venture in this regard?
Mr. Anderson. The private sector is best suited to determine the
viability of any energy venture. It would be the responsibility of a
potential developer to evaluate whether or not an energy project on one
of our installations makes sound business sense. The Air Force's
primary contribution is providing a location in the form of under-
utilized land. Depending upon circumstances, geography and transmission
capability may make Air Force bases attractive locations for industry.
In certain instances, the Air Force may consider the purchase of the
energy produced by the project.
116. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, what are the benefits to be
gained for Air Force mission and operations?
Mr. Anderson. The housing privatization program accelerates our
ability to provide Air Force families with access to safe, quality,
affordable, well-maintained housing and requires a much lower
investment than MILCON by the Air Force to achieve this goal. Through
housing privatization we have received almost $6 billion in
construction with only $357 million in Air Force investment.
Translated, that means the private sector has invested more than $16
for every $1 invested by the Air Force in housing privatization
projects. The Air Force currently is evaluating the feasibility of
privatizing the remaining housing that it owns at Air Force
installations in the United States.
117. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, is there a potential for a
private company to avoid State and local regulations by establishing an
energy plant on Federal land? If so, how will the potential negative
impact from these exemptions be mitigated?
Mr. Anderson. For any energy project constructed on Air Force
property, the developer will be required to follow all applicable
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
118. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, what guidelines and
directives has the Air Force instituted to assess the impact of these
initiatives upon the installation's missions and daily operations?
Mr. Anderson. On our installations, each proposed project is
evaluated through a rigorous planning process using, for example, Air
Force Instruction (AFI) 10-503, Base Unit Beddown Program, and the
Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) (32 CFR Sec. 989) prior to
approval. Making environmentally informed decisions and ensuring
compatibility are keys to successfully meeting our energy needs.
119. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, in the case of installing
windmill farms installed on training ranges, can you provide a
description of the concerns raised by the Air Force regarding impacts
to military training and range management from the installation of
windmills?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force does not install windmills on training
ranges, due to the incompatibility of tall structures in areas used for
air-to-ground training.
For proposed development near ranges, we review every proposal on a
case-by-case basis for operational impacts. The primary areas of
interest in the evaluation are flight safety and security of the
mission. These two areas of evaluation are not specific to windmills
and are performed for any proposed tall structure near operations. We
also review for potential electromagnetic impacts to radar and other
systems. As we strive to train as we fight, we work to mitigate impacts
and adapt to development near training missions whenever possible.
120. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, exactly how does the
installation of a windmill affect the operation of radar systems?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force is working to increase our
understanding of the impacts of windmills on radar. While much of our
available data focuses on long-range (air defense) radar systems, we
also operate air traffic control, weather, airborne, and other types of
radar systems. Tests have demonstrated that the large radar cross
section of a windmill combined with the Doppler frequency shift
produced by its rotating blades can impact the ability of radar to
discriminate the windmill from an aircraft. Those tests also
demonstrated that the wind farms have the potential to degrade target
tracking capabilities as a result of shadowing and clutter effects.
Although windmills located in radar line of sight of air defense
radars can adversely impact the ability of those units to detect and
track, by primary radar return, any aircraft or other aerial object,
the magnitude of the impact will depend upon the number and locations
of the windmills.
future of willow grove air station, pennsylvania
121. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, I have a question about an
unprecedented land transfer which occurred last year at Willow Grove
Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base, PA. The 2005 BRAC round closed
Willow Grove, with the exception of certain Air Force Reserve and
Pennsylvania National Guard units, which would remain minus the runway.
As with other closures, the local community started planning for the
reuse and economic redevelopment of the installation. In May 2007,
legislation was enacted by Congress which directed the Navy to transfer
to the Air Force all lands and facilities at Willow Grove in order to
facilitate the establishment of a joint interagency installation. The
real effect was to keep the majority of the installation, including the
runway, open and operating. Did the Air Force concur with this
legislation? If so, why?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force concurs with this legislation as it
supports the Secretary of the Air Force's commitment to assist the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with transforming Willow Grove into a
joint interagency installation to support national defense, homeland
security, and emergency preparedness missions.
122. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, other than the enclave for
the Air Force Reserves, does the Air Force have a military requirement
for the land, runway, and facilities?
Mr. Anderson. The BRAC recommendations call for the establishment
of an enclave for Air National Guard use and to have a new Armed Forces
Reserve Center encompassed in that enclave. Beyond those requirements
there are no known requirements for future military missions.
123. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, what is the Air Force long-
term plan for the installation?
Mr. Anderson. The Air Force will meet the BRAC recommendations to
establish an enclave for Air National Guard use and to have a new Armed
Forces Reserve Center encompassed in that enclave. There are no known
requirements for future military missions beyond these. To support the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with transforming Willow Grove into a
joint interagency installation to support national defense, homeland
security, and emergency preparedness missions, the Navy will transfer
Naval Air Station Willow Grove property to the Air Force, who in turn
will work to transfer property to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
124. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, will the Air Force lease
any portion of the property to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or
other entities? If so, can you provide details?
Mr. Anderson. The military enclave being discussed at this time
envisions a core Air National Guard presence (111th/240th EIS) with a
7-acre license to the Army National Guard for the 56th Stryker Brigade
Headquarters and a soon to be determined 20-acre area for the BRAC
recommended Armed Forces Reserve Center. This enclave would total about
110 acres including all stated users. Any Air Force land beyond this
will be available for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to use.
125. Senator Thune. Secretary Anderson, how much funding will the
Air Force need to spend annually to maintain the installation?
Mr. Anderson. That figure would not be able to be determined at
this time while the exact size of the enclave is still being
determined.
126. Senator Thune. Mr. Arny, from the perspective of DOD, how does
the outcome at Willow Grove affect the BRAC process?
Mr. Arny. The BRAC Act requires DOD to close and realign all
installations as recommended by the BRAC Commission, as is the case for
Naval Air Station Joint-Reserve Base (NASJRB) Willow Grove. The
Department will continue to cooperate with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania regarding establishment of a Joint Interagency
Installation (JII) on property made available as a result of the
closure of NASJRB Willow Grove. We have reviewed and commented on the
Commonwealth's JII implementation plan.
The Air Force controls approximately 162 acres at Willow Grove; the
Navy controls approximately 880 acres. While the precise acreage could
change as details are developed, approximately 88 acres of Air Force
property and 25 acres of Navy property will be used for a secure
enclave separate and apart from the JII. The enclave will contain an
Air National Guard mission, the 56th Stryker Brigade Headquarters, and
the Army Reserve Armed Forces Training Center. The remaining Federal
property (approximately 929 acres) will be available to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for its JII.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
defense access road program
127. Senator Warner. Secretary Eastin and Mr. Arny, I have a
question about the Defense Access Road (DAR) program used by DOD to pay
for public highway improvements required as a result of sudden/unusual
DOD-generated traffic impacts. One of the criteria to determine
eligibility for the program is DOD must assess whether the required
improvements to public roadways are the result of doubling of traffic
over a short duration (2 years) due to the establishment of a new
installation, installation expansion, or establishment of a new gate/
entrance. This criteria, which is the only one that applies to
installations receiving large population increases, is a result of the
2005 BRAC round. Yet, there is no way to certify ahead of time whether
traffic will at least double due to the increase, whether drivers will
adjust their routes to find the gate with the least delay, or account
for the current saturation on roads prior to the assessment of
doubling.
For example, at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico in Virginia, the
combination of increased traffic onto the base and more stringent
security at main entry points has resulted in morning traffic being
stopped all the way out to I-95, the busiest high-speed corridor on the
east coast. This is the current situation before more than 3,000
marines, civilians, and their families come to MCB Quantico as part of
BRAC. We all know the potential for disaster when two lanes of vehicles
and trucks on I-95 are speeding by stopped traffic at 70 miles an hour.
Someone will eventually get hurt. Yet, the improvement to the off-ramp
from I-95 to the main gate to get these marines and their families off
I-95 does not meet the DAR ``doubling'' criteria even though the
Department has caused the back-up, and the back-up will get worse.
With these problems in mind, will you review the criteria and get
back to this committee with your assessment whether the criteria allows
decisionmakers in the Department to make responsible decisions about
road work critical to the safety and security of DOD personnel?
Mr. Eastin and Mr. Arny. The DAR program criteria have been
established for many years and have been used consistently to help
address public highway issues incident to increased DOD activity or
mission growth. DOD considers the DAR criteria to be adequate and they
have been used successfully to address concerns. We are committed to
working with the owning highway authorities to address safety and
security situations as they arise.
In the case of MCB Quantico, the Department is taking action to
alleviate the traffic congestion at the I-95 ramps, and along Russell
Road, accessing both the east and west sides of the Base.
Because Russell Road and the I-95 ramps are on the property of MCB
Quantico, DOD can use BRAC funds for road projects to address these
concerns. Although the I-95 ramps meet the DAR criteria for doubling of
traffic, MCB Quantico, with Virginia Department of Transportation
approval, plans to complete the I-95 ramp work as part of the BRAC
MILCON vice through the DAR program, to ensure the road work is
completed as a concurrent BRAC project.
In addition to the I-95 ramp work, the MCB Quantico BRAC MILCON
includes projects to improve access to locations where BRAC-related
facilities will be sited on the west side of the Base. The actions
include widening Russell Road from two lanes to four lanes from the I-
95 ramps to the BRAC site approximately 1 mile west of I-95, improving
the west gate on Russell Road, and building a turn-off from Russell
Road to the BRAC site.
The existing MCB Quantico traffic congestion on Russell Road to the
gate access to the east side of Base is being addressed through
temporary traffic control measures to improve the access through the
Russell Road gate. Additionally, a MILCON project slated for fiscal
year 2009 will widen Russell Road at the gate to permanently improve
access to the Base.
Once these improvements are made, traffic is projected to clear the
I-95 through-lanes.
128. Senator Warner. Secretary Eastin and Mr. Arny, how exactly
does the Department determine whether traffic will be doubled without
having to wait until installation expansions are completed?
Mr. Eastin and Mr. Arny. As part of installation development, the
installation will both update its master plan and conduct an
environmental assessment as required by the NEPA. For both actions, the
responsible DOD components and installations assess transportation
impacts of proposed growth. The transportation analysis is completed by
qualified transportation engineering professionals, and the scope and
content of the analysis are developed using procedures that involve the
general public and local, State, and Federal agencies and officials.
These procedures allow us to project future traffic impacts from
installation expansion and will take into consideration appropriate
measures to mitigate those impacts, such as the redirection of traffic.
129. Senator Warner. Secretary Eastin and Mr. Arny, if the
Department relies on models, how do these models account for subjective
driver decisions to find the routes of least resistance?
Mr. Eastin and Mr. Arny. Qualified transportation engineering
professionals follow the Institute for Transportation Engineers
guidelines and use their expertise or models during the master planning
or environmental planning. When projecting traffic, the transportation
engineering professionals use transportation planning best practices to
determine paths of least resistance.
130. Senator Warner. Secretary Eastin and Mr. Arny, in your
opinion, are the criteria adequate or should they be changed?
Mr. Eastin and Mr. Arny. The DAR program criteria are effective and
do not need to be changed.
131. Senator Warner. Secretary Eastin and Mr. Arny, I am also
concerned that military installation commanders around the country do
not understand the DAR program as a way to address critical traffic
problems affecting their personnel. How does the Department get the
word out to installations about the program?
Mr. Eastin and Mr. Arny. The DAR program is a longstanding program
that is referred to in regulations (Army Regulation (AR) 420-1, Army
Facilities Management, February 12, 2008, and Joint Regulation AR 55-
80, DOD Transportation Engineering Program, November 17, 2003), as well
as in numerous facility management instructions and operating plans.
Additionally, presentations on the DAR program were given at two major
conferences organized by the DOD Office of Economic Adjustment
targeting communities and installations that will be gaining DOD
populations. Also, the report requested in the 2007 NDAA regarding the
DAR program, submitted to Congress last May facilitating an increased
awareness of the program within the Service BRAC offices and at the
installations. Moreover, in the summer of 2006 the Military Surface
Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency
(SDDCTEA) sent out information about the DAR program and requested
information from the Service BRAC offices and installations that were
gaining significant personnel. Information about the DAR program is
available to anyone from the Department of Transportation website at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/flh/defense.htm and from the SDDCTEA website at
http://www.tea.army.mil/DODProg/HND/DAR.htm.
anti-terrorism/force protection standards for dod facilities
132. Senator Warner. Mr Arny, in 2002, the DOD developed and
implemented new anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP) standards for
DOD installations and any facility that houses more than 11 DOD
employees. The standards include mandatory stand-off distances,
perimeter security measures, and reinforced structures. Given the
recent bombing of an Armed Forces recruiting station in New York City,
these standards are vitally important as the first line of defense
against a terrorist incident. Can you provide an assessment of the
Department's progress in the implementation of these standards?
Mr. Arny. The Department issued interim AT/FP standards on December
16, 1999. Standards were then updated and converted to UFC 4-010-01,
DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings and published on July
31, 2002, and was published on January 22, 2007. To ensure we maintain
technical currency, a comprehensive review of standards is ongoing.
Upon completion of the technical review, any changes to the Unified
Facilities Criteria will then be disseminated and subsequently
implemented. All new construction projects, major renovations, and new
leases that meet the criteria currently incorporate existing AT/FP
standards.
133. Senator Warner. Mr. Arny, does the Department have a deadline
for all DOD installations and facilities to comply with the standards?
Mr. Arny. There is no deadline for all facilities to comply with
the standards. The intent is for new construction of inhabited
facilities to comply and to bring existing facilities into compliance
over time as major investments are made or as leases are renewed. The
Unified Facilities Criteria specified that the AT/FP standards will
apply to MILCON projects starting with the fiscal year 2002 program.
All projects, regardless of funding source, will comply starting with
the fiscal year 2004 program. Since the fiscal year 2004 program, all
MILCON projects have been reviewed to incorporate AT/FP standards.
Since publication of the Unified Facilities Criteria in October 2003,
whenever repairs to a DOD facility are programmed and the repair cost
is at least 50 percent of the facility replacement cost, it is required
that the entire facility be brought into compliance with AT/FP
standards. Also, in any instance in which windows are to be replaced,
the replacement windows must comply with AT/FP standards. While these
are not deadlines, these stipulations ensure that AT/FP design
standards will be incorporated into DOD facilities as these facilities
are recapitalized.
134. Senator Warner. Mr. Arny, will the deadlines be met?
Mr. Arny. In compliance with the Unified Facilities Criteria, the
Department is already reviewing all leases, new construction, and
renovation projects to incorporate AT/FP standards.
135. Senator Warner. Mr. Arny, what will be the process for
granting waivers to the installations and facilities that do not meet
the standards?
Mr. Arny. The Department is not granting any waivers to the AT/FP
standards. However, the AT/FP standards are structured as performance
standards that can be met through different means. An installation
commander may obtain prior approval consistent with Service or Agency
guidance if any new construction project, renovation project, or leased
facility will utilize an alternative means. In many cases where there
are minimum prescriptive requirements such as standoff distance or
glazing thickness, those requirements are based on performance
standards and there are generally provisions to allow those
performances to be provided through alternate means where those means
will result in equivalent levels of protection. The intent of these
standards is to minimize the possibility of mass casualties in
buildings or portions of buildings owned, leased, privatized, or
otherwise occupied, managed, or controlled by or for DOD. These
standards provide appropriate, implementable, and enforceable measures
to establish a level of protection against terrorist attacks for all
inhabited DOD buildings where no known threat of terrorist activity
currently exists. While complete protection against all potential
threats for every inhabited building is cost prohibitive, the intent of
these standards can be achieved through prudent master planning, real
estate acquisition, and design and construction practices. Where the
conventional construction standoff distances detailed in these
standards are met, most conventional construction techniques can be
used with only marginal impact on the total construction or renovation
cost. The financial impact of these standards will be significantly
less than the economic and intangible costs of a mass casualty event.
While it is feasible to apply these standards to new construction as of
the effective dates established herein, applying them to all existing
construction and to all leased facilities as of those dates would not
be feasible. The intent, therefore, is to bring existing buildings into
compliance with these standards over time, as major investments are
made in them or as leases are renewed, such that eventually all
inhabited DOD buildings comply with these standards.
136. Senator Warner. Mr. Arny, I notice that many projects to
upgrade security at the main gates and entry points at installations
are contained in the FYDP accompanying the budget request for fiscal
year 2009. Given the Department's emphasis on AT/FP, why haven't the
critical upgrades been treated as a higher priority?
Mr. Arny. The Department is constantly reviewing priorities to
ensure resources available are used to accomplish warfighting
objectives. During the planning and programming process, the Services
diligently review their programs to manage assets effectively by
optimizing resources to deliver operational infrastructure for the
warfighters at our installations. AT/FP projects are given the same
rigor of consideration and scrutiny as other construction projects in
determining funding priorities.
137. Senator Warner. Mr. Arny, what percent of the installations in
the Department's inventory have operating gates and entry points that
do not meet current AT/FP standards?
Mr. Arny. Installation commanders are responsible for applying
protective measures consistent with the identified or perceived risk of
people getting hurt or killed, and with the implementing guidance
established by their Services and the geographic combatant commander
for the area of responsibility within which the installation is
located. They must protect their people on their installations by
managing and mitigating the risk to those people in the event of a
terrorist attack. In the case of operating gates and entry points,
protective measures may vary depending on the force protection
condition and threat-specific requirements. We do not currently monitor
the requested percentage due to its propensity to change relative to
threat assessments.
marine corps helicopter facility requirements at marine corps base
quantico, va
138. Senator Warner. Secretary Penn, I notice that the National
Defense Authorization budget request for fiscal year 2009 includes
$64.1 million to construct a helicopter maintenance hangar and ramp at
MCB Quantico. On a related note, I am also aware that the Navy program
to acquire the next presidential support helicopter, which will be
stationed at Quantico, is over budget and behind schedule. What current
operations will the two MILCON projects support?
Mr. Penn. The primary mission supported by the two referenced
MILCON projects at the Marine Corps Air Facility, Quantico is that of
HMX-1, which performs presidential support with aircraft to be
maintained at the proposed facilities. HMX-1 also performs operational
test activity for new helicopter systems and products destined for
use by the Fleet Marine Force. In support of this mission,
HMX-1 is required to fly and maintain the CH-46E, VH-3, VH-60, VH-71,
and the CH-53E helicopters. Additionally, HMX-1 provides helicopter
lift support to Marine Corps Combat Development Center, Quantico
schools such as Officer Candidate School, The Basic School, and various
VIPs in the Washington, DC area. The existing hangars and apron space
cannot meet current nor planned aircraft requirements.
139. Senator Warner. Secretary Penn, is the MILCON for the hangar
and ramp that the Navy has requested for fiscal year 2009 still a
critical requirement if the new presidential helicopter is not
delivered to the Navy as currently scheduled?
Mr. Penn. The hangar and ramp requested for fiscal year 2009
primarily supports HMX-1 operational test activity for new helicopter
systems and products. HMX-1 flies and maintains the CH46E, VH-3, VH-60,
VH-71, and CH-53 helicopters, along with presidential support. These
projects are needed even if the new presidential helicopter is
delivered later than scheduled.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2009
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Readiness and
Management Support,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
THE CURRENT READINESS OF THE ARMED FORCES
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:52 p.m. in
room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel K.
Akaka (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Akaka and Thune.
Majority staff members present: Michael J. McCord,
professional staff member; and William K. Sutey, professional
staff member.
Minority staff members present: 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; and Sean G. Stackley, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Benjamin L. Rubin and Brian F.
Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: Bonni Berge,
assistant to Senator Akaka; Andrew Shapiro, assistant to
Senator Clinton; Sandra Luff, assistant to Senator Warner; and
Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN
Senator Akaka. Aloha and good afternoon to all of you.
Senator Thune and I are happy to be here, after that vote on
the floor of the Senate, and to commence our hearing on the
second subcommittee meeting to discuss the current readiness of
our military forces.
On March 12, we received a briefing, from each of the
Services, on the readiness status of our Armed Forces. That
session was a very useful initial discussion for today's
hearing. Our committee, and indeed the entire Congress, shares
the Nation's concern that our land, sea, and air forces are
under tremendous stress. We have watched with apprehension as
the current scope and pace of combat opportunities in Iraq and
Afghanistan have stressed our military personnel and equipment
over the last 6 years.
Military readiness does not just happen. It must be
continuously measured, aggressively managed, and fully funded.
We share the responsibility to ensure that this Nation has the
land, sea, and air forces necessary to protect us and our
interests at any time and anywhere in the world.
Each of our witnesses has the demanding responsibility for
the measurement and management of their Service's readiness to
meet the requirements of military operations today and in the
future.
This afternoon, we welcome General Richard A. Cody, Vice
Chief of Staff of the United States Army; General Robert
Magnus, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps; Admiral
Patrick M. Walsh, Vice Chief of Naval Operations; and General
Duncan J. McNabb, Vice Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.
As this may well be the last time that General Cody and
General Magnus testify before this subcommittee prior to their
retirement later this year, I want to take this opportunity to
thank you for your dedicated service to the Army, the Marine
Corps, and this Nation. It has been my great pleasure and
privilege to work with you both. Your commitment to this
Nation's soldiers and marines is a model to all of us. So,
please accept my warmest mahalo, which is thank you, and also
aloha, for your support and service to our great Nation.
Gentlemen, again, we look forward to your testimony. So,
let me call on Senator Thune for his statement.
Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN THUNE
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for scheduling this hearing to discuss the critical issue of
the current readiness of our Armed Forces.
I also want to thank our witnesses for their commitment and
service to our country. Your experience and leadership ensures
that, regardless of how much we have asked of our
servicemembers, morale remains high, recruiting remains strong,
and our units continue to accomplish their missions.
I also do want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, as you did,
to recognize the honorable service of two of our witnesses, who
both will be retiring this year, after distinguished careers in
their respective services.
General Cody, in addition to being the Army's Vice Chief of
Staff since 2004, you have 36 years of experience, including
command of the Screaming Eagles of the 101st Airborne Division
and service in Albania, Korea, and the Middle East. I know you
also have two sons who are serving in the Army, with a combined
seven combat tours between them. So, the legacy of dedicated
service continues for your family.
General Magnus, after 39 years, you're about to transition
from active to inactive status, knowing that marines never
really retire. You've had an amazing career, also, as a
helicopter pilot, in assignments ranging from Thailand to the
commanding general at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, in
California.
I want to thank both of you, and your families, for your
leadership and commitment to your respective Service and to our
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, last week, the President met with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon to review the same issue we
will discuss today: the impact of sustained combat operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan on the readiness of our forces. There's
no doubt these issues are of the utmost importance to the
national security interests of this Nation.
This month, Congress faces critical decisions about
emergency supplemental funding for both current military
operations and the readiness of our forces. In the debate to
come, we must remember that our military forces are, indeed,
showing the signs of stress and strain. General Cody has
included, in his written testimony, that the Army is out of
balance after 6 years of sustained combat operations against a
ruthless and relentless enemy. This is to be expected. Any
skilled and persistent enemy dedicated to the destruction of
our national interests will seek to knock our formidable
military forces out of balance; they will find ways to counter
our strengths, through insurgency tactics, fomentation of civil
war, and callous disregard for innocent lives. They seek any
means possible to weaken our forces and to defeat us through
attrition and dissolution of national will. We cannot let this
happen.
In September 2001, the Department of the Army assessed that
only about 50 percent of its combat units were fully ready to
carry out their assigned missions. In the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks, our Armed Forces on Active Duty and our
citizen soldiers in the Reserve component responded to the call
to duty with selfless sacrifice and a commitment to succeed in
every mission, no matter how difficult. Regardless of their
level of readiness, they've responded to every task with
innovation, sweat equity, and the can-do attitude that is a
hallmark of the best traditions of America's military.
The written testimony today describes the same candid
responses of our forces. Airmen and sailors perform unfamiliar
missions alongside their comrades in the ground forces. The
Army is transforming the way it is organized to meet emerging
threats, deploying units trained in innovative ways, and
quickly modified doctrine for the mission at hand, in order to
ensure absolute success. We provide these deploying units a
full array of resources at the expense of nondeploying units,
while we ship the newest equipment forward to the fight.
While these correct decisions ensure success in the war at
hand, they have a detrimental effect on the strength and depth
of our Reserves and our ground forces. These effects are
understandable and, in some cases, unavoidable, but they impact
our residual strength, our strategic depth. Our Nation has a
vast array of national security interests. These interests
require military forces prepared for the full spectrum of
potential missions overseas and at home. Against this standard,
many military commanders of ground forces rate their units as
not fully prepared. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses of the actions being taken to improve the readiness
of our nondeployed forces.
An assessment of unit readiness depends upon four factors
in relation to assigned missions: personnel who are ready,
adequate training, available equipment, and the working order
of that equipment. I asked the witnesses to describe exactly
which factors affect current unit readiness. Given this level
of detail, the Department of Defense (DOD) leadership and
Congress can focus resources, prioritize efforts, and
ultimately reverse negative readiness trends to restore balance
to our Armed Forces.
Many fixes are already in place for many of the issues
affecting readiness. The President's January 2007 announcement
of an increase in the number of combat ground forces in the
Army and the Marine Corps is a vital part of the readiness
remedy. I would prefer that we grow the forces more quickly and
with the assurance that we can maintain the same high-quality
recruits we presently have in the force. I'm hopeful our
witnesses will be able to tell us when this growth will
translate into positive effects for readiness.
The witnesses described concerns with training. In the next
3 years, the availability of additional forces will add time
between deployments to allow for full-spectrum training for
mission-essential tasks. The Army has also transformed units to
task-organized, modular brigades, reorganizing its Reserve
Forces and growing new support units to address the need for
high-demand and low-density skill sets. These efforts will
reduce reliance on the other Services for augmentation and
allow them to concentrate on their own training.
I also look forward to hearing what plans are in place to
maximize the dwell time between deployments to ensure adequate
preparation for a full range of missions.
In the written statements, the witnesses also emphasized
the readiness impacts of equipment that is available, operable,
and represents the best technology. Both the budget request for
fiscal year 2009 and the second part of fiscal year 2008
emergency supplemental appropriations request pending before
Congress contain funding requests to procure equipment in
response to current shortages. I firmly believe the timely
delivery of funds for the reset and reconstitution of equipment
directly enhances the readiness of nondeployed forces. I hope
our witnesses will be able to discuss their Service's
investment strategy to re-equip forces and to restore
prepositioned stocks for levels required by operational plans.
As a final note, I want to emphasize one readiness trend.
This country is in a period of the longest sustained combat
with an enemy since Vietnam. We're fighting a war with Armed
Forces comprised completely of volunteers. Every person
entering a recruiting station knows that he or she will
eventually see combat. Additionally, servicemembers faced with
the decision about whether to stay in the military know that
they will continue to be deployed to combat zones, and know
their families will continue to sacrifice. Yet, as this
committee continues to watch recruiting and retention
statistics closely, the numbers remain consistent with historic
trends, morale remains high, young men and women continue to
volunteer to serve. I'm not sure whether this is more a credit
to their character or the result of outstanding efforts by
military leaders to emphasize the tangible benefits and the
noble endeavor of service to our country. Either way, I'm
grateful for the decisions of our servicemembers, and I am
determined to ensure that they and their families have
everything that they need to be successful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony
from our witnesses.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Thune.
Each of you have submitted a written statement. So, without
objection, they will all be included in the record.
We would appreciate it if you would keep your comments
short, to allow time for Senators' questions.
General Cody, will you please begin with your testimony?
STATEMENT OF GEN RICHARD A. CODY, USA, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF,
UNITED STATES ARMY
General Cody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Thune.
I'm honored to represent the Nation's 1 million soldiers,
nearly 600,000 of whom are serving on Active Duty today, and
over 250,000 of whom are deployed worldwide, doing the Nation's
bidding, as I testify on these issues critical to the readiness
of the United States Army.
As the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the
Army have testified, the coming decades are likely to be ones
of persistent conflict. I agree with that assessment. To defend
this Nation in a dangerous and unpredictable world, the Army,
as part of the Joint Force, must be fully prepared to conduct
prompt and sustained operations across the full spectrum of
conflict, worldwide.
But, today our Army is out of balance. The current demand
for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds our sustainable
supply of soldiers, of units and equipment, and limits our
ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies. Our
readiness, quite frankly, is being consumed as fast as we can
build it. Lengthy and repeated deployments, with insufficient
recovery time at home station, have placed incredible stress on
our soldiers and on their families, testing the resolve of the
All-Volunteer Force like never before. While we should be
extremely proud that our men and women in uniform have proven
incredibly resilient so far, we must never take their selfless
service for granted.
The senior leaders of the Army are committed to preserving
the All-Volunteer Force, building strategic depth, and
improving the capabilities of our soldiers, all the while
providing the necessary combat forces for Iraq and Afghanistan.
I know you are, too.
Our plan to restore balance by 2011 has four fundamental
imperatives: sustain the force, prepare the force, reset the
force, and transform the force.
Critical to these imperatives is our plan to grow the Army
by 74,000 soldiers, which will provide a total of 76 brigade
combat teams and approximately 227 support brigades across all
three components of the Army by 2013. Following a reduction in
operational demand, our rotational goals for a steady-state
security posture of the Army is 1 year in combat or deployed, 3
years back, for the Active Force; and 1 year mobilized and 5
years back, for the Reserve component. Continued deployments
below these goals put the All-Volunteer Force at risk in a time
of persistent conflict.
At the same time, we must continue to modernize, so that
our soldiers will always have tactical and technical overmatch
against every enemy. The Future Combat System (FSC) will
provide our soldiers an unparalleled understanding of the
operational environment they're in, increased precision in
lethality, and enhanced force protection in both irregular and
conventional campaigns. In essence, the FCS will provide that
overmatch. Soldiers need the FCS. They need it now, in the
current fight, and they need it to defeat future enemies.
The FCS is this Nation's promise to the men and women on
the ground who face the greatest danger, that we remain
committed to provide the best equipment to help them accomplish
their mission and return safely to their families.
To be ready to meet the needs of this Nation, our soldiers
in this Army need full and timely funding. We need the
remaining $66.5 billion from the fiscal year 2008 global war on
terror funding, the $140.7 billion requested in the fiscal year
2009 base budget, and the fiscal year 2009 global war on terror
supplemental request. A delay in the fiscal year 2008 global
war on terror funding, the remaining piece of that supplemental
request by the end of May, would create substantial impacts and
unneeded stress on our people and our readiness.
The Nation and your Army have been at war for over 6 years.
Our soldiers have borne the burden of this war with
unparalleled strength and determination. Every day, they
accomplish the mission. Every day, they do so with valor and
incredible personal courage. For 15 months, 455 days, and what
seems like an eternity of minutes when you are in combat, they
and their families endure immeasurable hardships and personal
sacrifices in defense of this Nation, and they do so with
little complaint, because they believe this Nation is worth
defending.
Those of us in leadership positions must be the vanguard to
our soldiers' well-being. Our soldiers and their families must
continue to be our utmost priority as we properly fund, man,
train, and equip this All-Volunteer Force.
Congress has provided tremendous support to our Army these
past 6 years, and we are grateful for all that you have
provided. With the continued support of the Secretary of
Defense, the President, and Congress, the Army will restore
itself to balance and build the readiness and the strategic
depth we need to meet the uncertainties of this world.
I await your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Cody follows:]
Prepared Statement by GEN Richard A. Cody, USA
For over 6 years our Nation has been at war. Our Army--Active,
Guard, and Reserve--has been a leader in this war. We have been fully
engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, and defending the homeland. Today, I am
honored to represent the Nation's nearly 1 million soldiers--nearly
600,000 of whom serving on active duty and over 250,000 of whom are
deployed worldwide--as I testify on issues critical to the readiness of
the United States Army.
To understand the need for an Army that is fully prepared to
conduct operations across the spectrum of conflict, one must clearly
understand that the world in which we live is exceedingly dangerous.
Global terrorism and extremist ideologies threaten our safety and our
free way of life.
We believe that the coming decades are likely to be ones of
persistent conflict among state, non-state, and individual actors who
use violence to achieve their political and ideological ends. Soldiers
will continue to confront highly adaptive and intelligent adversaries
in complex terrain. They will exploit technology, information, and
cultural differences to threaten U.S. interests. Soldiers must be ready
to conduct full-spectrum operations in campaigns that include peace
engagement, counterinsurgency, and major combat operations. Because
these missions require us to operate among the people, Army forces will
continue to have a central role conducting Joint operations to
implement our national security strategy and defend our Nation.
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 component are performing magnificently, many Reserve component
units have been assigned missions as an operational force, when they
had been resourced as a Strategic Reserve for decades. 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.
Given the current theater demand for Army forces, 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 uncertain 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. By sustaining our soldiers and their families we will ensure
that they have the quality of life they deserve, and that we will
continue to recruit and retain a high quality force. In order to
sustain our force we must 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; continue to improve the quality of life for Army families;
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; and 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. To fully prepare our Army, we must
continue to adapt and enhance the rigor and realism 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 base budget-funded
modernization efforts; partner with private industry to rapidly develop
and field equipment needed on today's battlefield; and 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. The objective
of Reset is to undo the accumulated effects of more than 6 years of
combat operations.
There are three broad components of Reset: resetting equipment,
retraining soldiers and reconstituting units by revitalizing soldiers
and families. Each of these components must be sufficiently resourced
to set the conditions for units to prepare for their next deployment
and future contingencies.
The Army must repair, replace, and recapitalize its equipment. As
we reset equipment, we must not only return units to pre-deployment
levels of equipment readiness, but also equip them at the standards
required either as part of the modular Army or posture them to return
to combat.
Retraining soldiers is another important component of Reset.
Soldiers must be retrained to accomplish the full range of missions.
Units back from deployments face the challenge of retraining soldiers
for missions that may be different from those they just completed,
especially in the Reserve component. Some units face a transformation
process that includes a new mission and organizational structure. These
requirements are in addition to professional education requirements for
soldiers and leaders.
The Army must also revitalize soldiers and families. Repeated
deployments of longer length combined with shorter dwell time at home
have stressed soldiers and their families. Soldiers and their families
must be given the time and resources they need to reintegrate and
reverse the effects of the sustained operational tempo. The Army is
providing a number of programs and services to assist the soldiers and
families during this time. Properly resourced, these programs will
contribute to revitalizing our soldiers and families.
transform
To transform our force, we must continuously improve our ability to
meet the needs of the combatant commanders in a changing security
environment. In order to transform we must 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 Future Combat Systems (FCS) as the core
of our modernization effort; continue organizational change through
modularity and rebalancing to become more deployable, tailorable, and
versatile; complete the transition of the Reserve component to an
Operational Reserve and change the way we train, equip, resource, and
mobilize Reserve component units; and integrate the Grow the Army
initiative, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), Global Defense Posture
Realignment, and the operation of installations and facilities.
Achieving these goals will increase our readiness, improve our
efficiency, and improve the quality of life for our soldiers, families,
and Army civilians.
I want to highlight three critical aspects of readiness:
Modernization; Growth of the Army; and Full and Timely Funding.
modernization
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 in both irregular warfare and conventional campaigns.
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 persistent and
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, and they are proving
themselves valuable in the current fight and are being fielded to our
soldiers in combat operations today.
Soldiers have always had to fight for information. Since World War
II, 52 percent of casualties resulted from ``finding the enemy.'' In
irregular warfare, when the enemy hides among the people, soldiers need
the Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition (RSTA)
capability to identify threats before the point man enters the building
or the convoy hits an IED. Our goal is to develop the situation before
making contact, so when soldiers engage the enemy, it is from a
position of advantage instead of the ambush zone. FCS provides over 830
RSTA sensors--four times the number in the old brigade design and twice
the number in the modular Brigade Combat Team (BCT). Plus, every
soldier truly becomes an effective sensor when he's on the network. The
FCS-equipped BCT also provides more Infantry to secure the population,
build local contacts and gain more human intelligence. By combining
timely and precise RSTA with the power of a robust network, soldiers
can discern insurgent threats before they emerge instead of after they
act. This combination of RSTA and the network gives commanders what
they need to see the environment, build shared situational awareness,
act first and react swiftly to take the initiative away from the
insurgent.
Given the risk to soldiers in close combat with irregular threats,
soldiers need increased survivability in complex urban and human
terrain. We are reaching the limits of what armored protection can
provide in this kind of fight. FCS provides a new combination of
networked and physical systems that help soldiers avoid detection,
avoid the initial hit and survive to eliminate the exposed threat.
Task Force Observe, Detect, Identify, and Neutralize (ODIN)
provides a current example in Iraq that reveals how FCS-like RSTA
improves situational understanding and survivability by leveraging the
power of the manned and unmanned team. Since we established Task Force
ODIN to employ Unmanned Aircraft Systems, linked to commanders in the
air and on the ground through the Common Ground Station, we have killed
over several hundred IED emplacers, attacked the IED network, and
captured 141 High-Value Targets. This manned/unmanned teaming has
resulted in far more survivable manned aircraft. That's powerful.
That's FCS capabilities working today--in combat.
FCS is the our highest priority program, and the Army's only major
defense acquisition program on the Department of Defense's list of its
10 largest programs. Over the past three legislative cycles, funding
for FCS has been cut by $790 million. These direct reductions have
resulted in an indirect programmatic cost increases of $403 million,
resulting in total impacts to the FCS program of over $1.2 billion.
This impact has resulted in significant delays to System Development
and Demonstration work, and have caused slippage in key FCS program
milestones by up to 8 months. We cannot sustain these continued cuts to
our #1 modernization program, and we ask for full funding of this
year's request in the President's budget.
Another critical enabler for the success of our future force are
the capabilities that manned and unmanned Army Aviation bring to the
battlefield. Aviation forces continue to prove each day their
versatility to rapidly reinforce and sustain the commander on the
ground and overcome land-bound intervisibility lines and obstacles with
responsiveness and unmatched timely and integrated reconnaissance,
surveillance, and target acquisition. Army Aviation's vital role is
enduring and therefore, the Army seeks your continued support to the
efforts to modernize Army Aviation as we fight the Global War on Terror
and transform, simultaneously. I ask your continued support for the
production of the UH-60M, CH-47F, AH64D, UH-72A (LUH), AH-70 (ARH) and
Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA). Additionally, we seek your continued
support in the development and procurement of Aviation Survivability
Equipment, the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, and our Unmanned
Aircraft Systems, Sky Warrior, Shadow, and Raven. Each of these systems
provide required capabilities in direct support to the commander on the
ground and their roles are assured for the next 20+ years.
growth of the force
Our Grow the Force initiative is a critical component of reducing
stress on the force, improving readiness, and building strategic depth.
In January 2007, the President approved a growth in Army End Strength
by 74.2K (65K in the Active component, 8.2K growth in the Army National
Guard, and 1,000 growth in the U.S. Army Reserve). This plan will build
six additional Active component BCTs, 15 Support Brigades, and
associated Combat Support and Combat Service Support units. We will
culminate in a total of 76 BCTs and approximately 227 Support Brigades
across all 3 components by 2013.
Under surge conditions the Army goal is to deploy the Active
component at a 1:2 deployed to dwell ratio and the Reserve component at
a 1:4 mobilized to demobilized ratio. At these ratios, the Army can
supply 21-22 BCTs annually. Currently, meeting global demand requires
dwell times well below this surge goal. Some units deploy for 15 months
with only 12 months training at home station prior to their next
deployment. To meet the joint demand for Army forces, some Reserve
component units must also deploy sooner than the goal of 1 year
mobilized and 4 years demobilized. Continued deployment rates below the
surge goal put the All-Volunteer Force at risk in this era of
persistent conflict.
The Army is executing a tightly-woven plan to support this growth,
and we are executing this plan concurrently with the 2005 round of BRAC
and the Global Defense Posture Realignment. This requires an investment
in military construction that is unprecedented--over $66 billion from
fiscal year 2006-2013. In order for the plan to have its intended
affect on readiness, we must have full, predictable and timely funding
for BRAC and military construction. An interruption of our planned
sequence of basing actions, and associated construction projects, will
have profound impacts on readiness, and the quality of life of soldiers
and their families.
full and timely funding
Our soldiers need full and timely funding of the Army's fiscal year
2009 request of $140.7 billion to be ready to meet the needs of the
Nation. For their sake and the safety of our Nation, we must remain
dedicated to put the Army back in balance. Over the last 6 years, the
Army has received increasing proportions of its funding through
supplemental and global war on terrorism appropriations. Because of
this recurring reliance on global war on terrorism funds and a natural
overlap between base and global war on terrorism programs, the Army's
base budget does not fully cover the cost of both current and future
readiness requirements. Because the global war on terrorism 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.
The Army appreciates the $70 billion ``global war on terrorism
bridge fund'' that Congress provided in December 2007. However, $66.5
billion from the fiscal year 2008 global war on terrorism request has
not yet been provided to the Army. Congressional action on the balance
of the global war on terrorism request prior to the end of May will
provide funds in time to prevent any disruption in operations or
programs. A delay beyond the end of May will create substantial impacts
on readiness. Anticipated impacts include:
The Army runs out of pay for Active Duty and National
Guard soldiers in June 2008;
The Army runs out of O&M for the Active component in
early July and for the Guard in late June;
Two Stryker BCTs may not receive hull protection kits
before they deploy;
Armored Security Vehicles could face a break in
production;
Army National Guard will not receive 10 CH-47 F model
helicopters;
Converting and existing BCTs will not receive the
Bridge to Future Networks communication systems; and
The Army will be unable to upgrade and construct
facilities for returning Wounded Warriors at Forts Drum,
Campbell, Stewart, Carson, Hood, Riley and Polk
There are clear implications on the Army's readiness to each and
every one of these projected impacts. I ask for your full and timely
support of the balance of the fiscal year 2008 global war on terrorism
request, and the fiscal year 2009 base budget. They are absolutely
vital to supporting our soldiers, sustaining their families, and
restoring balance to our Army.
preserving the strength of the nation
The Nation and your 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. But their valor is not
enough to restore balance and readiness to our Army. We must continue
to invest in our centerpiece--soldiers--and the families that support
them.
Congress has provided tremendous support to our Army these past 6
years, and we are grateful for all you have provided. You have extended
our recruiting incentives, provided for our Wounded Warriors, grown the
Army, made significant improvements in the quality of life of our
soldiers and their families, and since September 11 you have authorized
and funded 94 new programs worth over $100 billion. With the continued
support from the Secretary of Defense, the President, and Congress, the
Army will restore balance, build the readiness necessary in an era of
persistent conflict, and remain the strength of the Nation.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
General Magnus?
STATEMENT OF GEN. ROBERT MAGNUS, USMC, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT OF
THE MARINE CORPS
General Magnus. Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, thank you
for this opportunity to report to you today on the readiness of
your Marine Corps.
On behalf of our marines, sailors, and their families, I
would like to extend my appreciation for the sustained support
that Congress provides your Marine Corps.
Your marines are fully engaged in the long war. Today, with
over 33,000 marines deployed, from Iraq to Afghanistan, the
Horn of Africa to West Africa, from Korea to the Philippines,
and here in our Homeland hemisphere, your marines and sailors
are performing magnificently under challenging and often
dangerous conditions. I want to assure you that our warriors in
combat are our number one priority. They are well-trained,
well-led, and well-equipped for their assigned missions.
Although we are currently meeting our operational
requirements with ready, mission-capable forces, the net
effects of sustained combat operations and our high operational
tempo are taking a toll on our marines, their families, our
equipment, and the full-spectrum-training readiness.
Contributing to the stress on our force is the short dwell time
between deployments and our intense focus on counterinsurgency
operations. The short dwell time at home does not allow our
units the time to train on the full-spectrum missions needed to
be ready for other contingencies. This most directly affects
your marines' proficiency in core competencies, such as
combined arms and amphibious operations.
To ensure our forward-deployed forces maintain high
readiness, we have been required to source personnel and
equipment from nondeployed units and pre-positioning programs.
This cross-leveling of personnel and equipment has reduced the
nondeployed units' ability to train for those other contingency
operations.
First, to sustain the demands of the long war while we
correct the effects of stress, the Marine Corps is growing its
Active component end strength to 202,000 marines. This increase
will provide the combatant commanders with ready marines for
the current counterinsurgency mission. It will also improve our
Active component deployment-to-dwell ration to 1-to-2, reducing
the stress on marines and families, and ensuring that marines
have the necessary full-spectrum training. The increased Active
end strength will create three balanced Marine Expeditionary
Forces and also reduce the need to mobilize our Reserve Forces,
improving their dwell ratio to 1-to-5.
Second, we are resetting our forces to ensure our equipment
remains ready for tomorrow's missions. For over 5 years,
intensive combat operations have resulted in the heavy use and
loss of our ground and aviation equipment. Operational demands
have also increased our equipment maintenance and replacement
costs far beyond what was planned in our baseline budgets. With
Congress's help over the past 3 years, we have begun to make
progress in meeting reset requirements. To date, Congress has
provided $10.9 billion in supplemental funding towards our
estimated current total reset requirement of $15.6 billion. We
look forward to continuing to reset our forces with the
remaining fiscal year 2008 global war on terror request.
Third, to ensure that your Marine Corps will remain ready
for future challenges, we will continue to modernize our
warfighting equipment, including new ships and aircraft, and
our infrastructure. I am proud to report that your support has
helped ensure the continuing success of marines and sailors.
The morale and resiliency of your marines have never been
higher. They volunteer to serve their Nation at war, have been
sent to do that mission, and know that they are succeeding,
despite very demanding conditions and a ruthless enemy. We will
continue to keep our primary focus on supporting marines and
sailors in combat and on taking care of their families at home.
We will continue to reset and modernize your Marine Corps,
ensuring that it remains ready today, ready tomorrow, and ready
for the uncertain challenges of the future.
Congress's support has enabled us to succeed. That
continuing support will ensure that we will always, as Congress
has directed, ``be the most ready when the Nation is least
ready.''
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Magnus follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gen. Robert Magnus, USMC
i. introduction
Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee; on behalf of your Marine Corps, I would like to thank you
for your generous and sustained support and look forward to this
opportunity to discuss the readiness of your Marine Corps. Your marines
know that the people of the United States and their Government are
behind them, and your support has been exceptional.
America's Marine Corps is fully engaged in the Long War. Around the
globe, they are performing magnificently under challenging and
dangerous conditions, and despite a high operational tempo, the morale
and resiliency of your marines have never been higher. They believe in
what they are doing, and know that their sacrifices are making a
positive difference everyday. We are currently meeting all operational
requirements with ready, mission-capable forces, but sustained combat
operations and our high operational tempo are taking a toll on our
warriors, equipment, and full spectrum training readiness, as well as
their families. To address these challenges we need your continued
support to maintain current capabilities, reset the force, and
modernize to prepare for future national security challenges. With your
continuing support, we will remain the Nations' premiere expeditionary
force in readiness--most ready when the Nation is least ready.
ii. stress on the force--usmc commitments in the long war
Our operational tempo and the global demand for Marine forces in
support of the Long War remain high. Today, nearly 32,000 marines are
deployed worldwide. Over 25,000 marines continue to support operations
in Iraq, where we are having extraordinary success in transitioning
responsibility to Iraqi security forces and disrupting insurgent
activities--resulting in dramatically improved security throughout al
Anbar province.
Elements of Marine Corps Forces Special Operation Command continue
to serve afloat with our Marine Expeditionary Units, and provide
foreign military training teams to partner-nation Special Operations
Forces--most recently in Mauritania. Also serving ashore, Marine Corps
Forces Special Operations Command continues to conduct combat
operations with Afghan, U.S., and allied Special Forces units in
Afghanistan. Additionally, this month the Marine Corps will deploy
approximately 3,400 additional marines to Afghanistan to conduct combat
operations against resurgent Taliban forces, and to help build capacity
within the Afghan National Security Forces.
This past year, Marine forces participated in over 60 Theater
Security Cooperation events, ranging from small Mobile Training Teams
in Central America to Marine Expeditionary Unit exercises in Africa,
the Middle East, and the Pacific. Additionally, the Marine Corps
conducted civil-military and humanitarian assistance operations
including New Horizons events in Nicaragua, land mine removal training
in Azerbaijan, fire fighting support in Southern California, and
cyclone disaster relief in Bangladesh.
Across the globe, Marine Security Guard forces provide crucial
support at U.S. embassies from Amman to Zagreb. They perform their
duties superbly, as demonstrated in Belgrade. Our Fleet Anti-terrorism
Security Teams provide a forward deployed expeditionary capability in
support of the combatant commanders and their naval component
commanders by protecting our personnel and key infrastructure. They
recently provided a quick reaction force in support of President Bush's
trip to Africa.
Due to the continued high demand for Marine forces, our non-
deployed units are consistently stressed by the requirement to send
their leadership personnel as individual augmentees for transition
teams, joint headquarters, and other requirements in support of
Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Enduring Freedom (OEF). While these
Marine leaders are enhancing the capabilities of Iraqi and Afghan
security forces, and performing needed functions with our deployed
joint headquarters, their extended absence from our nondeployed forces
leave their units short of the key personnel needed to effectively
train, develop unit cohesion, and lead.
Contributing to the stress on our force is the short dwell time
between deployments and a necessarily intense focus on
counterinsurgency operations. Deploying units conduct a rigorous pre-
deployment training program focused heavily on the Iraq and Afghanistan
counterinsurgency missions. The short dwell time available at home does
not allow our units the time to train to the full spectrum of missions
needed to be expeditiously responsive for other contingencies. This
short dwell time and heavy training focus on counterinsurgency limit
the ability to develop and maintain proficiency in core competencies
such as combined arms and amphibious operations. Additionally, the need
for units such as artillery, mechanized maneuver and air defense units
to train and conduct ``in lieu of missions'' (such as security,
military policing, and civil affairs) degrades the readiness of those
units to conduct their regular primary mission. While the result is a
Marine Corps well trained for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq, there is significant risk in our degraded ability to support
other operations, including major combat operations where those primary
mission, full spectrum capabilities would be required.
The sustained, high operational tempo of the past several years
continues to take its toll on our equipment readiness. In order to
ensure that our forward deployed forces are sufficiently equipped, we
have cross-leveled equipment from our nondeployed units, strategic
programs, and in-stores assets. This cross leveling has degraded our
nondeployed units' ability to train for and conduct additional
contingency operations.
The net effect of focusing our equipment and personnel priorities
on forward deployed units, coupled with a heavy training focus on
counterinsurgency operations, is that our ability is very limited to
rapidly provide ready forces to conduct other small or large scale
operations as well as Theater Engagement, Theater Security Cooperation,
and Humanitarian Assistance, missions. Currently, units require
additional time to form, train, and equip their forces before deploying
in support of contingency operations. Such delay limits effective early
options for the Commander in Chief and increases the likelihood of U.S.
casualties.
As we continue the Long War, we must maintain current capabilities
while we simultaneously prepare for the challenges of the future. The
Marine Corps will do this by: right-sizing the force; resetting the
force; taking care of our warriors and their families; and modernizing
the Marine Corps for the future.
iii. right-sizing the marine corps
Today, your Active component Marine Corps end strength is
approximately 188,000 marines. As the first step towards minimizing
stress on our force and meeting the demands of the Long War, the Marine
Corps will grow its Active component personnel end strength to 202,000
marines by 2011. This increase in structure will provide the
capabilities for three balanced Marine Expeditionary Forces--each
possessing significant ground, aviation, combat logistics, and command
and control capability--capable of executing full spectrum operations
anywhere in the world. Our end strength growth is designed to move the
unit deployment-to-dwell time ratio, currently near 1:1 for most units,
to a more acceptable ratio of 1:2. This increased dwell time will
provide units with additional time to conduct full spectrum training,
and significantly reduce the strain on marines and their families. Our
increase in training capacity will be gradual, as we stand up new
units, add end strength, and grow our mid-grade enlisted and officer
leadership. These are all vital parts of our growth that cannot be
developed overnight.
Although growing our force structure presents challenges, we are
progressing well. Last year we stood up two infantry battalions and
added capacity to our combat engineer battalions and air naval gunfire
liaison companies. This year we will add a third infantry battalion,
and increase capacity in much needed skill sets including intelligence,
communication, civil affairs, military police, unmanned aerial vehicle,
helicopter, air command and control, combat service support, and
explosive ordnance disposal. Additionally, our growth in fiscal year
2008 will add 200 marines to the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, and
nearly 500 to our Training and Education Command.
a. Growing the Force: 202,000 Marines
The Marine Corps surpassed its fiscal year 2007 authorized end
strength goal of 184,000, and is well on track to meet both the fiscal
year 2008 goal of 189,000 marines and our targeted end strength of
202,000 marines by fiscal year 2011.
Recruiting
A vital factor in sustaining our force and meeting end strength
goals is the recruitment of 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. We continue to recruit the best of America's young men
and women into our ranks. In fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps added
5,000 marines to our total authorized end strength, and achieved over
100 percent of the Active component accession goal necessary to grow
the force. We also met 100 percent of our Reserve recruiting goals. We
met these goals while maintaining the high quality standards the
American people expect of their marines. Over 95 percent of our
accessions were high school graduates (Department of Defense (DOD)
standard is 90 percent), and over 66 percent were in the upper mental
group testing categories (DOD standard is 60 percent). In fact, we
believe these high standards make the Marine Corps more attractive to
those considering service in the Armed Forces in a time of war.
Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the quality of youth
today and the long term effects it has on reducing attrition at the
recruit depots, increasing retention, and improving readiness in the
operating forces.
We know that active and Reserve recruiting will remain challenging
particularly given the increased accession requirements needed to meet
our end strength growth. To succeed, we need the continuing support of
Congress to sustain our existing programs and the incentives essential
to achieving our recruiting mission.
Retention
Retention is the other important part of building and sustaining
the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps achieved unprecedented numbers of
reenlistments in both the first term and career force in fiscal year
2007; a strong indicator of our force's high morale. The expanded
reenlistment goals, 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.
This achievement enabled us to reach the first end strength increase
milestone of 184,000 while maintaining our high quality standards. In
fact, a recent Center for Naval Analysis study showed that the quality
of our first term force has improved steadily since fiscal year 2000.
The percentage of marines that were high school graduates, scored in
the top 50th percentile of the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT),
and achieved a first class physical fitness test score, increased from
40 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 51 percent in fiscal year 2007.
For fiscal year 2008, our retention goals are even more
aggressive--17,631 compared to 16,098 in fiscal year 2007--but we fully
expect to meet them. Our continuing success will be attributable to two
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 . . . and they know they are winning. Second,
they understand our culture is one that rewards proven performance--our
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRB) are designed to retain top quality
marines that possess the most relevant skill sets.
Our Marines' leadership and technical skills make them
extraordinarily marketable to lucrative civilian employment
opportunities. To retain our outstanding marines, we need Congress'
support for SRB funding. In fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps spent
approximately $460 million in SRB and Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP) to
help reach our end strength goal. With a reenlistment requirement of
17,631 in fiscal year 2008, the Marine Corps expects to spend $536
million in reenlistment incentives. 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.
Reserve Component End Strength
Our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are a Total Force effort,
which includes the superb performance by Marine Reserve Forces. The
Marine Corps goal is to obtain a 1:5 deployment-to-dwell ratio within
our Reserve component. As our Active Force increases in size, the
current, necessary reliance on our Reserve Forces will decrease--
helping us achieve the desired deployment-to-dwell ratio within our
current authorized end strength of 39,600 Selected Marine Corps
Reserves. As with every organization within the Marine Corps, we
consistently review the make-up and structure of our Reserve component
to ensure the right capabilities reside within the Marine Forces
Reserve units and the Individual Mobilization Augmentee program.
Military-to-Civilian Conversions
Military-to-civilian conversions replace marines in non-military-
specific billets with qualified civilians, enabling the Corps to return
those marines to the operating forces. Since 2004, the Marine Corps
returned 3,096 marines to the operating force through military-to-
civilian conversions. We have only 27 new conversions scheduled for
fiscal year 2008, but plans are underway to convert approximately 900
military police billets to civilian security personnel over the next 4
years. We will continue to pursue sensible conversions that will help
improve unit personnel readiness and aid in our deployment-to-dwell
ratio goals for the force.
b. Growing the Force: Warfighting Investment
Close cooperation between the Marine Corps and our industry
partners enabled an accurate assessment of the materiel requirements to
grow our force. This cooperation was fundamental to providing the units
created in fiscal year 2007 with the equipment they needed to enter
their predeployment training cycle and to be prepared to deploy in this
fiscal year. Prioritization of equipment levels and the redistribution
of our strategic stocks also played a large role in the preparation of
these units. With Congress' continued support, the numerous equipment
contracts required to support our growth to 202,000 marines were met
during fiscal year 2007 and will be met through fiscal year 2008 and
beyond.
The Commandant recently directed a comprehensive Marine Corps-wide
Tables of Equipment (T/E) review. The changing security environment and
lessons learned by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have made
it clear that many of our units T/E do not necessarily reflect
the way we fight today, or will fight in the future. It will take 3 to
4 years to work through these equipping challenges and return our total
force equipment readiness to the levels which preceded OIF/OEF, but it
is a necessary step. The new T/E will support enhanced mobility,
lethality, and command and control across a dispersed battlefield for
the entire operating force--Active and Reserve components--and will
ensure that our marines remain capable of meeting both the traditional
and irregular warfighting requirements of future conflicts.
c. Growing the Force: Infrastructure Investment
Military construction is an essential component supporting the
Marine Corps growth to 202,000 marines by fiscal year 2011. 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.
For single marines, housing is our top military construction focus.
Barracks are a significant quality of life element for our single
marines, but funding shortages and competing priorities over the past
several decades forestalled new construction projects. We are now
committed to providing adequate billeting for all of our unmarried,
junior enlisted and noncommissioned officers by 2012--and for our
increased end strength by 2014. To do that, we doubled our bachelor
housing funding request from fiscal year 2007 to 2008; with more than
triple the 2008 amount in fiscal year 2009. We are also committed to
funding the replacement of barracks furnishings on a 7-year cycle and
prioritizing barracks repair projects to preempt repair backlogs.
Public Private Venture (PPV) Housing
For married marines, the housing privatization authorities are
integral to our efforts to accommodate both current housing
requirements and those resulting from our planned force structure
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 intend to
continue our PPV efforts to address current inventory deficiencies in
adequate housing units, as well as the housing deficit being created by
the increase in end strength to 202,000. Presently, 99.2 percent of our
U.S. inventory is privatized and we will have 99.7 percent of the
inventory privatized by the end of fiscal year 2013. 96 percent of our
worldwide inventory is privatized and we will have privatized 97
percent of this inventory by this time next year. We don't expect to
privatize more than 97 percent of the worldwide inventory.
Training Capacity
As part of our holistic growth plan, we are increasing training
capacity and reinvigorating our predeployment training program to
provide support to all elements of the MAGTF across the full spectrum
of potential missions. In order to accomplish this we are conducting
planning studies into an expansion of our range complex at the Marine
Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, CA, in order to
support large-scale MAGTF live-fire and maneuver training.
Additionally, in accordance with the Secretary of Defense's Security
Cooperation guidance, we are developing 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, our budget
request supports our training and education programs and training
ranges to accommodate the 27,000 Marine Corps end strength increase.
Infrastructure Energy Considerations
While we continue to concentrate on the many aforementioned
programs, we have not lost our focus on efforts to reduce energy
consumption at our installations. We have embraced recent legislative
and Presidential mandates to reduce energy consumption and set into
place several programs to meet the new energy reduction requirements.
Since the new baseline year of 2003, the Marine Corps has reduced its
annual energy consumption rate from an overall level of 98.7 Million
British Thermal Units (MBTUs) per Thousand Square Feet (KSF) to a
present level of 93.22 MBTU per KSF, equating to an estimated utilities
cost avoidance of $10.7 million in fiscal year 2007. For energy
projects awarded since 2003, the average project payback period is 9.9
years.
We are focusing on our mandate to reduce consumption by a minimum
of 3 percent per year through 2015. To achieve this, $4 million in
fiscal year 2008 and $29 million in fiscal year 2009 are programmed to
support energy projects that have payback periods of less than 15 years
(such as solar roofs, replacement of older heating and air conditioning
units with higher efficiency models, and hiring supplemental energy
contractor staff whose employment is dependant on lowering installation
energy consumption and costs). We also continue to focus on contractor
financed energy programs that have been made available through the
renewed Energy Savings Performance Contract legislation. Any additional
congressional funding support for the DOD Military Construction Energy
Conservation Improvement Program would also directly add to our energy
reduction efforts. Noteworthy projects which the Marine Corps recently
completed or awarded are: the installation of one of DOD's largest
solar array field (1 megawatt, payback of 9.9 years with an annual cost
avoidance of $392,518) at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms; contract award of a
1.25 megawatt wind turbine (payback of approximately 11 years and an
annual cost avoidance of $493,727) at MCLB Barstow; and lighting and
air conditioning upgrades at MCB Hawaii (payback of 11.8 years with an
annual cost avoidance of $1,089,600).
iv. resetting the force
For over 5 years now, the Marine Corps has been involved in intense
combat operations resulting in the heavy use and the loss of our combat
equipment. The demands of the conflict in Iraq and the greater global
war on terror increased our equipment maintenance and replacement costs
far beyond what was made available in our baseline budget. We are very
thankful that Congress has been extremely supportive in providing
required global war on terror funding to continue our reset efforts.
a. Reset Funding
Reset funds replenish the equipment needed to keep the Marine Corps
responsive to today's threats. Costs categorized as ``reset'' meet one
of the following criteria: maintenance and supply activities to restore
and enhance combat capability to unit and pre-positioned equipment;
replace or repair equipment destroyed, damaged, stressed, or worn out
beyond economic repair; and enhance capabilities with the most up-to-
date technology. With Congress' help over the last 3 years, we have
begun to make significant progress in drawing down our reset
requirements. To date, Congress provided $10.9 billion in supplemental
funding towards our estimated current total reset the force requirement
of $15.6 billion. The timely appropriation of procurement funds in the
title IX funds in fiscal year 2007 allowed us an early start on this
year's procurement actions that will ultimately provide new and
improved equipment to our marines. We also look forward to receiving
the $1.3 billion reset funding remaining in the fiscal year 2008 global
war on terror. This funding is critical to our continued progress with
resetting the force. As the Long War evolves, we will continue to
refine and assess our reset costs.
b. Ground Equipment Readiness
Due to Congress' continuing support our deployed forces have the
equipment they need and deserve. Our deployed warfighters are our
number one priority and receive our highest equipping priority.
Deployed units are reporting the highest readiness levels of equipment
supply and condition. Sustaining high deployed equipment readiness has
been a total force effort and is not without long term ramifications
and consequences. Approximately 26 percent of all Marine Corps ground
equipment and nearly 25 percent of our active duty aviation ground
equipment are engaged overseas. Most of this equipment is not rotating
out of theater at the conclusion of each force rotation; it remains in
combat, often used on a near-continuous basis, at a pace that far
exceeds normal peacetime usage. While the vast majority of our
equipment passed the test of sustained combat operations, it is being
subjected to more than a lifetime's worth of wear and tear stemming
from increased vehicle mileage, operating hours, and exposure to harsh
environmental conditions--accelerating both equipment age and
maintenance requirements.
For example, in OIF, 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. Additionally, the
improvised explosive device (IED) threat forced us to modify vehicles
with heavy armor plating, which further accelerated the wear and tear
on these assets. These factors, coupled with the operational
requirement to keep equipment in theater without major depot repair,
significantly decreased the projected lifespan of this equipment. As a
result, we can expect higher than anticipated reset costs due to the
need to replace assets that are not economically repairable. Depot
level maintenance requirements for the repairable equipment will
continue beyond the conclusion of hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Equipment aging adds to the readiness challenge as well. As
equipment ages, more time, dollars, and effort are expended repairing
legacy equipment. Maintaining optimal readiness, while continuing to
support OIF, OEF, and other contingencies, will require additional
resources for maintenance as well as for the replacement of equipment.
To support deployed marines, we drew additional equipment from our
Maritime Prepositioning Ships, prepositioned stores in Norway, and also
retained equipment in theater from units that rotate back to the United
States. The operational materiel impacts of these efforts have been
outstanding. The average mission capable rates of our deployed forces'
ground equipment remain above 90 percent--but achieving this
operational availability was not without cost.
The cost has been a decrease in nondeployed unit readiness. Because
of funding lags and long lead times for production, the fielding of new
equipment for the operating forces has lagged needs. As a result,
equipment across the Marine Corps is continuously cross-leveled to
ensure units preparing to deploy have sufficient equipment to conduct
our rigorous predeployment training programs. This focus on ``next-to-
deploy'' units for the distribution of equipment has left many
nondeployed units with insufficient equipment to effectively train for
the full breadth of possible contingencies. The timely delivery of
replacement equipment is crucial to sustaining the high readiness rates
for the marines in theater and improving readiness of the forces here
at home. While Congress provided the funding requested to maintain our
equipment readiness and grow the force, much of this equipment is still
many months away from delivery.
c. Aviation Equipment Readiness
Similar to our ground equipment, the operational demands and harsh
environments of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa taxed our
aging fleet of aircraft. Our aircraft are flying at two to three times
their designed utilization rates (Figure 1) to support our marines,
sister Services, and coalition partners.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Despite this unprecedented use, our maintenance and support
personnel sustained a 79 percent aviation mission-capable rate for
deployed Marine aircraft over the past 12 months.
Maintaining the readiness of these aviation assets, while preparing
aircrews 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 home
squadrons took significant cuts in aircraft and spare parts--resulting
in a 30 percent decrease in the number of nondeployed units that are
deployment capable over the last 5 years. Reset programs have helped us
mitigate degradation of our aircraft materiel readiness through
aircraft modifications, proactive inspections, and additional
maintenance actions. These efforts successfully bolstered aircraft
reliability, sustainability, and survivability. Again, similar to our
ground equipment, additional requirements for depot level maintenance
for airframes, engines, weapons, and support equipment will continue
well beyond the conclusion of hostilities. Because we are simply
running short of aircraft on our flight lines due to age, peacetime
attrition, and wartime losses, continued funding support for our
essential programs to modernize our aircraft fleet is critically
needed.
d. Prepositioning Equipment and Stores
Comprised of three Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons and other
strategic equipment stocks in Norway, the Marine Corps prepositioning
programs are a critical part of our ability to respond to contingency
operations and mitigate risk for the Nation. Targeted withdrawal of
equipment from our strategic stocks, along with cross-leveling of
equipment in nondeployed units, has been a key element in supporting
combat operations. Prepositioned equipment withdrawals have provided
the necessary equipment in the near term, while we follow with the
contracting and acquisition of new equipment. Congress has generously
supported our need to reset shortfalls within our strategic programs.
Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF)
We used our MPF assets heavily in support of global war on terror
requirements. Eleven vessels supported the initial introduction of
forces in Iraq in 2003. In February 2004, MPSRON-2 supported the
reintroduction of Marine Forces into Iraq. The bulk of that equipment
remains in Iraq supporting your marines. Equipment was removed from
MPSRON-1 in fiscal year 2007 to support the end strength growth of the
Marine Corps to 202,000 marines. This decision reduced readiness of the
MPF, but it was the best solution to meet our demand in advance of new
equipment deliveries from industry. MPSRON-1 will deploy with 80
percent of its prepositioned equipment and 100 percent of its stocks in
June 2008, and will begin full reconstitution in June 2010 during its
next scheduled maintenance cycle. MPSRON-2 was reconstituted to the
greatest extent possible and returned to service with roughly 50
percent of its prepositioned equipment set. Equipment is being staged
at Blount Island Command to support the reconstitution of MPSRON-2
during maintenance cycle 9 (occurring May 2008 through June 2009).
While industry is responding to our funded demand for equipment, the
window of opportunity when we can influence a ship's load during
maintenance cycles is very short. Of course, we continue to balance the
demands to reconstitute our MPF with the requirements to equip our
growing force and deploying marines.
Prepositioning readiness was impacted by changing the equipment
needed to react to an adaptive enemy. To better protect our forward
deployed marines and sailors, we are integrating protected vehicles
into our prepositioning programs. The integrated armor on our trucks
and engineer equipment is impacting the amount of equipment our ships
can carry, due to their increased size and weight. To offset the loss
in equipment stowage, we are working with the Navy to incorporate
newer, more flexible ship platforms from the existing Military Sealift
Command fleet to replace aging legacy Maritime Prepositioning Ships
(MPS).
We seek to incorporate 3 of the Military Sealift Command's 19,
large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ships (LMSR) as replacements for
5 of our older leased platforms. The LMSRs are U.S. owned and
significantly expand MPF flexibility. These vessels provide a stability
that new leasing laws preclude, while allowing the Marine Corps to
reconstitute and optimize MPF to meet combatant commander requirements.
Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway
In addition to our afloat prepositioning program, equipment from
Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway (MCPP-N) is used in support
of Long War operations. Attainment for major end items within MCPP-N is
46 percent, an increase from 38 percent in our last report. The Marine
Corps will reset MCPP-N in concert with our other operational
priorities.
e. Depot Maintenance
Depot maintenance is key to sustaining equipment readiness. The
Marine Corps aggressively works to improve equipment readiness and
availability by managing the conditions that affect our depot
maintenance rework plans. These conditions include: the uncertainty of
the timing of reset, asset availability, timing of funding, equipment
condition, and evolving skill requirements. The in-theater
identification of equipment and scope of work to be performed 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 help to reduce the repair cycle time, return
mission capable equipment to the warfighter quicker, and improve
materiel readiness.
The only factor limiting our two depots is asset (carcass)
availability, not funding or their workload capacity. When required, we
can increase capacity to support surge requirements through: overtime,
additional shifts, and additional personnel. Our depot workforce has
multiple trade skills ranging from laborers to engineers, enabling work
to be performed on over 260 product lines. However, much of the
equipment in theater includes items not previously repaired by any
depot facility, and as a result, the existing work force may require
additional training. Ultimately, new personnel, as well as continued
augmentation through contractor support, may be required. We are
leveraging State and local institutions, such as technical colleges and
universities, to provide valuable assistance in training our workforce
in skills such as welding, environmental science, and engineering.
The Marine Corps Maintenance Centers have implemented Continuous
Process Improvement (CPI) methodologies through the use of modernized
business practices to enhance depot operations. Those tools include
Manufacturing Resource Planning II (MRP II), Lean Six Sigma, Theory of
Constraints, and International Standard Office (ISO) certified quality
systems. This CPI approach, coupled with key engineering projects,
significantly enhances depot maintenance processes and operations.
Additionally, Maintenance Centers collaborate with private industry
and other Services to identify process improvements designed to enhance
materiel readiness. We also coordinate with the other Services to
reduce redundancy in our efforts. Examples of the excellent
coordination between the Marine Corps and other Services include: the
repair of Marine Corps M1A1 tanks at the Anniston Army Depot; the
repair of various Marine Corps electronic equipment at Tobyhanna Army
Depot; and Marine Corps maintenance on Navy/Coast Guard Paxman engines.
The Marine Corps also contracts or out sources work which allows us to
purchase repairs through: a Depot Maintenance Interservice Agreement
with another service, a contract with a private vendor, or a Public/
Private Partnership. In all cases, the repair source is evaluated for
the best return on the investment for the Marine Corps.
f. Equipment Retrograde Operations from CENTCOM AOR
Marine Corps Logistics Command took the lead as the Service
Executive Agent for the retrograde of equipment in the CENTCOM theater
in 2006. In addition to receiving, preparing, and shipping equipment no
longer required within theater, Marine Corps Logistics Command
(Forward) coordinates strategic lift requirements and manages the
redistribution of principle end items. Since June 2006, over 15,731
principle end items were processed at the retrograde lot in Al
Taqaddum, Iraq, and approximately 11,799 items were shipped back to
Blount Island Command for disposition. Once disposition is received,
assets are sent to Marine Corps Logistics Command to be repaired,
stored, or used to fill requisitions. If deemed uneconomical to repair,
assets are sent to the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office. These
actions will enable us to better manage the demand for equipment and to
influence readiness rates across the enterprise.
In order to enhance our preparedness to retrograde a greater volume
of equipment from the CENTCOM AOR, we are seeking facilities project
improvements that will increase throughput operations at Blount Island
Command. Naval Facilities Engineering Command is prepared to support us
in this endeavor.
v. taking care of warriors and families
Taking care of our marines, sailors, and their family members is a
fundamental commitment and critical to our current and long-term
readiness. Throughout our proud history, our successes have been
through the cumulative efforts and sacrifices of individual marines and
sailors. We have a moral obligation to ensure their well being during
their time in the Marine Corps and their transition back to civilian
life. When marines are wounded, ill, or injured, we will take care of
them--they are marines for life. When marines die, we will honor our
fallen angels, and assist their families. This enduring obligation also
includes the well being of their families--who are essential to the
resilience and effectiveness of our marines and sailors who serve
alongside them. Because of the demands of the Long War and the need to
improve support and services for our warriors and families, we are
putting our family readiness programs on a wartime footing.
a. Casualty Assistance
Marines selflessly serve, assuming the often dangerous work of
defending our Nation. Whenever marines pay the ultimate price, we will
continue to honor them as selfless patriots who gave their last full
measure of devotion to the Nation. Our casualty assistance program will
ensure the families of our fallen marines are always treated with
compassion, dignity, and honor.
Trained Casualty Assistance Calls Officers provide the families of
fallen marines assistance with their transition through the stages of
grief. Last year during congressional hearings and inquiries into
casualty next-of-kin notification processes, we testified about
deficiencies that we discovered in three key and interrelated casualty
processes: command casualty reporting, command casualty inquiry and
investigation, and next of kin notification. Reacting quickly to
understand and fix these deficiencies, we ordered an investigation by
the Inspector General of the Marine Corps. Without waiting for a final
investigative report, the Commandant of the Marine Corps directed
actions, which included issuing new guidance to commanders--
reemphasizing investigation and reporting requirements, and the
importance of tight links between these two systems, and with next of
kin notification. We will continue to monitor our processes to ensure
families receive timely and accurate information relating to their
marine's death or injury.
b. Putting Family Readiness on a Wartime Footing
Last year, we conducted self-imposed, rigorous assessments of our
family support programs. We gained reliable data to build upon our
strengths and to execute needed improvements. Actions are underway to
refresh, enhance, or improve: our family readiness programs at the unit
and installation levels, including our Exceptional Family Member
Program and the School Liaison Officer Program.
Through our assessments, we determined that major enhancements are
needed to the Marine Corps Family Team Building Program and Unit Family
Readiness Program. These programs form the centerpiece of our family
support and are based on a peacetime model with an 18-month deployment
cycle. They are also largely supported on the backs of our dedicated
volunteers. While our volunteers are performing magnificently, they
need substantial increases in program support. Reacting quickly to the
assessments, the Commandant directed a sustained funding increase for
Marine Corps family readiness program reforms in fiscal year 2008 which
include:
Formalizing the role and relationship of process
owners to ensure accountability;
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.
We request Congress' continued support so we may continue to
advance these reforms and address the evolving requirements of our
warfighters and their families.
c. Wounded Warrior Regiment
In April 2007, the Wounded Warrior Regiment was activated to
develop a comprehensive, integrated approach to Wounded Warrior care
and to continue to ensure that ``marines take care of their own.'' The
Regiment reflects our deep commitment to the welfare of our marines,
sailors, and families 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 have liaison teams
at major military medical treatment facilities, Department of Veteran's
Affairs Poly-trauma Centers (VAPTC), and Naval Hospitals. Additionally,
the Battalions provide local support in regions without military
treatment facilities or VAPTCs through Marine For Life Home Town Links
(M4L HTL), or Wounded Warrior Regiment District Injury Support Cells.
The Regiment constantly assesses how to improve the services it
provides. One of the major initiatives is a Job Transition Cell manned
by marines and representatives of the Departments of Labor and Veteran
Affairs. The Regiment also established a Wounded Warrior Call Center
for 24 hour a day/7 days a week support. The Call Center receives
incoming calls from marines and family members with questions, and
makes outreach calls to the almost 9,000 wounded marines who left
active service. A Charitable Organization Cell was created to
facilitate linking wounded warrior needs with charitable organizations
that can provide the needed support. Additionally, the Regiment
maintains a liaison presence at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Headquarters, and liaisons from the VA and the Department of Labor are
located within our Wounded Warrior Regiment headquarters at Marine
Corps Base, Quantico.
I deeply thank you for your support on behalf of our wounded
warriors and their families. The numerous visits from Members of
Congress and their own families, are deeply appreciated by them and
their families. Your new Wounded Warrior Hiring Initiative to employ
our injured in the House and Senate demonstrates your commitment and
support to their future well-being. We are grateful to Congress for the
support for wounded warriors in the 2008 National Defense Authorization
Act. This landmark legislation will significantly improve the quality
of their lives and demonstrates the Nation's enduring gratitude for
their selfless sacrifices.
d. Traumatic Brain Injuries
The IEDs used by our enemies cause blast and penetrating traumatic
brain injuries (TBIs). TBI awareness and education is part of our pre-
deployment, routine, and post-deployment training. All marines are
being screened for TBI exposure during the post-deployment phase and
those identified with it receive comprehensive evaluation and
treatment.
Concussive blast injuries to the brain are currently classified as
mild, moderate, or severe traumatic brain injuries. Physical
examinations performed by medical personnel, aided by screening tools
such as the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE) and the Glascow
Coma Scale (GCS), assist in the diagnosis and categorization of TBI.
Despite this, Mild TBI (mTBI) can be difficult to detect with the
current screening techniques available in the theater of operations.
The Marine Corps is seeking a means to use the Automated
Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM), developed by the Army, to
evaluate an individual's neuro-cognitive functioning (i.e. brain
operations that are responsible for all aspects of perceiving,
thinking, and remembering) following exposure to concussive blast. To
be maximally effective, pre-exposure testing with the ANAM is required
to establish the baseline functioning of each marine and sailor prior
to deployment. The Marine Corps is working closely with the Center of
Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury to
advance our understanding of TBI and improve the care of all marines.
e. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
The Marine Corps has partnered with Veterans Affairs and its
National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (NCPTSD) to improve
the psychological health of our marines, sailors, and families through
research and effective new training and early intervention programs.
Our premiere PTSD research project is the ``Marine Resilience Study,''
a collaboration with the VA at San Diego and Boston, as well as the
Naval Health Research Center, to prospectively study the biological,
psychological, and social factors that predict resilience in two
battalions of ground combat marines bound for Iraq or Afghanistan.
Initial phases of this ground-breaking study are under way at MCAGCC
Twentynine Palms. Through collaborations with the NCPTSD and both Navy
Medicine and the Navy Chaplaincy, we have also developed new Combat and
Operational Stress First Aid tools for early intervention for acute
traumatic stress and loss in operational environments. We have also
partnered with UCLA and the National Child Traumatic Stress Network to
establish over the next 6 months a family resilience training program
known as Families Overcoming Under Stress at our four largest
mobilization and demobilization sites. We are determined to reduce the
frequency and severity of PTSD in our marines, sailors, and family
members through effective, evidence-based primary and secondary
prevention programs.
The Marine Corps is thankful to Congress for their leadership and
support of research as well as treatment for TBI, PTSD, and other
combat-related mental disorders. We will continue to place a high
priority on improving our knowledge and treatment of these disorders
and providing non-clinical assistance to marines and their families.
f. Combat and Operational Stress Control
Marine Corps commanders are fully engaged in promoting
psychological health among our marines, sailors, and their family
members. Small unit leaders have the greatest potential for detecting
stress occurrences and assessing their impacts on warfighters and
family members. Marine leadership fosters an environment at all levels
where our warriors learn it is proper to ask for help, because taking
care of marines and ensuring their readiness means caring for physical
and psychological health. We stress this to marines repeatedly during
pre-deployment training, deployment, and post-deployment periods, as
well as through the training continuum. The Navy is supporting
expansion of embedding Navy mental health professionals in operational
units--the Operational Stress Control and Readiness program. The goal
by fiscal year 2010 is for 161 Navy personnel (62 medical officers, 16
chaplains, and 83 sailors) embedded at all levels of the MEF. We are
also collaborating with the other Services, the Department of Veterans
Affairs' NCPTSD, and external agencies to determine best practices for
marines and their families.
g. Exceptional Family Member Program (Respite Care)
Parental stress can be heightened for families who are not only
impacted by operational tempo, but have the challenges of children with
special needs. To focus on this issue, we offer active duty families
enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) up to 40 hours
of free respite care per month for each exceptional family member. Many
of our families rely on TRICARE's Enhanced Care Health Option (ECHO)
program which offers limited respite care, but provides other important
benefits such as medical equipment, mental behavior therapy,
rehabilitation, special education, and transportation. Unfortunately,
in many cases, the monthly ECHO cap of $2,500 does not enable families
to cover all of these services, forcing them to choose between respite
care and other benefits. The Marine Corps EFMP now underwrites the
respite care, enabling families to apply ECHO resources to these other
treatment services. We also seek to provide a ``continuum of care'' for
our exceptional family members through: 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.
h. Family Member Pervasive Developmental Disorders
The sustained readiness and effectiveness of marines and sailors
during deployment requires that they know family members are supported
at home. Currently, the TRICARE ECHO program is not able to provide
sufficient support to children of servicemembers with special needs, to
include Pervasive Developmental Disorders such as: Autistic Spectrum
Disorder, Asperger's Disorder, Rett's Disorder, Childhood
Disintegrative Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not
Otherwise Specified. The Marine Corps is working closely with the DOD
Office of Family Policy Work Group on examining options to expand its
Educational & Developmental Intervention Services (EDIS). EDIS is the
DOD response to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a
Federal mandate that provides Developmental Services for children 0 to
3 years old, and Special Education Services for children 3 to 21. EDIS
delivers early intervention services to eligible infants and toddlers
in domestic and overseas areas, and medically related service programs
for school age children in DOD schools overseas.
i. Water Contamination at Camp Lejeune
Past water contamination at Camp Lejeune continues to be a very
important issue for the Marine Corps. Our goal is to use good science
to 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 supports the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in their health study, which is
planned to be completed in March 2009. With the help of Congress, the
National Academy of Sciences is also helping us by studying this
difficult issue. Their study is expected to be completed in the fall of
2008.
The Marine Corps is making progress notifying former residents and
workers of this issue and we established a call center and notification
registry, where the public can provide contact information, so we can
keep them apprised of the completion of these health studies.
Additionally, 50,000 letters will be mailed by 31 March 2008 to
individuals who were identified in a DOD personnel database that were
former residents and/or workers at Camp Lejeune.
vi. preparing marines for current operations
The Training and Education Continuum for deploying marines begins
with entry level training, ascends through formal schools, home station
training, Professional Military Education, and culminates with a final
unit Pre-Deployment Training Program (PTP) assessment. This ascending-
levels-of-competency approach allows marines of all ranks to be trained
at the right level, at the right time, and the right place. Mojave
Viper (MV), Desert Talon (DT), and Mountain Warrior (MW) are
established as the primary OIF/OEF Pre-Deployment Training Mission
Rehearsal Exercises. The Marine Corps PTP is both realistic and
adaptive. Utilizing role players and live fires, PTP prepares marines
mentally, physically, and culturally as to what they can expect in the
combat environment. Training is constantly updated based on lessons
learned. PTP is conducted in five nested blocks in ascending levels of
competency and culminates in a full-scale, intelligence-driven,
controlled, and evaluated exercise conducted at Twentynine Palms,
Bridgeport, Yuma, or an approved alternate venue. During fiscal years
2006 and 2007, the PTP resulted in over 42,000 marines receiving
combined arms and urban operations training at MV in Twentynine Palms,
CA; over 2,800 marines receiving mountain operations training at the
Mountain Warfare Training Center in Bridgeport, CA; and over 12,000
marines participating in aviation-focused DT exercises in Yuma, AZ.
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 and prepare marines
for the mental rigors and challenges of combat:
Tripled the amount of time Drill Instructor and
recruits conduct ``foot locker talks'' on values (increasing
instruction time from 14 to 41.5 hours);
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
in all operating environments and locations;
Re-emphasized 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;
Educated junior marines on the ``strategic corporal''
and the positive or negative influence they can have;
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.
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
incorporated in our training programs. In 2007, as result of these
lessons learned, the Marine Corps implemented changes in pre-deployment
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.
Experimentation
Research, development, and experimentation are key factors to
adapting our force, enhancing training, and providing the foundation
for our own future warfighting capabilities. We continuously work with
the Office of Naval Research, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency and other Services Science and Technology and Research and
Development (R&D) activities, leveraging their special, significant
efforts. The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory conducts experiments
to support operating force requirements and combat development with
improved capabilities. 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.
vii. modernizing the marine corps
In addition to recruiting and retaining high quality marines and
ensuring their individual readiness, we are also committed to providing
our warriors with the very best warfighting equipment and capabilities.
Our equipment modernization has high priority, so that we can ensure
ready, relevant and capable Marine Air Ground Task Forces now and in
the future. As careful stewards of our Nation's resources, we must
decide the most effective ways to modernize our Total Force. With this
in mind, we continue to sustain the readiness of our aging legacy
equipment by resetting it and also fielding next generation
capabilities. Because we are at war, we must do both, modernizing on
the march. Thankfully, Congress has consistently supported our efforts
to achieve long-term modernization, while maintaining our current
readiness to prosecute the Long War.
a. Urgent Warfighting Requirements
Designed to procure equipment for commanders more expediently than
if submitted through the traditional acquisition process, our Urgent
Universal Needs Statement (UUNS) process uses a secure, web-based
system that provides full stakeholder visibility from submission
through resolution. We have studied and continue to review our overall
capabilities-based Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System (JCIDS) requirements generation process, including the wartime
UUNS process, to ensure we meet valid warfighter needs for timely
effective and efficient material solutions. One example of our efforts
to provide timely responses is that, through continuous process
improvement, and a Lean Six Sigma review, we have reduced average UUNS
processing time from 142 to 83.2 days and transitioned over 50 emerging
capabilities into programs of record. Typically, UUNS are either funded
by reprogramming funds from approved programs or through congressional
supplemental funding until we can transition them through the next
budgeting cycle. We are committed to rapidly and properly equipping our
warriors, continuously reviewing our system for opportunities to
increase efficiency and responsiveness in order to provide marines the
best combat equipment and protection as swiftly as we can identify and
test material solutions and field them.
b. Enhancing Individual Force Protection and Survivability
The Marine Corps is pursuing technological advancements in personal
protective equipment because marines in combat deserve the best gear
for their mission. Fully recognizing the factors associated with
weight, fatigue, and movement restriction, we are committed to provide
our marines with 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 highlight the need to
evolve our personal protective vest system. In February 2007, we began
transitioning to a newly-designed Modular Tactical Vest (MTV) which
integrates more easily with our other personal protection systems and
provides greater comfort by incorporating state-of-the-art load
carriage techniques. 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 to render the best protection available against a
wide variety of small arms threats. The initial acquisition objective
for the MTV was 60,000 vests in response to a UUNS, with deliveries
completed in October 2007. The Marine Corps placed a final order for
24,000 additional MTVs and deliveries began in Nov 07 with
approximately 17,000 vests received to date. With this initial
capability fielded to all deployed forces we are now using feedback
from our marines and sailors to refine the vest into a system that can
further enhance the performance and safety of the warfighter.
QuadGard.
The QuadGard system provides ballistic protection for a marine's
arms and legs when they are serving as a turret gunner on convoy duty.
This system, which integrates with other personal ballistic protection
equipment, provides additional protection against ballistic threats--
particularly improvised explosive device fragmentation.
Lightweight Helmet
Similar to body armor, we continue to rapidly evolve the best head
protection. The Lightweight Helmet (LWH) weighs less than its
predecessor and provides a high level of protection against
fragmentation threats and 9mm bullets. Because of tests, including
studies by the University of Virginia on the effects of ballistics and
blunt impacts, we now have replaced the sling suspension with a
superior protection pad system inside the helmet. 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 were delivered with the approved pad
system installed. In October 2007, we began fielding an initial buy of
69,300 of the Nape Protection Pad (NAPP), which provides additional
ballistic protection to the occipital region of the head (where
critical nervous system components are located), with final deliveries
scheduled for April 2008. The NAPP is attached to the back of the LWH
or the Modular Integrated Communications Helmet (MICH), which is worn
by our reconnaissance marines, to include MARSOC personnel. The Marine
Corps currently has 1,800 MICHs in its inventory. We continue to work
with the U.S. Army and to challenge industry to build a lightweight
helmet that provides greater ballistic protection by defeating the 7.62
mm round fired from widely used AK-47s.
Flame Resistant Organizational Gear (FROG)
In February 2007, we began fielding 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--will reduce exposure to flame injuries. We also began
providing flame resistant fleece pullovers to marines for use in cooler
conditions, and are developing flame resistant varieties of cool/cold
weather outer garments with planned fielding 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. As with
individual and unit equipment, we continue ongoing development and
partnerships with other Services, seeking the best available flame
resistant protection for our marines.
Counterimprovised Explosive Devices
The incorporation of lessons learned is integral to the Marine
Corps Counterimprovised Explosive Devices (CIED) effort. We are mindful
that our enemies are constantly evolving to offset our military
capabilities and technology superiority; therefore, our ability to
support the warfighter and maintain optimum readiness levels is
accomplished through multiple complementary efforts within the Marine
Corps and the larger Joint and Interagency CIED communities of
interest. The following is a sampling of some of these efforts:
Upgrading our Counter Radio-controlled IED Electronic
Warfare systems to meet rapidly evolving threats, while
remaining engaged with the Navy's Joint Program Office to
develop a joint solution.
Modernizing our Family of Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Equipment through enhancement of technician tool kits and
greater robotics capabilities.
Evaluation of new technologies to enhance our Family
of Imaging Systems portfolio and protect against both vehicle
and personnel-borne IEDs.
Continuing to field our point, route and area
Persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
capabilities--Ground Based Operational Surveillance System,
Unmanned Aerial Systems, and Angel Fire.
Explosives odor detection, infantry-based, off-leash
IED Detector Dogs have proven very effective in their first
deployment and the Marine Requirements Oversight Counsel has
approved an effort to eventually provide dogs to every deployed
maneuver battalion.
Specific to CIED, Training and Education Command's
Marine Corps Engineer School has created Master Lesson Files,
established Mobile Training Teams in support of home station
training, incorporated CIED education into existing
institutional and virtual training platforms, and is
coordinating CIED upgrades to our training facilities.
Lastly, we continue to develop CIED and counter
insurgency capabilities normally associated with law
enforcement through the fielding of Biometrics tool kits and
embedded law enforcement officers.
c. Marine Aviation
Just like our ground combat and support elements, Marine Aviation
must sustain current operations, reset the force and modernize.
Execution of any one of these is a formidable challenge. Today, Marine
Aviation is executing all three concurrently in order to win today's
battles, while preserving our warfighting capabilities to be ready to
respond to other contingencies. Your marines rely on aging 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 (AvPlan) to remain fully funded and on
schedule. The AvPlan incorporates individual program changes,
synchronizes support of our end strength growth to 202,000 marines, and
provides the way ahead for Marine Aviation as it transitions 39 of 71
squadrons. By 2017, Marine Aviation will transition from 13 legacy
aircraft to 7 new aircraft.
F-35B: Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
The Marine Corps has not received a new tactical aircraft in a
decade, with our last delivery an F/A-18D in 1998. In fiscal year 2009
we plan to procure the first of 420 F-35B aircraft, with IOC beginning
in fiscal year 2012. We will complete the transition from the F/A-18
and AV-8B by fiscal year 2024. The Marine Corps literally skipped a
generation of strike fighters in order to field an all Short Take-Off/
Vertical Landing (STOVL) fifth generation aircraft force. The F-35B
STOVL will provide a quantum leap in capability, basing flexibility,
and mission execution across the full spectrum of warfare. The JSF will
act as a networked, integrated combat system in support of ground
forces and will be the centerpiece of Marine Aviation. F-35B Lightning
II development is on track with the first flight of the BF-1 STOVL
variant scheduled for spring 2008. The fiscal year 2009 budget requests
eight aircraft for delivery in fiscal year 2010. These aircraft will
support pilot transition training and are essential to the Initial
Operational Capability (IOC) of fiscal year 2012. The manufacture of
the first 19 test aircraft is on schedule and underway.
MV-22 Osprey
The 360 MV-22 aircraft planned for procurement by the Marine Corps
are already bringing revolutionary assault support capability to our
forces in harm's way. The MV-22 has begun to replace the CH-46E
aircraft which are over 40 years old, and which have very limited
performance to support the MAGTF. In September 2005, the V-22 Defense
Acquisition Board approved full rate production. MV-22 IOC was declared
on 1 June 2007. The current inventory of 57 operational MV-22 aircraft
that have been delivered are based at Marine Corps Air Station New
River, NC; NAS Patuxent River, MD; and Al Asad Air Base, Iraq. Even
though we are at war, modernization on the march means we must
transition 2 squadrons per year, with 30 aircraft per year requested in
the budget. With current rate of production, the transition will be
complete (FOC) in 2018.
VMM-263 is presently deployed to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq, and has
already proven the significant capabilities of the Osprey in combat.
The rapidly evolving use of MV-22s in Iraq tells a compelling story: on
a daily basis MV-22s carry twice the load, twice as far, at twice the
speed. The aircraft's operational reach rapidly ranges the entire area
of operations at altitudes above the reach of our enemy's weapons.
Congress answered our request for an aircraft that could carry more,
fly farther, faster, and safer.
KC-130J
KC-130J Hercules aircraft are continuously deployed in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom providing multi-mission, tactical aerial
refueling, and fixed-wing assault support. Its theater logistical
support reduces the requirement for resupply via ground, limiting the
exposure of our convoys to IEDs and other surface-borne attacks. The
recent introduction of the aerial refuelable MV-22, combined with the
retirement of the legacy KC-130F/R aircraft due to fatigue life and
parts obsolescence, requires an accelerated procurement of the KC-130J.
The Marine Corps is programmed to procure a total of 46 aircraft by
the end of fiscal year 2013. To date, 29 new aircraft have been
delivered, 7 more are on contract and 2 aircraft are requested in the
fiscal year 2009 budget for a total of 38. This is still 13 aircraft
short of our inventory objective of 51 KC-130Js for the Active Force.
Ultimately, the Marine Corps will also seek to replace our 28 Reserve
component KC-130T aircraft with KC-130Js, thus necking down our aerial
refueling force to a single T/M/S.
UH-1/AH-1
The H-1 Upgrades Program will replace AH-1W and UH-1N helicopters
with state-of-the-art AH-1Z and UH-1Y models. The H-1 Upgrades Program,
through a combination of remanufacture and new procurement, modernize
our fleet to 100 UH-1Ys and 180 AH-1Zs. With approval to increase the
size of the Marine Corps Active component to 202,000, procurement must
increase to 123 UH-1Ys and 227 AH-1Zs. To date, seven UH-1Y and four
AH-1Z have been delivered. The first UH-1Y scheduled deployment is on
track for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009. To support this effort
and continue H-1 modernization, the fiscal year 2009 budget requests
$496.9 million for aircraft procurement and spares with $3.9 million
for continued R&D.
CH-53K
In operation since 1981, the CH-53E is becoming increasingly
expensive to operate and faces reliability 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 in December
2005 with a subsequent contract awarded to Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation in April 2006. IOC is scheduled for fiscal year 2015. The
program is proceeding through its developmental stages and will begin
to procure airframes in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The
transition to the CH-53K will culminate in fiscal year 2021, with a
total procurement of 156 aircraft for our seven Active and one Reserve
squadrons.
d. Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Protection (Armoring)
Our vehicle armoring efforts are absolutely critical to protecting
our marines against IEDs and other weapons. 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 Army and other
Services, is fielding armored vehicles such as: the Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP), the Medium Tactical Vehicle
Replacement Armor System, the Logistics Vehicle System (LVS) Marine
Armor Kit, and the Uparmored High Mobility Multi-Wheeled Vehicle
(HMMWV).
Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) Armor System (MAS)
The 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 fuel tank fire protection kits, blast
attenuating seats, five-point restraint harnesses, improved belly and
fender-well blast deflectors, and 300 AMP alternators. Basic MAS was
installed in all of the Marine Corps MTVRs in the Central Command's
theater of operation. The target for completing installation of MAS
blast protection retrofits on in-theater vehicles is fourth quarter
fiscal year 2008.
Logistics Vehicle System Marine Armor Kit (MAK) II
The LVS MAK II provides improved blast, improvised explosive
device, and small arms protection over the current LVS MAK. It has a
completely redesigned cab assembly that consists of a new frame with
armor attachment points and integrated 360-degree protection and an
integrated air conditioning system. Additional protection provided by
the LVS MAK II includes overhead and underbody armor using high, hard
steel, rolled homogenous armor, and 2.75" ballistic windows. The
suspension system will also be upgraded to accommodate the extra weight
of the cab armor. We estimate the LVS MAK II armoring effort will
complete fielding by February 2009.
Uparmored High Mobility 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, and ``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. In addition, new Uparmored Expanded
Capacity Vehicle (ECV) HMMWVs were fielded to theater in fiscal year
2007 to support the ``surge.'' The Marine Corps has adopted a strategy
of armoring 60 percent of the current 25,385 HMMWV Authorized
Acquisition Objective (15,231 vehicles). All newly acquired Expanded
Capacity Vehicle (ECV) HMMWVs will have an Integrated Armor Package. Of
those, 60 percent will be fully uparmored during production to include
the appropriate ``B'' kit and fragmentation kits. 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 in a retrofit
approach (as needed) to vehicles delivered with Integrated Armor
Package only. We are also evaluating the Army's objective kit
development and collaborating with the Army and Office of Naval
Research to assess new protection-level capabilities.
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles
Over the past 2 years industry has designed MRAP vehicles with a V-
shaped armored hull and protect against the three primary kill
mechanisms of mines and IED: fragmentation, blast overpressure, and
acceleration. While designs are improving, these vehicles provide the
best available protection against IEDs, just as the enemy is trying to
improve these crude but potentially lethal weapons. 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. To
date, no marines have been killed or seriously injured from IED attacks
while traveling in the MRAP vehicles.
The total DOD requirement for MRAP vehicles is 15,374--of which
3,700 were originally allocated for the Marine Corps. However, the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) recently approved the
Marine Corps refined requirement for 2,225 MRAP vehicles (the JROC
Memorandum is pending final signature this month). This decision
supports the Marine Corps operational assessment of the vehicles, which
reviewed changes in mission tasking and existing Tactics, Techniques
and Procedures.
As another 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 and thankful for the overwhelming
support of Congress on the MRAP program. We request Congress' continued
support for these lifesaving vehicles as we transition to the
sustainment of these vehicles into fiscal year 2009.
e. Ground Mobility
The Army and Marine Corps are leading the Services in developing
tactical wheeled vehicle requirements for the joint force to provide an
appropriate balance of survivability, mobility, payload, networking,
transportability, and sustainability. The Army/Marine Corps Board is a
proven valuable forum for; the coordination of development and fielding
strategies; production of armoring kits and uparmored HMMWVs; and
responding to requests for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.
The Ground Mobility Suite includes the following systems:
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
The EFV represents the heavy weight capability in our Ground Combat
Tactical Mobility portfolio. The EFV is designed for maneuver
operations conducted from the sea and sustained operations in the
world's littoral regions, but its inherent capabilities provide utility
across the spectrum of conflict. As the Corps largest ground combat
system acquisition program, the EFV is the Nation's only sea-based,
surface-oriented vehicle that projects combat power from a seabase to
an objective. A fighting vehicle designed to strike fast and deep, it
will replace the aging Assault Amphibious Vehicle--in service since
1972. The EFV's amphibious mobility, speed of maneuver, 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. An EFV mine protection feasibility study was
completed last October, which assessed external V-Hull, internal V-
Hull, and applique configurations for survivability and performance
impacts. The study concluded that the applique configuration provides
increased mine blast protection with minimum performance impacts. A
final EFV feasibility report from The Center for Naval Analyses
concerning this enhanced armor configuration is pending. System
development and demonstration has been extended to allow design for
reliability through 2008, and fabrication and test of seven new EFV
prototypes, with Milestone C in 2011. Delivery of 573 vehicles will
begin in 2013, with the program scheduled to achieve IOC in 2015 and
FOC in 2025.
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)
The JLTV represents the light weight capability in our Ground
Combat Tactical Mobility portfolio and will be the centerpiece of our
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Fleet. This fleet will also include the HMMWV
Expanded Capacity Vehicle series, the MRAP Vehicle, and the Internally
Transported Vehicle (ITV). The Army/Marine Corps Board has been the
starting point for vetting of joint requirements for 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 HMMWV. In December, JLTV was approved for entry
into the acquisition process at Milestone A with the Army as the lead
Service. A Request for Proposal was released this month, initiating
competitive prototyping for the fabrication of a family of vehicles and
companion trailers. After prototype evaluation, we expect at least
three competitors to be selected for the technology development phase.
We must continue to sustain HMMWVs in our forces until their
replacement with JLTVs. We are committed to full funding of 5,500 JLTVs
in Increment one. IOC is scheduled for 2012.
Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC)
The MPC represents the medium weight capability in the Ground
Combat Tactical Mobility portfolio. It is not a replacement vehicle,
but will complement the capabilities offered by the EFV and the JLTV
across the range of military operations. Increasing armor-protected
mobility for infantry battalion task forces, the MPC program balances
vehicle performance, protection and payload attributes. Joint staffing
of an Initial Capabilities Document and a draft concept of employment
were completed in 2007. The MPC program is currently preparing for a
Milestone A decision in the second quarter of fiscal year 2008 and is
on track for a Milestone B decision in the first quarter of fiscal year
2010. The MPC requirement is for 558 vehicles, with an IOC date in the
2015 timeframe.
Internally Transported Vehicle (ITV)
The ITV is a family of vehicles that will provide deployed MAGTFs
with MV-22/CH-53 internally and externally-transportable ground
vehicles. The ITV program will field an expeditionary vehicle that
provides units equal to or greater mobility than the maneuver elements
they support. The ITV includes powered prime movers and towed trailers
which will provide deep maneuver and rough terrain mobility for the
Expeditionary Fire Support System (120 mm mortar) and other payloads.
The fiscal year 2009 budget contains $8 million for 44 ITVs. ITV
recently successfully completed a Government Accounting Office audit
and is currently undergoing a DOD Inspector General audit. IOC is
planned during fiscal year 2008 and FOC is planned for fiscal year
2011.
f. MAGTF Fires
Our Triad of Ground Indirect Fires provides organic complementary,
precision fire capabilities 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 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.
M777A2 Lightweight Howitzer
The Lightweight 155 (M777A2) is a Joint USMC/Army program in Full
Rate Production which replaces all legacy, aging heavier weight M198
howitzers. It can be lifted by the MV-22 Osprey and the CH-53E
helicopter and is paired with the MTVR for improved cross-country
mobility. Through design innovation, navigation, positioning aides, and
digital fire control, the M777A2 offers significant improvements in
lethality (with the Excalibur precision munition capability),
survivability, and mobility. We began fielding the first new howitzers
to the operating forces in April 2005 and expect to complete fielding
511 howitzers in fiscal year 2011. The M777A2 was first used in OIF in
October 2007.
High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS)
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. When paired with Guided Multiple Launch Rocket
System rockets, HIMARS will provide a highly responsive, precision fire
capability to our forces. There is $109 million budgeted in fiscal year
2009 to procure USMC HIMARS tactical and training rockets. To date, we
have fielded and trained one Reserve Battery and two Active-Duty
batteries. Battery F, 2/14 completed the first operational deployment
of a Marine Corps HIMARS unit, firing 24 tactical rockets in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The requirement for HIMARS is 46 and we
expect to achieve FOC by fiscal year 2010.
Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS)
The EFSS will be the principal indirect fire support system for the
vertical assault element of the Ship-to-Objective Maneuver as part of a
Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) assault element. EFSS consists of two
ITV prime movers, a 120mm rifled towed mortar, an ammunition trailer,
and ammunition. In conjunction with the MV-22 Osprey and the CH-53
helicopter, EFSS provides a 110 nautical mile radius, internal lift
capability. Supported units will have immediately responsive, organic
indirect fires at ranges and lethality well beyond their current
battalion mortars. Fiscal year 2009 provides $22.1 million for
accelerated procurement of 41 EFSS systems. The requirement for EFSS is
66 systems and will be manned and supported by artillery regiments.
EFSS recently completed successful operational testing. IOC is planned
for fiscal year 2008, and FOC is planned for fiscal year 2010.
g. Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
The Marine Corps is taking aggressive action to modernize and
improve organic UAS capabilities. The Marine Corps UAS are organized
into three tiers, tailored to the mission and requirements of the
supported command. 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 transitioned Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Squadrons (VMU) from our legacy Pioneers to the Army
developed RQ-7B Shadow. We are also initiating a reorganization of the
squadrons' force structure to better task-organize for mission
requirements and began the stand up of a third Active component VMU
squadron. The addition of a third VMU squadron is critical to
sustaining current operations and will help in decreasing the
operational tempo from our current deployment-to-dwell ratio of less
than 1:1--to a more sustainable 1:2 ratio. This rapid transition and
reorganization, initiated in January 2007, will be complete by the
fourth quarter fiscal year 2009, significantly improves organic Marine
Corps UAS capability while increasing joint interoperability and
commonality.
For our Tier II needs, using supplemental appropriations provided
by Congress, the Marine Corps is using an ISR services contract to
provide Scan Eagle systems to Multi-National Forces-West, Iraq.
Contracted Scan Eagles are expected to fill the Tier II void until
future fielding of the Tier II/Small Tactical UAS (STUAS), a combined
Marine Corps and Navy program which began in fiscal year 2008 and is
planned for fielding in 2011.
At the Tier I level, the Marine Corps is transitioning from the
Dragon Eye to the Joint Raven-B program, used by the US Army. When
fully fielded, the Marine Corps UAS family of systems will be networked
through a robust and interoperable command and control system that will
provide commanders an enhanced capability to use across the spectrum of
military operations.
h. Logistics Modernization
Logistics challenges during Operation Iraqi Freedom and subsequent
operations accelerated the requirement to modernize Marine Corps
logistics. The Marine Corps Logistics Modernization (LogMod) program is
a three-pronged, enterprise-wide, logistics improvement and integration
effort designed to increase the operational reach and lethality of the
Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). LogMod is focused on enhancing
the readiness of deployed forces, increasing the operational
availability of equipment, and decreasing the logistics burden of
Marine units. It constitutes the most comprehensive, end to end
approach ever taken to improve MAGTF logistics. Once fully implemented,
the LogMod program and its initiatives will drive improvements in
technologies, processes, and people through modernization of doctrine,
training, and organizations. As a roadmap for more effective
expeditionary logistics, logistics modernization will greatly enhance
our ability to operate in all environments and in all theaters. A key
initiative was the implementation of the Marine Logistics Group
reorganization.
The 2006-2007 reorganization of the garrison-focused Force Service
Support Groups (FSSGs) into expeditionary Marine Logistics Groups
(MLGs) created a more adaptable, capable, and rapidly deployable
logistics organization. The MLG allows for the rapid formation of
deployable, task-organized logistics forces, providing experienced
logistics command and control for planning and operations while
fostering strong habitual working relationships between supported and
supporting units. Significant process change and adoption of new
technologies will increase the effectiveness of logistics on the
battlefield. By decreasing process steps and levels, supply and
maintenance chains are being streamlined to increase velocity of
support and services. Visibility of assets and requests for support,
enhanced by new IT enablers and technologies such as Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID), will allow deployed forces to decrease their
support footprint on the battlefield, trading inventory volume for
accurate and timely information. Enhanced transportation and
distribution processes and organizations provide dedicated assets to
prioritize cargo, optimize routing, and reduce uncertainty. Deployed
forces are using recently-developed technologies such as the
Battlefield Command Sustainment Support System (BCS3) and Warehouse-to-
Warfighter (W2) to gain visibility of assets as they move across the
``last tactical mile'' from sustainment areas to combat forces. In
total, Marine Corps Logistics Modernization will ensure the readiness
and sustainment of combat forces in any operational environment. Of
critical importance is the development and fielding of the Global
Combat Support System-Marine Corps (GCSS-MC).
Global Combat Support System-Marine Corps
GCSS-MC will deliver 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. GCSS-MC is designed with modern,
commercial off-the-shelf enterprise resource planning software that
will replace our aging legacy systems. The GCSS-MC 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 second 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.
viii. conclusion
Since 2001, the austere expeditionary environment, high operational
tempo, and effects of combat have tested the flexibility and
exceptional abilities of your marines. They have repeatedly succeeded.
This sustained effort has come at substantial cost in terms of personal
sacrifice on the part of individual marines and their families, as well
as the cumulative wear and tear on our equipment. Your marine's
remarkable resilience and professionalism vindicates the Nation's trust
and confidence in them. In this Long War, it is imperative that we keep
primary focus on support for our marines in combat, while resetting and
modernizing a multi-capable force ready for our Nation's future
challenges. Congress' continued and consistent support has enabled us
to prevail in today's battles and will ensure that we always remain the
Nation's premier expeditionary force in readiness!
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, General Magnus.
Admiral Walsh?
STATEMENT OF ADM PATRICK M. WALSH, USN, VICE CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS
Admiral Walsh. Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, a little over
a year ago, I departed Bahrain as the Naval Component Commander
to U.S. Central Command, and I was the Commander of U.S. Fifth
Fleet. In many respects, I was the beneficiary of the support
of this committee, as well as the investments made to the
readiness account. I was a customer, and I witnessed many of
the values that we talk about when it comes to forward
presence, power projection, and deterrence. So, it's a real
honor to be here today and to thank you and to testify, on
behalf of sailors around the world, here, on the readiness of
our Navy.
Today, 51 percent of the Navy is underway. Our sailors are
operating with maritime coalition partners and the U.S. Coast
Guard. Additionally, 15,000 serve on the ground in the Central
Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility.
On any given day, their service is impressive and
noteworthy. Just for example: In the past year, strike groups
provided persistant forward presence in trouble spots around
the globe; Carrier air wings supported joint operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq; riverine squadrons patrolled internal
waterways of Iraq; a guided-missile destroyer destroyed a
malfunctioning satellite; SEABEES, explosive ordnance disposal
teams, SEALs, and Individual Augmentees served alongside
marines, soldiers, and airmen; the fleet provided disaster
relief in Central American, humanitarian assistance in the
Pacific Rim, and worked to promote economic prosperity with
African partners; helicopters provided support to firefighters
in San Diego; and our divers provided support to civil
authorities after the collapse of a bridge in Minneapolis.
While our maritime forces respond to contingencies,
sustained wartime operations have placed acute demand on our
people, our readiness, and our force structure. The fiscal year
2009 budget delivers the capabilities needed to these focus
areas.
So, thanks to your support, the current risk in these
areas, in our view, is moderate. However, we need to highlight
for you, today, specific concerns that we have about future
operations that elevate our risk-assessment trend lines to
significant, in three areas. Beginning with people: Attracting,
developing, and retaining the best and the brightest remains a
top priority, especially in our naval special warfare and our
special operations field, in our nuclear power field, our
medical community and chaplain communities.
The Navy needs your continued strong support for accession
bonuses, as well as special and incentive pays. You've given us
the necessary tools to attract and retain talent in these
critical skill sets.
In the area of readiness: To provide a ready, responsive
expeditionary, full-spectrum force, we must train the way we
conduct our national security missions. Your support for the
readiness accounts has allowed us to train uninterrupted in
time of war. Additionally, we need your continued support and
partnership for the training required for full-spectrum
operations as local groups, and in some cases, local
governments, challenge our ability to conduct active sonar and
carrier landing training.
In the area of force structure: Our immediate challenge is
in managing the impact of high operating rates in harsh
conditions on equipment. Specifically, the demand for select
forces exceeds our ability to sustain the supply of these
assets. The high tempo of operations has consumed service life
faster than programmed. This is why early in the Chief of Naval
Operation's (CNO) tenure, he made it a priority to examine our
industrial base, personally walk the shipyard, and take a hard
look at the procurement accounts for aviation and surface
combatants. Our immediate concern is for wing-fatigue repair on
our P-3 aircraft.
Last fall, we published a new Maritime Strategy that
reflects what we have learned about the evolving security
environment. We see a direct connection, and draw a direct
correlation, between the stability of the global commons and
the security and the prosperity of the Nation. No matter what
advancements futurists predict for the movement of energy and
goods, the bulk of the world market will continue to move by
sea in an environment where the security challenge has become
increasingly transnational.
We recognize how quickly conflict can escalate, how
ideological movements can become destabilizing and disrupt the
international economic system. The potential for conflict based
on grievance, resentment, and state interests, fueled by
weapons proliferation, characterized by terrorism, insurgency,
and disorder, now seems more likely in areas of vulnerability,
poor governance, and demographic stress. In this environment,
we understand why we must position forces forward, to move
promptly and interrupt the symptoms and conflict before local
problems become regional or international.
The character of today's challenge cuts across boundaries
and borders and therefore it demands solutions that are rapid,
credible, joint, interagency, combined, and cooperative. This
is why the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard took the
unprecedented step and signed the first Unified Maritime
Strategy, which acknowledges the traditional role of the
Services, as well as recognizes that security challenge
requires us to move seamlessly across the maritime domain,
prepared for the full spectrum of military operations.
Because you have invested in recruiting, we have a high-
quality force. Because you invested in education, we have a
skilled and technically competent force. Because you invested
in the quality of life for our families, we retain a senior,
seasoned, and experienced force. Because you've invested in
full-spectrum training, we are a force prepared for the full
range of military operations, from irregular warfare to major
combat, which gives us the opportunity to describe where we can
go and what we can do, rather than where we cannot go and what
we cannot do. Because you've invested in readiness, we can
sustain our posture forward. It means that, on any day in the
Navy, we knock down the door or serve as the force in Strategic
Reserve. It means that when we are on station, we don't reach a
tipping point, we move in any direction, any time, and any
place, for as long as the Nation needs us. Your investment
presents true military options for national leadership. The
value of what we do is that we're in a position to lead, to
play an enduring leadership role, to assert national interests
on the world stage in operations that range from combat to
disaster relief and humanitarian assistance.
The American people have given us a skilled, experienced,
credible, agile Navy, with sailors who reflect the commitment
of the country and reveal the soul of the Nation. Our readiness
story is about strength, but it's also about generosity and
humanity. It's about what we must defeat in war, and what we
can build in peace as a force of last resort and guarantor of
freedom. Your support for the 2009 budget will help us meet the
challenge of this security environment that we describe.
So on behalf of a ready, responsive, and relevant Navy, I'd
like to thank you again for your enduring support for our
sailors, our civilians, and our families.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Walsh follows:]
Prepared Statement by ADM Patrick M. Walsh, USN
navy readiness
Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, and distinguished members of this
subcommittee, I am privileged to appear before you today along with my
Service counterparts, to testify on the readiness of our military
forces. The brave men and women, sailors and civilians, of the United
States Navy continue to perform exceptionally well under demanding
conditions and congressional support remains fundamental to their
success. Your Navy will remain the preeminent maritime power, providing
our country a global naval expeditionary force committed to global
security and prosperity.
introduction
We remain a maritime nation that relies heavily on the security of
the vast maritime commons. This is the setting in which our country and
its allies compete for global influence; a setting that is typically
characterized neither by absolute warfare nor absolute peace. While
defending our citizenry and defeating our adversaries in war remains
the undeniable ends of seapower, it must also be applied more broadly
if it is to serve our national interests through promoting greater
collective security, stability, and trust.
Before I address our current budget submission and continuing
readiness challenges, I will review the many successes achieved against
a challenging backdrop this past year.
2007 assessment
Throughout 2007, your Navy repeatedly demonstrated its global
maritime dominance and influence, the essence of our maritime strategy.
Our sailors performed superbly, combating terrorism across a broad
spectrum of missions including Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) as well as fighting for the hearts and
minds through international disaster relief, humanitarian missions, and
providing defense capabilities in support of civil authorities.
In January, when Iran's provocations led the President to call for
the presence of two carriers in the Central Command area of operation,
Navy responded by surging U.S.S. Ronald Reagan (CVN 76). With our Fleet
Response Plan (FRP) operational availability construct as the enabler,
within weeks Navy had two CSGs on station and had deployed a third CSG
during our Japan-based carrier's scheduled maintenance.
Navy continued its significant contribution to the Joint Force
supporting OIF and OEF in 2007. In addition to maintaining the elevated
operational tempo (OPTEMPO) of our SEABEES, Explosive Ordnance Disposal
teams, and SEALs, the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) deployed
Navy's first two Riverine Patrol Squadrons, aligning seams in maritime
security operations as Navy returns to the brown-water environment.
Navy F/A-18 Hornets, operating from the U.S.S. Enterprise supported Air
Force-apportioned missions in Afghanistan after the Air Force grounded
its F-15 aircraft. Other equally important contributions to stabilizing
the security posture in the Middle East were provided by Navy port
operations support units, maritime patrol aircraft, medical teams, and
leadership and support for Joint Task Forces at Guantanamo Bay and the
Horn of Africa, Provincial Reconstruction Teams, the detention center
at Camp Bucca, and the Counter Radio-Controlled Electronic Warfare
group. On any given day, Navy forces contributed more than 25 ships and
submarines, 440 aircraft, and 22,000 sailors serving both afloat and
ashore to the Central Command joint effort.
Navy continues to increase the capacity of our allies through our
Theater Security Cooperation and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs.
Our persistent global presence using distributed forces that are
mission tailored, increase the effectiveness of our coalition partners
through bi-lateral and multi-lateral naval exercises. Some of the
notable engagements include exercise Malabar with the Indian, Japanese,
Australian, and Singapore navies, FRUKUS with the French, Russians, and
British, and Phoenix Express with European and Northern African navies.
Meanwhile, exercise Valiant Shield brought together three Carrier
Strike Groups, six submarines, and a wide array of Navy and joint
capabilities. Likewise, FMS is an important aspect of our security
cooperation programs that is designed to improve interoperability,
military-to-military relations, and global security. The sale of U.S.S.
Trenton to the Indian Navy, U.S.S. Heron and U.S.S. Pelican to Greece,
and U.S.S. Cardinal and U.S.S. Raven to Egypt are recent examples of
our FMS program in action.
This past year, the Navy-Marine Corps team worked closely with the
State Department and relief agencies as first responders to three
natural disasters showcasing Navy's operational agility and logistics
expertise. The U.S.N.S. Gysgt Fred W. Stockham provided relief to
tsunami victims in the Solomon Islands by delivering almost 8 tons of
relief supplies; providing more than 140 aid workers; and flying 30
sorties and 20 medical evacuations (MEDEVACs). The U.S.S. Wasp, U.S.S.
Samuel B Roberts, and U.S.N.S. Comfort participated in Hurricane Felix
relief efforts in Central America. During a period of 1 week, they
provided more than 500 aid workers, flew more than 150 sorties and 70
MEDEVACs, and delivered more than 23 tons of food, 11 tons of water,
and 1 ton of medical and infant supplies. Most recently, U.S.S.
Kearsarge/22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and the U.S.S. Tarawa/
11th MEU responded to the cyclone that hit Bangladesh in November 2007
by delivering nearly 60 tons of drinking water and 127 tons of
supplies; flying 115 sorties; and treating more than 2,300 patients.
Navy humanitarian assistance (HA) efforts continue to have a
positive impact on America's image abroad, influencing perceptions
across the spectrum from the personal level to the political and
national levels. Navy's 2007 outreach was provided by U.S.N.S. Comfort
and U.S.S. Peleliu who, combined, visited 20 countries, treated more
than 130,000 medical, 29,000 dental, and 20,000 veterinarian patients,
conducted more than 1,400 surgeries, performed more than 60 engineering
projects, and invested 3,000 man-days in community relations projects.
Navy also proudly demonstrated its ability to provide defense
support to civilian authorities as part of several Northern Command led
unified missions. In August, Mobile Dive and Salvage Unit Two (MDSU 2)
assisted the Department of Transportation and the State of Minnesota in
response to the tragic collapse of a bridge along I-35 in Minneapolis.
MDSU 2 divers conducted hand over hand search in the Mississippi River
locating remains and assisting in debris removal efforts. Two months
later, Navy provided fixed and rotary wing aircraft assistance in
battling the wildfires ravaging the San Diego countryside. Navy
civilian firefighters worked shoulder to shoulder with State and local
organizations fighting the Harris Ranch and Witch Creek fires while
sailors, including medical personnel provided relief to civilian
evacuees. Our mission of support, compassion, and commitment is
enduring and codified in our maritime strategy.
On the manpower front in 2007, more than seventeen thousand
Individual Augmentees (IA) were specially trained in support of the
global war on terror, OIF, and OEF, in assignments far removed from the
sea. Our Active component IAs now receive notification an average of 46
days prior to execution of orders. Our Reserve component receives
notification an average of 54 days in advance. Navy is committed to
remaining responsive to COCOM requirements as it works towards its goal
of 60 days advance notification. A new Global War on Terror Support
Assignment (GSA) detailing process incorporates current IA assignments.
The short-term goal of GSA detailing is to create an environment where
GSA assignments are the normal business practice and IAs are the
exception.
Navy also recently opened the Comprehensive Combat and Complex
Casualty Care facility, a 30,000 square foot, $4.4 million Prosthetic
and Rehabilitation Service in San Diego, as it expanded screening and
caring for all its wounded, ill, or injured sailors including those at
risk for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.
In 2007, Navy continued to meet the majority of its recruiting and
retention goals. We exceeded our enlisted accession goals for the ninth
consecutive year but were only able to achieve 98 percent of our Active
officer goal and 52 percent of our Reserve officer goal resulting in
shortfalls in medical students and chaplains. Likewise, Navy achieved
all of its enlisted retention and attrition targets while facing
increasing challenges to retaining its captains (O-6).
Last year, Navy commenced execution of its third phase of its
diversity campaign. This phase is dedicated to holding navy leadership
accountable at the highest levels in our enterprises and challenging
them to ensure that our top talent is provided the opportunity to
compete for timely, competitive, and meaningful key assignments.
Additionally, we have moved to systematic engagements with our affinity
groups, historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic
institutions working at the national, regional, and local levels to
ensure a coordinated and focused approach in reaching minority
students. Accordingly, we have increased our opportunity to attract
diverse talent by actively engaging in our outreach to younger minority
students and their influencers in order to raise awareness and provide
substantive information on the importance of the science, technology,
engineering, and math disciplines. Finally, we have revamped diversity
training throughout the learning pipeline from enlisted boot camp to
the Senior Enlisted Academy, as well as from the most junior officer to
our new flag officers, in order to communicate a coherent, compelling,
and consistent message at all levels of the chain of command.
National Security Personnel System (NSPS) implementation for our
Navy civilian employees remains on track as well. Since its Navy
inception, 28,000 employees have been successfully converted to NSPS
with 32,000 more targeted for conversion through November 2008.
Developing better tools to attract and retain quality civilian
employees remain key human resource elements of NSPS and are vital to
the system's success and the Department's ability to complete
implementation by the end of 2009.
Navy remains committed to good stewardship of the taxpayers'
dollars. We have heightened our review and understanding of output
metrics and their relationship to warfighter needs. We are looking at
the cost of readiness and driving out inefficiencies through
application of LEAN thinking while seeking to generate increased
readiness at reduced cost. Additionally, Navy continues its
transformation from a vertically oriented, administrative/business
structure into a more responsive and transparent matrixed model known
as the Navy Enterprise Framework. Though still maturing, the Navy
Enterprise Framework will better leverage the value streams of people,
dollars, and materiel needed to deliver warfighting readiness to Navy
component and combatant commanders. This transformation extends down to
the unit level, shifting from a force structure focus to one that is
capability centered.
Last fall, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), along with the
Commandants of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard, unveiled the
Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. This unprecedented,
collaborative strategy incorporates input from the American public,
obtained through a series of ``Conversations with the Country'',
business leaders, and the academic community. The strategy identifies
expanded core capabilities of the Maritime Services: forward presence,
deterrence, sea control, power projection, maritime security, and
humanitarian assistance and disaster response. This template for
maritime capability and capacity is designed to protect our homeland,
secure strategic access, and preserve global freedom of action. It
guides our enduring cooperation with existing and emerging partners and
builds bridges of trust with the international community.
The maritime strategy will guide our investment decisions and for
the development and execution of policies, plans, and programs for
current and future operations. It informs our Navy Strategic Plan
(NSP), which aligns budgetary decisions with future operations and risk
assessments, and our Naval Operating Concept (NOC), which delineates
the objectives and missions of the Navy and underscores our warfighting
interdependence.
current readiness (fiscal year 2008)
Navy's current readiness remains moderately strong. Congressional
support has been critical in this regard and, as a result, Navy units
and individual augmentees deploy combat ready--properly trained and
properly equipped. We continue to be the most dominant and influential
naval force, globally, and across all maritime missions.
On February 20, the Navy succeeded in intercepting a non-
functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite in its final
orbits using a single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) fired
from U.S.S. Lake Erie (CG 70). The one-time modifications made to a
finite number of missiles will be reconfigured back to the anti-
ballistic missile configuration. Further, the Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense (BMD) system which was deployed does not have the capability to
shoot satellites with the one exception of this unique mission. The
interception of this satellite does, however, demonstrate the
adaptability of our forces and systems to the BMD mission.
A further example of the flexibility of our forces and the
relevance of our Maritime Strategy is the first ever Africa Partnership
Station (APS) which is currently deployed to West and Central Africa
through May 2008. Part of the Global Fleet Station concept, APS seeks
to support regionally sustained, focused training and multinational/
interagency collaboration. To date the U.S.S. Fort McHenry, U.S.S.
Annapolis, and H.S.V. Swift have participated with 12 nations,
bolstering maritime security by increasing African maritime capability
and promoting economic prosperity and stability through trust.
On 25 March 2008, we had 104 ships on deployment (37 percent of the
Fleet) and 143 ships underway (51 percent of the Fleet) in every
theater of operation. This includes seven aircraft carriers and four
big deck amphibious ships (LHA/LHD) (Figure 1).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
That same day, 2,746 Active and Reserve Seabees, and 4,065 members
of our Active and Reserve medical corps were serving overseas, many in
combat support roles. Additionally, 831 members of the Navy Special
Warfare community were deployed overseas (of 3,616 deployable), as were
288 Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel (of 552 available to deploy),
and 862 Naval Coastal Warfare/Expeditionary Security Force personnel
(of 3,057 deployable).
The Navy's Individual Augmentation (IA) program is central to
Navy's ability to support the global war on terror, and is a near-
seamless integration of our Active and Reserve components. Since 11
September 2001, over 48,000 Navy reservists have been mobilized in
support of the global war on terror. On any given day, over 20,000
citizen-sailors (or 29 percent of the Reserve Force) are on some type
of Active Duty (AD) or Inactive Duty (ID) orders at their supported
commands meeting global COCOM requirements. This number includes about
5,000 Reserve component sailors mobilized in support of OIF and OEF.
Additionally, we maintain the capacity to rapidly increase contingency
support with more than 28,000 Reserve component sailors yet to be
mobilized.
Navy continues to refine its process for identifying, assigning,
and training its IAs. This year, we expect to more than double the
number of sailors assigned to IA orders via the global war on terror
Support Assignment (GSA) order process. This process seeks to eliminate
uncertainty, improve sailor and family support, enable and reward
volunteerism, and ensure detailers involvement in sailors' professional
development and career progression. Begun in 2007, this process will be
used for 73 percent of the IA assignments by the end of fiscal year
2009. Once a sailor has been assigned a global war on terror mission
they are supported by various initiatives under the direction of the
Expeditionary Combat Readiness Center (ECRC). Significant improvements
in 2007 included: 1) Established permanent Navy Liaison Officer support
at all major Army training sites with a significant IA sailor training
population, 2) Coordinated Army issue of Operational Clothing and
Individual Equipment, ensuring all IA sailors are fully equipped with
the same top line combat gear as U.S. Army soldiers to perform their
mission, 3) Implemented Warrior Transition Program (WTP) in Kuwait for
returning IA sailors incorporating various aspects of post-deployment
medical and Combat Operational Stress Control screening and counseling
to ensure returning sailors receive the appropriate post-deployment
care, and 4) Coordinated with CNIC's Fleet and Family Service Centers
and OMBUDSMAN to host various IA Family Forums, Family Readiness
Briefs, and Family Support ``Webinars.'' Because Operational Stress is
an everyday fact of life for all sailors, Navy has embarked on an
initiative to de-stigmatize how stress management is viewed. This
effort will foster a culture of resiliency and mutual support that
equips our sailors and families to better function in a high-OPTEMPO
global war on terror environment.
Navy also continues to emphasize family support and compassionate
medical care for our wounded sailors. Our focus on our sailors and
their families has resulted in achieving a lower than national average
suicide rate, a reduction in disciplinary incidents, and a significant
decline in the number of divorces in the first quarter of fiscal year
2008. Additionally, Navy medicine is adapting its care to ensure the
medical and psychological well-being of all deployed and returning
personnel. Navy's continuum of care includes extended monitoring of
physical and psychological health from pre-deployment to beyond post-
deployment, redesigned expeditionary medical facilities, and access to
the Safe Harbor Program for severely wounded, ill, and injured sailors.
Safe Harbor provides: personalized assistance and contact after
reaching a continental United States hospital, resources to meet
identified non-medical needs of the member and family members,
establishing and maintaining contact with the sailor's command,
proactive outreach and visitation services, and support for sailors to
return to the service or transition to civilian life. Recently, Safe
Harbor's mission expanded to become the focal point for case tracking,
policy oversight, and individualized case management (on an as-needed
basis) for Navy wounded, ill, and injured. We are enacting this concept
as a logical evolution from our existing processes, to an enhanced,
more comprehensive care capability.
Navy is postured to continue generating ready forces for the
current fight while maintaining the capability and capacity to surge
assets in response to national tasking. FRP has been extraordinarily
effective for the last 5 years because it has prepared Navy well to
respond to global events. Because of the FRP operational availability
construct, Navy remains poised to provide our Nation the capability to
open doors whenever and wherever needed and hold them open for the
follow-on forces.
fiscal year 2009 budget request
The fiscal year 2009 Navy budget reflects a commitment to deliver
worldwide presence, credible deterrence and dissuasion capability, the
ability to project power from Navy platforms anywhere on the globe, and
the ability to prevail at sea. This budget reflects the best balance of
resources to achieve this priority across the triad that produces
readiness now and in the future; acquisition of key platforms and
weapons systems, personnel, and the operations and maintenance that
sustains and trains our forces. The fiscal year 2009 budget and its
associated force structure plans represent the capabilities needed to
meet current and future strategic challenges with a moderate, trending
towards a significant, degree of risk.
acquisition--building a fleet for the future
Ship Programs
The fiscal year 2009 budget continues to shift to next generation
warships, providing an increase of three ships from fiscal year 2008
(Figure 2). The fiscal year 2009 shipbuilding budget funds 7 ships,
including the 11th Virginia class fast attack submarine, the third DDG
1000, 2 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), 2 T-AKE Dry Cargo and Ammunition
Ships, and the first Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) for the Navy.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The budget provides the second increment of funding for the
construction of the lead CVN-21 aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Gerald R
Ford (CVN 78), and advance procurement funding for CVN 79. Likewise the
budget provides funding for DDG 1002, the third ship of the class, and
advance procurement funding for DDG 1003. Consistent with the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, directing a cost cap of
$460 million for future LCS procurements, Navy budgeted for two more
LCSs in fiscal year 2009 as well as Mine Countermeasures Warfare, Anti-
Submarine Warfare, and Anti-Surface Warfare mission module packages.
The fiscal year 2009 budget includes funds for the second and third
Guided Missile Cruiser (CG) mods designed to extend the service life of
these platforms to 35 years. To pace the 2020 threat environment, the
fiscal year 2009 budget includes funding for the long lead time
elements of the backfit modernizations of three Guided Missile
Destroyers (DDG) in fiscal year 2011. Additionally, the fiscal year
2009 budget continues the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC)
modernization program by funding service life extensions for six
crafts.
The fiscal year 2009 budget continues full rate production of the
Tactical Tomahawk missile which provides a premier attack capability
against long range, medium range, and tactical targets on land and can
be launched from both surface ships and submarines. Acquisition of
major ship weapons systems are outlined in Figure 3.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Aviation Programs
Navy Aviation acquisition continues to be at the forefront of our
Nation's defense and accordingly, this budget continues to decrease the
average age of our aircraft inventory from a high above 20 years in the
1990s to 18 years in 2006 and to 17 years in 2009. The recently
approved Navy Aviation Plan (NAvPlan) 2030 is based on fiscally
informed, rigorous analysis providing a long range recapitalization and
modernization plan to support the Maritime Strategy. NAvPlan 2030
demonstrates continued commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter, Navy
Unmanned Combat Aircraft System, and a robust Airborne Electronic
Attack capability. Multi-year procurement contracts for F/A-18E/F, EA-
18G, and MH-60R/S have enabled Navy to realize significant savings and
stretch available procurement funds. The budget reflects procurement of
206 aircraft in fiscal year 2009, an increase of 23 aircraft over
fiscal year 2008 levels as Navy continues planned growth towards Full
Rate Production profiles of JSF, EA-18G, and MH-60R (Figure 4).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Acquisition of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (F-35C)
Carrier Variant continues in fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year 2009
budget accelerates the procurement of F/A-18E/F/G aircraft to meet the
demand for our current lead fighter/attack aircraft. The budget
supports the multi-year procurement of both the Seahawk MH-60R and
Knighthawk MH-60S helicopters, which are part of a joint contract with
the Army's UH-60M Blackhawk. Three E-2D Advanced Hawkeye LRIP aircraft
are funded in fiscal year 2009, signaling a shift of effort from RDT&E
to procurement. The fiscal year 2009 budget funds the advance
procurement of the first P-8A aircraft slated to replace the aging P-3
fleet. The P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), based on the
Boeing 737 platform, will achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC)
in fiscal year 2013. The fiscal year 2009 budget supports CONPLAN 7500
and the QDR by providing a persistent ISR capability through
developing, acquiring, and fielding transformational Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) technologies.
Aircraft weapons arm the warfighter with lethal, interoperable, and
cost-effective weapons systems. Fiscal year 2009 marks the final year
of JDAM procurement while continuing critical acquisition of JSOW, AIM-
9X (Sidewinder), AMRAAM, and the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided
Missile (AARGM). Development also continues, with Army as the lead
service, on the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), an extended range,
precision-guided weapon for fixed wing, rotary wing, and UAV aircraft
(Figure 5).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
sustaining combat readiness
Operational readiness enables our forces to respond to persistent
and emerging threats. The top readiness priority is ensuring that
forces are fully trained and ready to deploy and remain supported while
deployed. This budget request includes resources in the operating and
maintenance accounts to deliver a ``6+1'' FRP posture for fiscal year
2009. We continue to monitor the trade space to execute the right
readiness for the right cost. Navy seeks to achieve this balance by
continually evaluating threat assessments, the capabilities and
capacities of the Fleet, our mandate to sustain these forces, and the
risk our combatant commanders and Navy component commanders face.
Ship Operations
The budget provides for a deployable battle force of 286 ships in
fiscal year 2009 including 11 aircraft carriers and 31 amphibious ships
(Figure 6). Fiscal year 2009 marks a significant milestone as Navy is
scheduled to retire its last conventionally powered aircraft carrier,
U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, as it welcomes the last Nimitz class aircraft
carrier, George HW Bush, to the fleet. In fiscal year 2009, ten battle
force ships will be commissioned: one Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN),
three Guided Missile Destroyers (DDG), one Nuclear Attack Submarine
(SSN), one Amphibious Assault Ship (LHD), one Amphibious Transport Dock
Ship (LPD), and three Dry-Cargo Ammunition Ships (T-AKE).
The fiscal year 2009 budget provides sufficient funding to steam
these ships an average of 45 days per quarter while deployed and 22
days per quarter while nondeployed. This underway Operational Tempo
(OPTEMPO) reflects an executable baseline with acceptable risk with
elevated OPTEMPO in support of global war on terror requirements.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Navy's Strategic Sealift forces are resourced to provide a rapid
response in delivering the initial military equipment and supplies
required for a contingency. These forces, layered in depth, include
forward deployed pre-positioned ship squadrons as well as surge ships
maintained in a Reduced Operating Status (ROS) from 4 to 30 days. The
number of days indicates the time from ship activation until the ship
is available for tasking. Only ROS-4 and ROS-5 ships are included in
the surge capacity in Figure 7.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Starting in fiscal year 2008, the Army no longer has a requirement
for four of its ten Prepositioned Large Medium Speed RO/RO (LMSR)
ships. These ships were returned to Navy, are being maintained in a
ROS-30 status, and will be leveraged in our termination of the capital
lease on five Maersk class (foreign-built) vessels. Navy will also
purchase two MPS ships currently under long-term capital lease in
fiscal year 2009 and two in fiscal year 2010. Additionally, one
container ship and one tanker ship will be procured in fiscal year 2009
as elements of the restructured USMC Afloat Prepositioning program.
Navy will continue to maintain its two hospital ships, the U.S.N.S.
Mercy and the U.S.N.S. Comfort, in a ROS-5 status to support
warfighting, humanitarian and disaster assistance efforts, and
operations other than war.
ship maintenance
Navy's fiscal year 2009 ship maintenance budget funds 100 percent
of the projected work on refueling overhauls and 97 percent of the
remaining notional requirement (Figure 8). Navy continues to mature its
ship maintenance strategy using the SHIPMAIN process to generate
continuous process improvements and prioritization of maintenance. The
One Shipyard for the Nation approach seeks to optimize the Nation's
public and private nuclear shipyards and contractor support to ensure
the ability to mobilize fleet support infrastructure across the board
and rise to meet fleet demands in time of war. Multi-Ship/Multi-Option
contracts establish long-term vendor relationships and reduced life
cycle maintenance costs achieved through improved advanced planning.
The Nation's ship repair base, both public and private sectors, has the
capacity to execute the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 ship
maintenance plans as well as the deferred maintenance amounts reflected
in Figure 8.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
aviation operations
The fiscal year 2009 budget provides for the operation,
maintenance, and training of 10 active Navy carrier air wings. Figure 9
depicts the Aviation inventory. Naval aviation is divided into three
primary mission areas: Tactical Air/Anti-Submarine Warfare (TACAIR/
ASW), Fleet Air Support (FAS), and Fleet Air Training (FAT). The fiscal
year 2009 budget supports an average T-rating of T-2.5 across the
Inter-Deployment Training Cycle enabling Navy to achieve its ``6+1''
FRP Carrier Strike Group goal.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) operations are budgeted at 89
percent in fiscal year 2009, which is slightly below the goal of 94
percent of student level training requirements enabling pilots to
complete the training syllabus. In fiscal year 2009, Fleet Air Support
(FAS) is funded to provide sufficient hours to meet 98 percent of the
total notional hours required. Navy Reserve component aviation will
provide 100 percent of the adversary and logistics air support, make
central contributions to the counter-narcotics efforts, conduct mine
warfare, and augment Maritime Patrol, Electronic Warfare, and Special
Operations Support global war on terror missions. In fiscal year 2009,
Reserve component aviation is budgeted at 94 percent of their required
hours, the minimum level to allow aircrews to maintain readiness in all
mission areas. Figure 10 displays Active and Reserve flying hour
readiness indicators.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
aviation maintenance
The Aviation Depot Maintenance program funds repairs required to
ensure operational units have sufficient numbers of airframes, engines,
and repairables to support achieving the quantity of aircraft ready for
tasking to execute assigned missions. The fiscal year 2009 budget funds
this readiness-based program to ensure deployed squadrons have 100
percent of their Primary Authorized Aircraft (PAA) prior to and for the
duration of their deployment. Likewise the budget supports achieving
the zero bare firewall engine goal, aided by engineering improvements
increasing engine ``time on wing''. Non-deployed squadrons assume
minimal risk in both airframes and engines as depicted in Figure 11.
The Navy Aviation Enterprise (NAE) AIRSpeed strategy continues to
deliver cost-wise readiness by focusing efforts on reducing the cost of
business, increasing productivity, and improving customer satisfaction.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
expeditionary operations
Navy continues to place significant emphasis on its existing and
emerging expeditionary warfare capabilities as it seeks to strengthen
available forces for Phase O and Phase V operations. Established in
January 2006, the NECC was formed as the functional commander for
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)/Mobile Diving and Salvage (MDS),
Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces (MESF), Naval Construction
Forces (NCF), Riverine Forces, Navy Expeditionary Logistics Support
Group (NAVELSG), ECRC, Maritime Civil Affairs Group (MCAG), and Combat
Camera. NECC combines the Navy's existing and new expeditionary forces
under a single commander to provide the Joint Force Maritime Component
Commander (JFMCC)/Navy Component Commander (NCC) with the capability to
conduct operations across the full spectrum of expeditionary
operations, including maritime security operations; combat service
support; theater security cooperation support; disaster relief;
security assistance; shaping operations; and stability, security,
transition, and reconstruction (SSTR) operations.
Based on operational requirements, NECC will deploy mission-
specific units or multi-mission integrated adaptive force packages to
fulfill JFMCC/NCC demands by using both the existing solid foundation
of core capabilities in the Navy Expeditionary Force and emerging new
mission capabilities. Combining these forces under a unified command
structure increases the overall readiness and responsiveness of the
Navy to support existing and evolving irregular warfare missions in
major combat operations (MCO), Maritime Security Operations (MSO) (also
referred to as Global War on Terrorism or global war on terror), or
maritime homeland security/defense (M-HLS/D).
expeditionary maintenance and procurement
The fiscal year 2009 budget also provides funds for critical
construction and force protection equipment for the NECC. Predictably,
the equipment used by NECC units, such as the Seabees, EOD, and MESF,
is wearing out at accelerated rates due to operations in Iraq, Kuwait,
Horn of Africa and Afghanistan. Moreover, Seabee and EOD units deployed
to Iraq and Afghanistan require improved self-protection against
improvised explosive devices (IED). Ongoing operations in Iraq have
demanded new vehicles to protect troops against the array of explosive
devices they encounter. Mine Resistant, Armor Protected (MRAP) vehicles
have been developed to better withstand these threats, and are being
delivered to the force.
expeditionary weapons and sensors
Significant weapons shortages existed in Expeditionary Forces in
the years following September 11, 2001. These shortfalls have been
nearly eliminated. Weapons accessories, vital to expeditionary sailors,
also require replacement. These accessories include aim point mounts,
scopes, grips, rail assemblies, as well as an assortment of laser
aiming devices and night vision equipment.
Preparing Expeditionary Forces to fight the global war on terror
requires significantly more ammunition than was previously identified.
In fact, both the increased mission and expanding force structure have
led to a greater than 400 percent increase in the requirement for small
arms and crew-served weapon ammunition compared to fiscal year 2005.
manpower, personnel, training, and education
Navy forces stand ready to execute our Maritime Strategy largely
due to the dedication and motivation of individual sailors (Active and
Reserve), Navy civilians, and their families, as well as our contracted
support staffs. Just as they have devoted themselves to serving our
Nation, we, as leaders, must devote resources and shape policies to
ensure that they are personally and professionally fulfilled by that
service. Recruiting, developing, and retaining diverse and highly
capable men and women is central to our continued success and remains
one of the CNO's top priorities. This push is the backdrop to our
Strategy for our People that will level our end strength following
several years of personnel reductions resulting from increased
efficiencies ashore and a reduction in manpower intensive force
structure (Figure 12).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Manpower readiness begins with properly sizing and shaping our
requirement. Extensive capability-based analysis of current and future
force structure and warfighting requirements associated with a 313-
ship, 2,813-aircraft Navy has validated a steady-state Active component
end strength requirement of 322,000 and Reserve component end strength
requirement of 68,000. Our goal is to position Navy as a top employer,
in order to gain a competitive position in the market and provide our
people an appropriate life work balance, not only to recruit them, but
also to retain the best and brightest.
Navy Recruiting Command is relentless in its pursuit of hiring
young talent to serve in our Navy. For 77 consecutive months, active
Navy has met its monthly shipping goals while sustaining the high
quality of sailors being sent to the fleet. However, the Medical Corps,
Chaplain Corps, Nuclear Power Officers, and Enlisted Special Operations
communities pose the greatest risk and challenge our ability to sustain
the All-Volunteer Force.
Our medical program initiatives illustrate how we are working to
overcome the challenge of recruiting in a highly competitive market due
to a national shortage of health care professionals which is projected
to worsen in the future. While the recruiting of medical professionals
continues to improve, Navy only attained 82 percent of the Active
component medical specialty mission and 57 percent of the Reserve
component mission in 2007. Navy has since implemented a number of
monetary and special programs including: 1) the Medical Leads
Assistance Program where our own officers are generating interest in
Navy Medicine, 2) participating in the Department of Defense Medical
Examination Review Board program where busy students and professional
medical community applicants can go to more convenient civilian and
military medical treatment facilities rather than spending an entire
day processing through a military entrance processing station, and 3)
increasing accession bonuses and student stipends for targeted medical
specialty applicants.
For fiscal year 2009, Navy has increased its accession goals to
prepare for the leveling off of Navy manpower reductions. The authority
to pay enlisted bonuses up to $40,000 made a significant contribution
last year and will continue to help the services combat a declining
propensity to serve among our Nation's youth.
Despite a weakening economy, there will be increased competition
for our Nation's best talent. Our sailors expect innovative and
flexible compensation policies, a commitment to continuing education,
and professional development opportunities. Retaining our sailors will
continue to be challenging due to comparable compensation and benefits
offered by industry balanced with the sacrifices and commitments we ask
our sailors and their families to make. To address these challenges we
are aggressively pursuing the use of tools that allow us to manage our
people across the continuum of service, from Active and Reserve uniform
service through civil service, promoting a ``Stay Navy'' message.
Accordingly, we are providing our sailors with professional
credentialing opportunities, considering alternative manning
constructs, expanding sailor and family support, and exploring
initiatives that support the life/work balance our people desire.
There has been significant growth in demand for control grade
officers. At the same time, we are experiencing a shortage of inventory
of these senior officers. We have taken aggressive steps to understand
the considerations behind officers' decisions to stay on active duty
past the 26 year point. Recent surveys indicate that retention among
Unrestricted Line (URL) captains is largely driven by 3 factors: family
stability, financial concerns (a leveling off or reduction of pay and
retirement benefits compared to civilian opportunities), and job
satisfaction. I am exploring a variety of monetary and non-monetary
incentives to encourage more senior officers to make the choice to
``stay Navy'' past the 26 year point.
Navy Reserve Forces are a key element of Navy's goal to better
align its total Force to provide fully integrated operational support
to the joint force. Under the Navy Enterprise Framework, the Navy
continues to validate new mission requirements and an associated billet
structure for its Reserve Force to meet the capability requirements of
the future. The ongoing Active Reserve Integration (ARI) process
continues to align Reserve Forces under Active Force oversight, through
initiatives such as: the divestiture of MCMs to the AC and the
transformation of Naval Coastal Warfare to the MESF.
Navy civilians are also an integral part of our Total Force. From
forklift operators to nuclear physicists, civilians work alongside
servicemembers to ensure the adequacy of our logistics chains and
progress new weapons systems from an idea to reality. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 restricts military to
civilian conversions for the medical community through September 30,
2012. Due to the enactment date of this legislation, its provisions are
not reflected in the fiscal year 2009 President's budget request, but
the plan is now being readdressed. We are working closely with the
Office of the Secretary of Defense on this matter. The Navy is
leveraging the NSPS in making strides towards identifying key
competencies to ensure the right mix of people and skills are recruited
and retained.
Our pays and benefits continue to keep pace with the civilian
sector and in concert with accession bonuses and special pays
significantly contribute to our ability to attract new talent and
retain our best. The manpower, personnel, training and education
policies and programs we have in place today and our ongoing
initiatives in diversity, life/work balance, family readiness, and the
continuum of medical care, are expected to position Navy among the best
organizations--a ``Top 50 Employer'' known for valuing its people.
facilities
Our shore installations are extensions of our warfighting
capabilities and are among our most complex systems. Our installations
must be ready to deliver scalable, agile, and adaptive capabilities to
meet the requirements of our Fleet and families. In the past, we have
accepted significant risk in our shore establishment to adequately fund
Fleet readiness, our people accounts, weapons systems, and future force
structure. As a result the condition, capability, and readiness of our
shore installations have degraded to an unacceptable level by industry
standards. We must reverse this trend. Navy Ashore Vision 2035 will
provide the guiding principles for our shore establishment, take
advantage of leveraging the joint capabilities we share with other
services, and will ensure that the shore establishment is properly
sized, configured, located, and networked to deliver our required
operational requirements and quality of service to our people. This
strategy is fully aligned with the congressionally-mandated Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
The Navy's fiscal year 2009 military construction investment
strategy focuses on:
Recapitalizing inadequate and inefficient facilities
that directly support the warfighter
Constructing new facilities to improve quality of life
for our sailors and their families
Supporting new mission and R&D facility requirements
Enhancing anti-terrorism and force protection
Correcting critical deficiencies
The fiscal year 2009 Military Construction-Navy (MCN) budget
requests appropriations of $1,116 million that includes 32 projects for
the Active Navy and 3 projects for the Reserve Navy.
Navy continues to leverage the capabilities of the supporting
communities where we work and live. In fact, Navy continues its
reliance on the private sector as the primary source of housing for
sailors and their families. The power of leveraging the local community
is highlighted in our new Public-Private Venture Bachelor Quarters at
San Diego and Norfolk. With the help of your Special Legislation and
our progressive private partners, Navy is providing quarters that will
positively impact their decision to ``Stay Navy''. Other specific
housing projects in the fiscal year 2009 budget include $62.6 million
for the replacement of 146 units at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
and $50 million in post-acquisition construction for the improvement
and repair of 342 units in Guam and Japan. Additionally, $8.4 million
is included to support the construction of 46 homes at Naval
Construction Battalion Center Gulfport, MS, through the use of military
housing privatization authorities.
Appropriate investments of facility sustainment, recapitalization,
and demolition are necessary to maintain Navy's inventory of facilities
in good working order and preclude premature degradation. Navy uses an
industry-based facility investment model to keep the inventory at an
acceptable quality level through life cycle maintenance, repair, and
disposal. Navy has increased sustainment funding in fiscal year 2009 to
90 percent across the Future Years Defense Program funding for
recapitalization. The fiscal year 2009 budget exceeds the DOD 67 year
recapitalization rate goal primarily due to BRAC investments. Figure 13
recaps Navy's facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization
submission.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
congressional support requested
Marine Mammals and Sonar
The most critical readiness issue relates to Navy's ability to
train using active sonar and not endanger marine mammal populations.
Submarines with improving stealth and attack capability--particularly
modern diesel attack submarines with air independent propulsion--are
proliferating worldwide at an alarming rate. Locating these relatively
inexpensive but extremely quiet boats presents our Navy with a
formidable challenge and requires the use of active sonar. Ongoing
litigation that threatens to limit our ability to conduct medium
frequency active sonar training and thus become combat certified
atrophies the skills required to employ this vital technology.
The Navy is engaged in a comprehensive effort to achieve full
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Marine Mammal
Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act,
and Executive Order 12114. Navy continues to increase funding for
marine mammal research and provides more than one half the world wide
funding for marine mammal research. We must, however, continue to
prepare our Navy for deployment and the possibility of combat
operations.
Aviation Transitions
Navy's aging ``legacy'' aircraft are showing significant wear from
the increased OPTEMPO directly associated with OIF and OEF. The
expected service life (ESL) of an aircraft is a function of the
designed flight hours and the actual fatigue life expended through
operational missions (launches, recoveries, extreme operational
environment, etc.). This increased OPTEMPO has accelerated airframe
attrition due to their reaching ESL sooner than designed and
pressurized retirement dates for legacy aircraft.
Navy's aging P-3 and EP-3 fleets are particularly challenged as we
continue to provide valuable airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capability to the combatant commanders. The average age
of our P-3 fleet is more than 28 years and the average age of an EP-3
fleet is more than 34 years. Both aircraft were expected to serve 30
years. In December, we grounded 39 P-3C aircraft where projected
fatigue wing cracks exceeded an acceptable level of risk. Navy
appreciates your consideration of its Supplemental funding request that
will support the immediate purchase of wing material for outer wing
replacement on 42 P-3C aircraft. Additionally, Navy will add Anti-
Surface Warfare (ASuW) systems to some 19 training non Anti-Submarine
Warfare capable airframes to mitigate ASuW risk to current plan
response. Navy also seeks to mitigate portions of this capability gap
by accelerating delivery of the P-8A Multi-Mission Aircraft by 15
months.
A future concern, one third of the Navy's legacy TACAIR fleet, F/A-
18 A-D series aircraft, is currently operating beyond design limits,
and the bulk of the fleet, F/A-18 C/D series aircraft, are operating at
an average flight hour expenditure rate 30 percent greater per year
than planned.
Encroachment
Another readiness issue impacting our ability to train to meet the
full spectrum of operations is the increasing encroachment of our
installations and ranges. Our ability to use installations for their
intended purposes and the ability to augment then when necessary to
respond to changing national defense requirements is being pressurized
by State and local citizen interest groups. Navy's continuing
difficulty to establish an Outlying Landing Field on the east coast is
illustrative of this challenge. An OLF is required to enable Navy to
train aviators for Carrier Air Wing operations at sea. This training is
an integral element of the FRP operational availability construct. In
consideration of the concerns of local citizens and environmental
groups Navy has terminated the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on the
originally selected five North Carolina sites and subsequently plans to
issue a new EIS on five different sites in North Carolina and Virginia.
Navy continues its outreach program seeking a win-win situation for all
parties. We are grateful for your continued support as we work with
Congress and the States of Virginia and North Carolina to ensure that
we can fully train our young men and women.
United Nations Law of the Sea Convention
To interact more effectively with our maritime partners to ensure
that the seas of the world remain safe and open for all nations, the
Navy strongly supports U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention
joining 154 party nations. Robust operational and navigational rights
codified in the Law of the Sea Convention must be preserved for the
Navy to continue to maximize its ability to execute the Maritime
Strategy. Our current non-party status constrains our efforts to
develop enduring maritime partnerships. It inhibits us in 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 Convention is of critical importance to global naval
maritime and over flight mobility.
reset the force
We remain a Nation at war--a long war against violent extremists in
which naval forces provide a significant part of the worldwide
rotational military presence and an increasing portion of the required
support for ground units in Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom
(OEF/OIF). An ongoing challenge we face today is to sustain our present
capability and enhance our ability to conduct nontraditional missions
in order to ensure continuity in the projection of naval power and
influence.
Navy's support of OIF, OEF, and the global war on terror continue
to require a higher OPTEMPO than was planned during peace-time
operations. In the near term this translates to greater operational
cost (maintenance, parts, and fuel). Longer-term impacts are under
close evaluation, but ships, aircraft and ground equipment returning
from the war will require depot-level attention to remain responsive to
emerging threats.
Past supplemental funding has mitigated some of the Navy's costs
but Navy's outstanding reset requirement is nearly $11 billion. The
fiscal year 2008 Reset requests totaled $3.6 billion of which $500
million has been received via the bridge supplemental. The funds
received to date have been aligned to fleet depot maintenance ( $410
million), Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Systems ( $80 million OPN),
and ammunition accounts ( $10 million PANMC).
Navy's outstanding Reset requirement is currently estimated at
$10.9 billion. Of this remaining requirement, the fiscal year 2009
supplemental request will include maintenance funds for Ship, Aviation,
and Ground Forces as well as procurement funding for aircraft and
aviation spares and repairables, Expeditionary Combat and Physical
Security equipment, and ordnance.
Navy continues to evaluate its reset requirements as our high
OPTEMPO operations continue and the equipment is used more extensively
than originally planned. Replacement equipment and aircraft are
essential to preclude near- to mid-term capability gaps in these areas.
Deferring reset requirements will equate to increased risks in the
future.
conclusion
The security challenges of the 21st century are complex and varied.
They range from the irregular, asymmetric threats of terrorists, self-
proclaimed Jihadist organizations, and rogue states and belligerent
nations, to the conventional and highly sophisticated military
technologies of China, North Korea, and Iran. Navy is out and about,
doing the essential missions for the Nation, but that level of security
comes at a cost to our people, our current readiness, and the future
fleet. Our Navy's capabilities and capacity must be balanced with the
resources we are provided to address these diverse strategic
challenges.
Our Navy provides a high rate of return on your investment, costing
the taxpayers less than 1 percent of the GDP. We strive to sustain
combat readiness, build a fleet for the future and develop 21st century
leaders. The Navy readiness story is one of military might but it is
also has chapters about generosity and humanity. Your U.S. Navy is
ready for further tasking.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Admiral Walsh.
General McNabb?
STATEMENT OF GEN. DUNCAN J. McNABB, USAF, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF,
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
General McNabb. Chairman Akaka, Senator Thune, and
distinguished committee members, it's a pleasure to be here
this afternoon.
I thank the committee for your tremendous support of our
soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and coast guardsmen in
ensuring that we have what we need, to win. On behalf of the
over 600,000 total force airmen, thank you for the opportunity
today to talk about the very important subject of readiness.
Our airmen have been vital to the success of the joint team
to win this critical global war on terror while constantly
providing the global deterrence that keeps our enemies at bay
and our friends assured. We stand ready to go to the most
dangerous places on the planet tonight to protect our country,
and if the Nation needs us to go, tomorrow or 20 years from
now, we will go. Our airmen, like our fellow warriors, have
been tested in the crucible of war, and been found worthy. As
part of the Joint Force, our airmen have pushed our combat
capability to new heights, and have forever changed the way we
fight.
We have compressed the kill chain. With our ground combat
teams, we have developed the tactics and technology that allows
the joint team to find the enemy and strike where needed and
when needed. Airmen have evolved the battlespace vigilance. We
keep an unblinking eye on rooftops and over ridgelines so our
ground forces are not surprised by the enemy and are always
prepared to engage them.
Our airmen have revolutionized the concept of air mobility.
We have moved our mobility forces forward with innovative ideas
and equipment to precisely resupply forces on the ground and
reduce the number of ground convoys in harm's way. Airmen have
extended our aeromedical evacuation bridge. We move our wounded
warriors to higher levels of care faster than ever, saving the
remarkable Americans who have risked their lives in defense of
this great Nation.
Our airmen are absolutely honored to do their part, but we
have sustained this increased tempo for over 17 years, with the
last 6 being the highest in over 40 years. Senator Thune, you
mentioned that. This pace has had its effect on our people and
our equipment. Our overall readiness is down, across the board.
The average age of our aircraft is over 24 years, and we're
flying this equipment harder than ever, accelerating the wear
and tear on our inventory. We have witnessed an 11 percent
decline in our fully-mission-capable rate, and this rate would
have decreased even further, were it not for the superb work in
our depots and our superb maintainers.
The high tempo has also affected our airmen and their
families. Just like my counterparts here today, many elements
of our force are stressed with deployment-to-dwell ratios of 1-
to-1. Notably, we've seen declining reenlistment rates among
our mid-level NCOs. We're watching all these indicators closely
and doing everything that we can to maintain the quality of
life for our airmen and their families.
Despite these challenges, we are committed to the defense
of this great Nation and this great cause of freedom. We know
our Nation and our joint team absolutely depends on us, and,
when called again, we will go. However, we cannot rest on the
laurels of our current dominance in air. We must also be able
to dominate airspace and cyberspace tomorrow. We ask the
committee for your continued help to recapitalize and modernize
our aging equipment, to improve our readiness, and to provide
future generations of airmen with equipment that is worthy of
the challenges that they will face.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this subcommittee's continued
help, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General McNabb follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, USAF
i. introduction
Your Air Force is engaged around the world, fighting terrorists and
insurgents in the Long War. We appreciate the Senate Armed Services
Committee's continued support of our air, space, and cyberspace forces
as they fly and fight across the globe promoting and defending the
Nation's interests. Since the Long War began, congressional
supplemental funding each year, including the $5.5 billion provided for
fiscal year 2008, has helped ensure that our airmen deployed in combat
overseas are trained, equipped, and ready day-to-day to perform their
mission. As we prepare for the next year of global operations, the Air
Force is grateful for the support the committee provided through the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and as always,
we appreciate the great lengths to which the committee has gone to
support our airmen, their families, and their quality of life.
In the Long War, we continue to fulfill our indispensable roles as
airmen for the Joint team working with our sister Services to enhance
and capitalize on joint synergies--taking the entire team to higher
levels. Simultaneously, as the Nation's sword and shield, we stand
prepared to assure allies and dissuade, deter and, if necessary, defeat
enemies on a global scale. For over 17 years, the United States Air
Force has been engaged in continuous combat providing the Nation and
its partners unparalleled advantage in three warfighting domains--air,
space, and cyberspace. Our airmen have maintained constant watch,
deployed continuously, engaged America's adversaries directly,
responded to humanitarian crises around the world, and provided the
Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power to secure our Nation.
The hallmark of our success has been the truly seamless manner in which
our Reserve, Guard, and Regular components operate. We have leveraged
our Total Force to the greatest extent ever, and have provided the
Nation with a highly cohesive team that maximizes the Air Force's
overall joint combat capability.
Our Air Force has been tested in the crucible of battle and is the
most combat-proven in its history. Every day our airmen find innovative
ways to accomplish their mission more efficiently and effectively.
Airmen are dedicated to the defense of this Nation. We have committed
ourselves to go to the ends of the Earth, to the most dangerous or
austere locations, in our Nation's hour of need or in the world's
moment of despair. If tonight, tomorrow, or in 20 years from now
America calls--we will go--because it is our sacred duty to provide the
Nation and its joint team, wherever it might be engaged, the full might
of air, space, and cyberspace power.
To ensure success, your Air Force is organizing, training, and
equipping our airmen for both the current and future fights, building
in the flexibility to operate across the entire spectrum of conflict.
It is no accident that America's Air Force has unprecedented Global
Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power. We learned our lessons from
our own history as well as from others', and we invested vast resources
and effort to establish and maintain dominance in our three warfighting
domains: air, space, and cyberspace. Even after our victory in
Operation Desert Storm, we upgraded, modernized, and transformed our
training mindset and programs. The result was a more flexible,
responsive, and lethal force that contributed greatly to the joint
successes in Operations Allied Force, and saved lives in ensuing
operations--from the Balkans, through tsunami-ravaged Indonesia, to
Afghanistan and Iraq. Even with these advances, we continue to find
innovative ways to improve the combat power we provide the joint team.
Our forces engaged in combat today are fully ready to perform their
missions, but our future dominance is at risk.
We face a dangerous and uncertain future and our enemies do not sit
idly by. Instead, adversaries--both declared and potential--are
developing and fielding new and better means to threaten our Nation,
our interests, and stability around the world. At the same time, the
average age of our air and space craft continues to rise, and their
ability to confront emerging threats declines. We also face increased
operations, maintenance, and personnel costs that cut into our ability
to finance future dominant capabilities. We are doing all we can to
increase efficiency and effectiveness to defray these rising costs.
Despite our best efforts, we face declining readiness and soaring
recapitalization rates. Therefore, we have taken significant steps to
self-finance a massive and vital recapitalization and modernization
effort for our aging air and space force. We must ensure the Air Force
is capable of setting the conditions for America's success against
emerging threats in the uncertain years that lie ahead.
With this necessity in mind, let's examine Air Force ``readiness''
with respect to each of our three main priorities: winning today's
fight, taking care of our people, and preparing for tomorrow's
challenges.
ii. win today's fight
Our first priority is to win today's fight. Air Force Long War
missions are only the latest in a string of over 17 continuous years of
combat since Operation Desert Storm began. Throughout this period, our
strategic forces have remained on constant alert. In fact, the United
States Air Force has underwritten the national strategy for over 60
years by providing a credible deterrent force, and we continue to serve
as America's ultimate strategic backstop, reassuring allies, dissuading
competitors, and deterring adversaries by maintaining an always-ready
nuclear arm. The Air Force is committed to continuously improving its
ability to fulfill the Nation's nuclear mission. As with everything we
do in the Air Force, our approach to nuclear surety is grounded on our
core values of integrity, service, and excellence. We have initiated
multiple levels of review of Air Force policies and procedures in order
to improve the Air Force's nuclear surety. The Air Force portion of the
Nation's nuclear deterrent is sound, and we will take every measure
necessary to continue to provide safe, secure, reliable, nuclear forces
to the American public.
Today, Air Force operations are ongoing in Iraq, Afghanistan and
the Horn of Africa. Every day, your Air Force flies approximately 250
sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan directly integrated with and enhancing
ground operations. Since Long War operations began, your Air Force has
flown over 80 percent of the coalition's combat sorties in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. These missions
provide the Joint and Coalition team airlift, aero-medical evacuation,
air-refueling, command and control, close air support to ground
operations, strike, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR), and electronic warfare. We have flown over 385,000 mobility
sorties moving equipment and troops to and from the Central Command
(CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR). Our intra-theater airlift
missions shift convoys to the air reducing the need to place troops and
vehicles in harms way. Our aero-medical evacuation missions move
wounded soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to higher levels of
medical care at hospitals as far away as the continental United States.
In 2007, America's airmen conducted nearly 1,600 precision strikes in
Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq alone, Air Force strikes increased by 171
percent over the previous year. Added to those numbers, your Air Force
has flown over 50,000 sorties protecting the homeland for Operation
Noble Eagle.
Air Force engagement in CENTCOM is only the tip of the iceberg.
Airmen operate around-the-clock and around-the-globe to provide all
Combatant Commanders (COCOMs) with critical capabilities. Over 40
percent of the total force and 53 percent of the Active-Duty Force are
directly engaged in or supporting COCOM operations everyday. On any
given day, the Air Force has approximately 206,000 airmen (175,000
regular plus an additional 31,000 Guard and Reserve) fulfilling COCOM
tasks. This includes approximately 127,000 airmen conducting activities
such as operating and controlling satellites, standing alert in our
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile facilities, operating unmanned
aerial vehicles, launching airlift and tanker sorties, providing
intelligence assessments, and many other functions critical to each of
the COCOMs. There are a further 57,000 airmen stationed outside the
continental United States in direct support of the Pacific Command and
European Command missions. Finally, a portion of the above forces plus
an additional 22,000 airman from the current AEF rotation are made
available for deployments in support of other COCOM requirements. At
any given time, 34,000 of these airmen are deployed with 25,000 of them
deployed to the CENTCOM AOR including approximately 6,600 fulfilling
in-lieu-of (ILO) taskings. Since 2004, we have deployed approximately
30,000 airmen to perform ILO taskings.
Impacts on Readiness
While our airmen engaged in the Long War are trained, equipped, and
ready to perform their mission, Air Force readiness for full spectrum
operations has diminished. This is due to a high operations tempo
(OPTEMPO) that compounds the effects of aging on our inventory.
Additionally, the demands of winning Today's Fight erode skills
necessary for success against Tomorrow's Challenges.
The persistent nature of the Long War demands an increasing
percentage of our training resources. Aircraft are deployed in greater
numbers and when they are stateside, they are subject to extensive
upgrades and maintenance. This impacts our ability to train and upgrade
our aviators. Home station flying hours are under pressure and more of
those hours are dedicated to deployment preparation training. However,
Long War missions represent a subset of the mission requirements our
personnel must be prepared for.
Since 1996, readiness among the Air Force's major operational units
declined nearly 39 percent. Additionally, the readiness of some
Expeditionary Combat Support units (Civil Engineer, Communications,
Intelligence, Logistics Readiness, Medical, Security Forces and
Services) and Limited Supply/High Demand units (Command and Control,
Rescue, ISR, and Special Operations) units has declined notably.
The high OPTEMPO combined with an aging fleet of aircraft and
spacecraft continues to impact your Air Force. We fly and maintain the
oldest aircraft inventory in Air Force history. Since Operation Desert
Storm, the Air Force has flown 2.2 million hours per year on average
with an inventory that numbers 31 percent fewer aircraft that are 42
percent older. The November 2007 in-flight break up of an F-15C and the
subsequent grounding of our F-15 inventory is merely a symptom of the
many challenges and dangers we face. Aircraft restrictions are one of
the most visible results of aging, with nearly 14 percent of the Air
Force aircraft inventory operating under some level of flight
restrictions.
Our aircraft require more maintenance as they age. The number of
maintenance man-hours required for each hour of flight has increased 74
percent over the last 17 years (fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 2007)
for our fighter fleet. Our legacy fighters (A-10s, F-15s, F-16s) have
already flown on average 21 percent more hours than their original
design life, with the majority of these aircraft projected to remain in
service for at least 15 more years. As a result, each of our legacy
fighter platforms has undergone costly repairs and structural upgrades
to safely extend its service life, and still more will be required in
the future. Despite these efforts, fighter aircraft availability
decreased 15 percent over the last 17 years (fiscal year 1991 to fiscal
year 2007).
As an example, our average F-15C/D aircraft has been in service for
25 years and has flown 66 percent more than its original service life
of 4,000 hours. Our dedicated F-15 maintainers have fought to keep
aircraft availability rates high, but at a cost. F-15s now require over
28 maintenance man-hours for each flight hour compared to only 13 man-
hours 17 years ago. That's a 115 percent increase, paid in sweat
equity, additional time away from home and family, and weekend duty by
a greatly reduced labor force. This level of effort will likely
increase as we continue to fly legacy fighters.
Our older fleet is also more expensive to operate and maintain.
Ballooning sustainment requirements were clearly evidenced by a 24
percent increase in annual operational cost per flying hour over the
last decade and a 40 percent increase in maintenance man-hours per
flying hour from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 2007. Mean-time-
between-maintenance-actions (a measure of aircraft reliability) also
decreased, reducing the percentage of the inventory available for
operations at any given time. Using a constant total active inventory
formula that allows for comparative analysis, there were on average 346
less mission capable aircraft per day in fiscal year 2007 as compared
to fiscal year 1991. Despite this decline, the equipment dimension of
readiness appears to have stabilized due to increased spares funding
and outstanding improvement in efficiency gained by our depots and
field units. However, an OPTEMPO increase or a funding decrease could
drive readiness lower.
The Air Force has addressed aging aircraft issues by developing an
overarching vision for the future state of proactive fleet management.
We have chartered the Air Force Fleet Viability Board to assess the
viability of our inventories so that we posture ourselves to make more
informed modification, sustainment, and retirement decisions.
Despite these efforts, many of our aging platforms remain in the
inventory, are past their useful life, with many unable to fly.
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. We appreciate the great
support from the Senate Armed Services Committee in granting the Air
Force more authority in its fleet management allowing the retirement of
more KC-135Es and C-130s.
Operations over the past 17 years have also impacted personnel
readiness due to the increased rate of deployments since the attacks on
September 11. However, our force is battle-tested and duty in the
combat environment, alongside our joint and coalition partners, has led
to the employment of our force in previously unimagined ways. Whether
integrating our ISR with ground operations to find the enemy, precisely
delivering critical supplies or personnel to our Joint partners, or
increasing the number of air strikes against enemy positions, our
airmen have continued to find ways to improve the effectiveness of the
joint team.
Nevertheless, our success has created some trade-offs, especially
in terms of stressed career fields impacted by a continuing high
OPTEMPO. We actively track our stressed career fields and use this data
to focus on the specialties that require the most management
intervention. To help mitigate stress, the Air Force is looking at
skills retention bonuses, promotions, force shaping exemptions, and
process improvements. We diligently watch for those career fields whose
dwell ratios worsen and look for avenues to relieve this strain. We
have identified over 70 career fields that have low dwell times and
placed them on the ``Career Fields to Watch'' list. For example, our
Security Forces professionals have a 1:1 dwell and are on the Air
Force's Top 5 Stressed Career Fields for officers and enlisted.
ILO taskings also stretch us in ways we could not have foreseen.
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 extensive out-of-core-
competency training also drives down deployment-to-dwell time.
Additionally, ILO taskings stress an already high personnel tempo
(PERSTEMPO) for many career fields such as security forces,
transportation, air traffic control, civil engineering, and explosive
ordnance disposal. Due to the dwell ratio nearing 1:1 for some stressed
career fields, we are unable to support additional ILO taskings.
The more than 2,700 Air Reserve component (ARC) members currently
mobilized to support the Long War assist in reducing the PERSTEMPO of
our Regular component. But ARC personnel equipment may be showing signs
of the increased demands of the Long War. Mirroring the Regular
component, the accumulated hours on ARC aircraft increased by Long War
operations are much greater than programmed. Like the regular
component, Air National Guard (ANG) readiness continues to decline as
we reset the force. The high OPTEMPO of simultaneously engaging as full
participants in State and Federal missions drive some of the
challenges. Current funding is insufficient to sustain--much less
increase--readiness.
iii. take care of our people
Developing and caring for our airmen and their families is another
Air Force priority. Airmen are our most precious resource and enable
the Air Force to be a valuable contributor to the military instrument
of national power. They must be well-trained and ready for
expeditionary warfighting responsibilities. Spanning six decades of Air
Force history, particularly over the past 17 years, our airmen have
proven themselves as the global first responders in time of crisis--
taking action anytime, anywhere. The foundations for our 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.
Yet increased OPTEMPO and deployment demands have taken a toll on
the way our airmen and their families perceive quality of life. We are
building strategies to maintain Air Force quality of life standards in
the face of fiscal challenges. A universal theme Air Force leaders
understand is ``we recruit the member but we retain the family.'' The
quality of life we provide our airmen and their families is a distinct
determining factor in how long many of our warriors will serve. Quality
of life is not something we fund with dollars that are left over from
the mission. Rather, we fund quality of life initiatives to accomplish
the mission.
We pride ourselves on maintaining high standards across the
spectrum of critical support for both airmen and their families, at Air
Force installations today and expanding to Joint Base environments for
the future. Our programs must continue to meet each airman's
fundamental needs, enabling them to experience personal growth and
creativity and to perform at their peak or to their potential. Knowing
their families are in good hands back home allows airmen to focus more
on the mission. We continue to emphasize excellence in food service,
fitness, lodging, recreation, educational opportunities, and training.
We are dedicated to quality, affordability and availability in our
child and youth programs and to full-spectrum individual warfighter and
family readiness. Our dual challenge demands a combination of combat
support and community service, and we have stepped up to provide both
to our airmen and their families.
We are diligently working to put alternative manning support in
place at home station to reduce stress, and we are pressing ahead to
maintain and update education and training that targets the skill sets
our airmen use when deployed. Our military families sacrifice too, and
we are aware that increased OPTEMPO affects them. We have implemented
several programs to address the challenges associated with increased
OPTEMPO.
Our airman and Family Readiness Centers provide mandatory pre-
deployment briefings to all airmen on orders to deploy, and follow up
with reintegration briefings after deployments to both airmen and their
families to help make the transition back to daily home and work
situations as smooth as possible. Our Extended Duty Child Care Program
enables airmen and their families to obtain quality child care when
parental workloads increase due to longer duty hours and exceed the
typical 50-hour per week child care arrangements. We've partnered with
the Air Force Aid Society to fund our Air Force Give Parents a Break
initiative, which offers eligible parents a few hours break each month
from the stresses of parenting and is provided at no cost to parents
experiencing unique stresses due to deployments, remote tours of duty,
and extended working hours.
Complementing these Air Force-wide initiatives, the Air Force major
commands are fielding programs to compensate for deployment challenges
faced by their military families. For example, Air Mobility Command's
Phoenix Spouse program provides a supportive network that informally
links spouses with unit leadership and their supporting airman and
Family Readiness Center to enhance individual, family and unit
readiness.
In fiscal year 2007, we continued to manage and shape the force. We
met short-term end strength targets while preserving the right airmen
skills for the future. In a time when fewer people are qualified to
serve, the Air Force continues to bring in the brightest candidates
possible. Despite the demands associated with increased OPTEMPO, we
have not lowered our recruiting standards. In fact, for the eighth
consecutive year the Air Force has exceeded recruiting goals. Over 99
percent of our recruits have a high school diploma or better and we are
extremely proud of the quality of the airmen who join our ranks.
Despite an increased OPTEMPO and high deployment rate, the Air
Force continues to achieve acceptable retention rates across both the
officer and enlisted force. For fiscal year 2007, active duty Air Force
officer retention finished 11 percent above goal, while enlisted
retention fell 7 percent below goal. To address this shortfall, we have
targeted our fiscal year 2008 Selective Reenlistment Bonus program
towards the mid-career year groups focusing on critical warfighting
skills. The ANG met its overall officer and enlisted retention goals
for fiscal year 2007 and the Air Force Reserve fell less than 1 percent
below its officer and 3 percent below its enlisted retention goal.
Our most critical warfighting skills require a special retention
focus to maintain combat capability. Budgetary support for retention
programs is critical to effectively manage the force and retain needed
warfighting capability. These programs are judiciously and effectively
targeted to provide the most return-on-investment in both dollars and
capability. To that end, I would like to offer our thanks to the Senate
Armed Services Committee for the broad authorities the committee has
provided for special incentive pays and bonuses that ensure we can
continue to recruit and retain those airmen with the skill sets
necessary for Air Force success now and in the future.
With fiscal year 2007 Program Budget Decision (PBD) 720, the Air
Force planned to reduce by 40,000 Regular Air Force, Guard, Reserve,
and civilian Full-time Equivalents in order to submit a balanced budget
and self-finance the critical re-capitalization and modernization of
our aircraft, missile and space inventories. Because our airmen are so
important, this self-financing decision was difficult, but it was our
only viable recapitalization option in the tight budgetary climate. But
we are not just reducing numbers to generate investment money. We are
moving and retraining airmen to have the proper skill sets to shape the
Air Force into the proper force structure.
Our force drawdown efforts will meet our PBD 720 end strength
targets of 328,600 in fiscal year 2008 and 316,600 in fiscal year 2009.
But personnel changes of this magnitude come with a degree of
uncertainty and difficulty for our airmen and their families. We are
using voluntary measures to shape the force with the right skill sets,
increase manning in stressed career fields, leverage new technologies,
and improve our internal processes to reduce workload and reduce or
eliminate unnecessary work through Air Force Smart Operations 21.
Ultimately, our goal is to ensure the Air Force maintains the right
size and mix of forces to meet the global challenges of today and
tomorrow.
The Air Force remains committed to the programmed fiscal year 2009
PB active duty end strength level of 316,600, a figure we reached after
a careful review of our force structure and continuing requirements. We
continuously review our requirements and may need to increase end
strength to fully support the growth of the ground forces and
programmed force structure increases in CSAR-X, Predator and Global
Hawk, KC-45A, Distributed Common Ground Systems, and Battlefield
Airmen.
iv. prepare for tomorrow's challenges
Your Air Force is working to prepare for tomorrow's challenges. We
are committed to meeting the near-term needs of our Nation, while
simultaneously ensuring future generations of airmen inherit an Air
Force that is relevant, capable, and sustainable.
Strategic Context
We must not confuse the present lack of large-scale, overt, state-
on-state violence with an absence of serious conflict in our world.
Disputed territories and resource competition are very real problems
around the globe, as is the risk that these stress points could grow in
the future. Ascendant powers, flush with new wealth and hungry for
resources and status, are posturing themselves to contest U.S.
interests, allies, and friends. These countries are translating lessons
from recent conflicts into new warfighting concepts, capabilities, and
doctrines specifically designed to counter U.S. strengths and exploit
vulnerabilities. Taken as a whole, these developments represent a clear
effort to deny access to U.S. air, space, and cyber power, thereby
drastically increasing the cost and the risk of a U.S. military
response. These developments also reduce U.S. credibility and deterrent
effectiveness. Those who would challenge the U.S. avoid the asymmetric
advantage the Air Force provides. We neglect that advantage to our
future peril.
We owe the Nation the ability to provide a full range of options,
lethal and nonlethal, kinetic and nonkinetic, at the speed of sound and
soon at the speed of light, any time, anywhere the Nation needs us to
deliver effects across the spectrum of conflict. In order to protect
the interests of the United States, we must continue to modernize our
legacy systems to maintain their relevance against current and emerging
threats. In addition, we must replace aging aircraft with more capable
and cost-efficient platforms to strengthen the Air Force's capabilities
to detect, deter, and dissuade all potential enemies. The fiscal year
2009 President's budget continues the Air Force on this flight path.
Recapitalization and Modernization
Global Vigilance
A crucial element of deterrent capability is the demonstrated
ability to detect an adversary's actions and behaviors. The Air Force
will continue to provide the entire Joint team with decision-quality
intelligence, persistent surveillance, and timely reconnaissance in
air, space, and cyberspace. 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,
position, navigation and timing, early warning missions, and space
situational awareness capabilities to provide uninterrupted mission
continuity for America and our allies.
We must continue to develop and field systems that are both
network-centric and knowledge-centric. Emerging military powers will
increasingly challenge U.S. access to space, so the U.S. needs an
affordable pathway to increase space situational awareness and secure
space, striking the right balance among hardening, countermeasures, and
reconstitution. The U.S. also needs complementary high-altitude, air-
breathing systems to mitigate risks to space operations. Finally, we
continue to develop new concepts that merge sensors and shooters into a
seamless, ubiquitous force that can penetrate any adversary's defenses.
Global Reach
Rapid global mobility lies at the heart of U.S. strategy and no
other nation has our ability to project power strategically. America's
airmen provide the long legs and lift for Joint warfighters and supply
the air refueling lifeline that makes possible global strike and high
endurance for global persistence and presence. The Air Force extends
airlift, tanker, and aeromedical evacuation bridges that enable the
deployment and employment of Joint combat power and humanitarian relief
globally preserving the interests of our Nation and extending a helping
hand across the globe. Our mobility aircraft average a departure and
arrival somewhere on the globe every 90 seconds, 24 hours a day, 365
days a year.
Yet the increased demand for their capabilities and their decreased
availability underscore the critical need for tanker and airlift
recapitalization and investment to ensure the long-term viability of
this vital national capability. Air refueling allows the United States
to rapidly deploy combat aircraft around the world within a matter of
hours to respond to crises worldwide. The acquisition of the KC-45A
will revolutionize how we conduct mobility operations much like the C-
17 revolutionized our airlift operations, extending the range,
payloads, and flexibility of the full range of U.S. and coalition
aircraft.
Modernizing and recapitalizing our airlift fleet is equally
important for the Joint team. This critical capability reduces the need
for vulnerable ground convoys to travel on dangerous roads by shifting
demand from a lateral, to a vertical supply chain. By coupling modern
airlift capabilities with the Joint Precision Airdrop System, we can
drop supplies from high altitude, day and night, in all weather, with
pinpoint accuracy to soldiers, marines, and Special Forces so they can
maintain cover--or continue their advance--while accepting delivery on
beans, blood, and bullets. This transformational capability not only
takes convoys off the roads, but allows aircrews to stay above or
beyond the threat of anti-aircraft weapons. Aided by our global air
refueling capability, our airlift platforms also bring wounded
Americans from the Air Force Field Hospital in Balad, Iraq, direct to
Walter Reed, Bethesda, or Brooke Army Medical Center in less than 18
hours. That's non-stop, same-day service, from Balad to ``back home,''
for America's warriors. Doing everything we can to save the lives of
Americans who have risked their lives in defense of the Nation is a
promise we make to everyone who serves; it's a promise we intend to
keep.
Global Power
The Air Force's formidable combination of air, space, and cyber
power is an effective deterrent that enables us to strike quickly and
decisively throughout the depth and breadth of any enemy's territory.
Even as our nuclear arsenal continues to serve as the ultimate backstop
of U.S. national security, we must continuously modernize our
conventional air, space, and cyber power as essential, complementary
deterrents.
Cyberspace in particular is emerging as a warfighting domain
critical to future operations. Today, state and non-state actors
exploit cyberspace to gain asymmetric advantage, and attacks through
cyberspace create tactical, operational, and strategic effects at low
cost and with relative impunity. In September 2007, the Air Force stood
up a Cyber Command to provide combat-ready forces, trained and equipped
to conduct sustained operations in and through cyberspace, that are
fully integrated with air and space operations. The Air Force will
continue to develop and implement plans for maturing cyber operations
as one of its core competencies. Dominance in this area will contribute
to freedom from attack and freedom to attack on land, and the sea, and
in the air, space, and cyberspace, and will guarantee the joint team
the freedom to maneuver.
The Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power advantages the
Air Force provides our Nation 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. Our top five acquisition priorities--the
new tanker (KC-45A), new combat search and rescue helicopter (CSAR-X),
space systems, F-35A, and next generation bomber--will gain and
maintain militarily important advantages for our Nation for the coming
decades and improve our readiness for the challenges that lie ahead.
v. conclusion
We have learned lessons from history. We cannot repeat the mistakes
of the past nor can we rest on the laurels of our current dominance.
The United States of America depends on air, space, and cyberspace
power to an extent unprecedented in history. We are ready and engaged
today, and looking toward securing the future. Our Nation must invest
today to ensure tomorrow's air, space, and cyberspace dominance.
On behalf of all of our Total Force airmen, I wish to thank
Congress and the committee for their steadfast support of America's Air
Force as we seek to defend this Nation and its interests across the
globe.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, General McNabb.
I have a question for all of our witnesses. In General
Petraeus's report to Congress next week, he is expected to make
a recommendation with regard to the size of the force required
to continue operations in Iraq. He may say that a force of
about 140,000 troops is still required, or he may indicate that
the force may be reduced. But, we expect to hear from him next
week. Very briefly, what are the nondeployed forces' readiness
implications, for each of you, if the force stays about the
same or if the force begins to drawdown? Also, if General
Petraeus recommends that forces may be reduced, what readiness
objectives and actions have your Services planned that will
take immediate advantage of the lower operational tempo?
General Cody?
General Cody. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
I'm not sure what General Petraeus is going to come back
and say, but I'll try to put it in a strategic context for you,
in terms of the United States Army, where we are.
When this surge went--and, by the way, this is about the
fifth surge we've had during this war; we surged several times
for elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq--when the five-
brigade surge went in, last year, that took all the stroke out
of the shock absorber for the United States Army. That put 23
brigade combat teams into combat, as well as into Kosovo, and
we had 17 brigades back that were in reset, that had already
served 12-month tours. That is why, when we put the five
brigades in, we had to extend the other brigades to an
additional 3-months-per to give General Petraeus the amount of
forces he needed to provide a safe and secure environment for
the Iraqis and to give time, as he stated, to the Iraqi
Government and to the Iraqi army.
So, if he comes back and says a certain number will not
have to be replaced, it will not be instantaneous, in terms of
how we will be able to reduce; one, the 15-month boots-on-the-
ground deployment time, as well as those units that are coming
back that have already served 15 months; we have to give them
at least 12 months reset time. At the same time, it--I say it
took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers, in terms of our
brigade combat teams--it also forced us to issue the last of
our prepositioned stocks in that area, so that we could get
those five brigades in there. So, over time, in 2006 and 2007,
we rebuilt two brigade-combat-teams worth of equipment. We had
to use that equipment to provide for the surge. So, on the back
side of how many brigades come out and don't have to be
replaced, we also have to turn around and reset quite a bit of
equipment.
The brigades that we have today, that are getting ready to
deploy, are all going back to either Afghanistan or Iraq. They
will all have 12 months dwell time. Many of them are at a
readiness rate, in terms of equipment, in an unclassified
setting, of not what they need to be.
In the training area, as Senator Thune had mentioned, they
are training solely for counterinsurgency operations and
focusing on the mission of the brigade they're replacing in
either Iraq or Afghanistan, and they're not training to full
spectrum for other operations. In terms of their equipment, in
many cases we will not be able to get them fully up for
equipment just prior to their major training exercise before
they deploy.
That is the status, at this time. When these five brigades
come out, we'll have to provide all those 15-month-deployed
units 12 months dwell time, minimum, which means it would still
be short, as we continue to rotate, and it may take us 15
months to get ourselves to a 12 month boots-on-the-ground and
an 18 month dwell time. Quite frankly, where we need to be with
this force at this time is no more than 12 months boots-on-the-
ground and 24 months back at home.
Senator Akaka. General Magnus?
General Magnus. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
Again, I agree with General Cody. While I cannot foresee
what is in General Petraeus's report, your questions regarding;
what would be the effect on us, if, in fact, there were
reductions in the forces assigned to Operation Iraqi Freedom
(OIF)? In fact, as we come out of the increased support that
took place over the past year, we have reduced by two infantry
battalions and a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) out of Iraq,
and, at the same time, today, we are currently deploying 2nd
Battalion, 7th Marines to Afghanistan and the 24th MEU is fully
on deck in Afghanistan. We have also added the equivalent of
another infantry battalion in Iraq to provide security forces.
Effectively, there has been little, if any, change in the
stress or the tempo on our forces, so I see that the stress
right now over the balance of this summer, pending what the
President decides after he receives General Petraeus's report,
remains the same as it was over the past year.
What would we do if there was a reduction in force from
OIF? Sir, marines move to the sound of guns. As we achieve
stability in the successful transition to the Iraqi security
forces, the marines, as they are today, will move to the sound
of the guns in Afghanistan to achieve the same thing under our
Joint Force Commander. Currently, as with the Army, our Active
component forces are operating at a 1-to-1 dwell. For that
battalions and squadrons, that means 7 months in combat, 7
months home, most of which is getting ready to go back, and
then 7 months back again. We also have Reserve battalions that
are, again, in combat in Iraq. The units, I can guarantee you,
the ones that are forward and the ones that are preparing to go
forward, are at their highest readiness levels, both personnel,
equipment on hand, and materiel readiness of that equipment.
The ones that are in the deployment cycle, either forward or
preparing to go forward, they have given up personnel in order
to be able to flesh out the battalions--and, in particular, the
transition teams and other augment personnel that are required
in both Iraq and Afghanistan--and we have cross-leveled
equipment. So, the readiness of the nondeploying units has been
at a significantly lower level than the forward-deployed
forces. We can provide the details, of course, in a classified
hearing. But, it's clear that we are supporting the units and
the troops forward in the fight.
Likewise, the readiness of our three Maritime Prepositioned
Squadrons and of the equipment stored in the caves in Norway
have been degraded even more than of the units that remain
behind. So, for the units that remain behind that are not in
the predeployment training cycle, their ability to conduct
necessary training, particularly in the event that other
contingencies arise, is significantly degraded.
Senator Akaka. Admiral Walsh?
Admiral Walsh. We would anticipate continued requirements
for combat support and combat service support. We would expect
similar sorts of manning levels as we have today. That has a
direct impact on very specific ratings for us, sir--SEABEES,
the Special Warfare Supply, information professionals and
medical communities, as well as the chaplain corps, as we
mentioned. We would anticipate greater requirements for
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as we reduce the
footprint in theater to provide the timely information
necessary for those who remain. We would also anticipate that,
as the footprint reduces over land, that there would be a
greater requirement for presence at sea. So we're prepared to
redeploy with marines when they're ready to come back aboard
ship and support operations in Afghanistan, if that's where the
focus of effort turns to.
Senator Akaka. General McNabb?
General McNabb. Sir, very much like Admiral Walsh, as we
don't know exactly what General Petraeus will recommend. I will
say that there's no question that we are getting increasing
demands on what air can provide, and we don't see that
changing. That is, strike. We tripled the amount of ordnance
that we deliver, between 2005 and 2006, and we've done that
again between 2006 and 2007, as we figure out ways to support
the ground forces even better than we do today. Your
committee's help on that has been superb.
I would say the same thing on mobility, they are looking
for ways that we can resupply them in different ways than we've
done before. We don't think that will change. The surveillance
and reconnaissance, that we provide so that nobody's surprised,
becomes even more important, and those demands continue.
What that means for us is that if we look at the number of
flying hours that we do, it has stayed about the same since
1992. However, we are 31 percent smaller in the number of
aircraft that we have, and we're 41 percent older. So, what
does this demand mean? It means that we are going to age out
our equipment even more rapidly, so recapitalization of our
assets becomes even more important to us.
We know, and we continue to do everything that we can to
make sure that we fully support this global war on terrorism,
but it is at the expense of tomorrow if we don't recapitalize,
and that is probably our biggest concern.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses.
This question is for General Cody, General Magnus, and
General McNabb. The Services have requested, and Congress has
provided, billions of dollars to reset the equipment that has
been lost or worn out in operations. Our briefers last month
told us that we cannot expect to see real readiness improvement
until demand for forces goes down or the size of the forces
goes up. This question is, as I said, to the three of you on
the panel. How do you plan to manage the eventual reduction of
demand for forces in support of Iraq and Afghanistan, and
rebuild basic readiness? What major changes in funding
requirements do you anticipate will be necessary? How long will
it take to rebuild basic readiness?
General Cody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll take the first
swing at it.
We have five depots in the Army that are doing what I would
consider unbelievable work. All five of them are national
treasures. They have been the reasons why we've been able to
sustain the equipment as we start buying new equipment, but
also to reset that equipment we have. Today, we have about five
brigades worth of equipment across those five depots. We've
increased the manpower direct-labor hours--that's how they
measure, in the depots. When we started the war, it was about 7
million direct-labor hours in those five depots. They're now
operating at 25 million direct-labor hours. With the funding
from Congress in 2007 that gave us the $17.1 billion to start
resetting our equipment, we were able to use all that money in
2007, and that's what gave us the ability to reset those two
Army prepositioned brigades I talked about, as well as start
flowing critical items to the National Guard and Reserves.
This year, we have almost $18 billion in the fiscal year
2008 global war on terror supplemental. We've received over $10
billion of that. We have another $7.6 billion that is in
procurement dollars to buy the long-lead items as these five
brigades come out, get that equipment retrograded to those
depots so that we can start building back the readiness. The
readiness I'm talking about is in things that shoot, move, and
communicate--hundreds of thousands of rifles, machine guns that
we do at Anniston, the reset of thousands of our up-armored
Humvees, our medium tactical vehicles, our radios, our Blue
Force tracking, the devices that you've seen when you've
traveled over there that give the situational awareness. All of
those are being done at our depots. I anticipate, because of
the surge, it'll probably take 3 years, and maybe 4, to be able
to reset that equipment, as well as the new procurement, to
continue to fill the holes of the Army, that we testified to in
2006.
Senator Akaka. General Magnus?
General Magnus. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thune, we are doing
several things, which makes this a more challenging problem--
not only the level of current combat operations, but the fact
that we are growing the force. We're increasing the force to
202,000. That's a net increase of about 27,000 marines, the
majority of which is going into operational forces. Because of
that, we have to field equipment back to the units that were
either short of equipment or who have had equipment attrited or
equipment that is in the depots, as well as provide new
equipment to the new battalions and squadrons that we're
standing up.
Congress has funded approximately two-thirds of our
requests for reset, and we look forward to receiving the
remainder that is in the fiscal year 2008 global war on terror
request.
You asked the question, how long would it take to reset the
force? Of course, due to the often long lead times for
industrial production and the fielding of equipment, we are
just now, within the last several months, seeing an uptick, an
increase, in the on-hand equipment readiness to reset the
force. Now, that's essentially an uptick that you're seeing in
the forces that are not deployed forward, because I indicated
earlier that the forces that are forward are at their highest
level of readiness reporting.
Depot maintenance, particularly of equipment in the
Maritime Prepositioned Squadrons and our aircraft, which are
maintained in Navy depots, will take up to 4 to 6 years,
depending upon the cycles of the ships going through Blount
Island and the massive flows of equipment that will go through
not only our depots, but the Army depots and the Navy depots.
For our prepositioned stocks, Maritime Prepositioned Squadron 1
is at 80 percent of its on-hand equipment. We believe that
those ships will go through their normal maintenance cycle at
Blount Island for the ships, and, at that time, will be
restocked and will be at 100 percent in 2011. Maritime
Prepositions 2, which was the main source of equipment for the
CENTCOM operational area, is down to 54 percent of its on-hand
equipment. Those ships will go through their cycle, and we will
be back up to 100 percent in 2012. Maritime Prepositioned
Squadron 3, which is in the Pacific, is at 100 percent of its
on-hand equipment and ready for other contingency operations.
We will restock the equipment in the Norwegian caves with
security cooperation equipment as we follow the restocking of
the equipment that are in the ships.
We will grow the force by 2011. That is, the marines and
the battalions and squadrons will be grown by 2011. The trail
will not only be depot maintenance, but it'll be the necessary
military construction to provide the troops bachelor enlisted
quarters and the working spaces for the new units.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
General McNabb?
General McNabb. Yes, sir, like General Cody, the first
thing that jumps to my mind is, I'd like to talk a little bit
about our depots. When you think about the investment that this
committee helped us make in our depots, we end up having depots
that are world-class.
In 2001, when you looked at a depot, we had about 64
percent on-time deliveries, meaning that 36 percent were not on
time. We had almost 290 airplanes that were delivered late;
they were actually sitting in depots as we went through and had
additional work done on them. In 2007, that number was 17. So,
we had a 98 percent--98 percent on time, and I would say that
was because of investment in depots. So that 9 percent decline
that I was mentioning, when I said that the depots have
completely changed that, in a couple of the weapons systems,
the difference is 10 percent; they've increased the
availability of our airplanes by 10 percent. So, instead of 9
percent, it would be 19 percent if they had not done that.
The other portion this committee really helped us on was
spare funding, and continuing that with reimbursing us in the
supplemental to make sure that our spares accounts are up. We
put almost a billion dollars in the 2000, 2001, 2002 timeframe,
and have sustained that to make sure that we kept the supplies
up. Again, those are things that created serious decline in the
1990s, that this committee has helped us. Again, the 9 percent
masks that we've had that kind of a decline, but it would be so
much worse if we had not jumped in there.
What I worry about is, when you take an airplane like a C-
17 or a C-130 or a fighter, it is the cycles--it's not
necessarily the flying hours, it's the cycles. The C-17 that is
deployed into Al Udeid, Incirlik, or Manas, and is flying what
would have typically gone by ground, because we're using C-17s
to do that, the wear and tear is three times the amount that
you would have on a typical airplane that's coming from the
States, going across to Ramstein, going into theater, and
coming back out. It doesn't mean that you have to replace the
airplane this year, but your fleet just aged by 3 or 4 years
because of the way you've used it.
We have taken risks in recapitalization over the years,
because we had to make sure the near-term readiness was done.
We now are at that point where, if you look at our aging fleet,
we have almost 688 airplanes that are restricted from our
ability to use them. We have about 95 airplanes that we've had
to take off the flying schedule because they're broken. Those
are the things that absolutely concern us, so that when you
talk about, ``What is our overall readiness of our overall
fleet?'' when we talk about C-1 and C-2 from 2000, 2001, down
to today, it is a decrease of about 19 percent, from 70 percent
to 51 percent. That is the part that really concerns me. When
you talk about what it will take, I would say it's a sustained
investment. You asked us for, and we've provided, our unfunded
requirements list. It is consistent, what we say, within the
required force. This is the kind of sustained amount of
investment that we need.
We know that this is all based on risk. We don't know where
the next dollar should be spent. There are needs across all the
forces; there is no question about that. We don't know where
that will be. Given the money that we have, we are investing it
the very best way that we can.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, General.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Cody, in your written testimony, you advocate for
full and timely funding of the Army's budget request for fiscal
year 2009 and $66.5 billion for the Army continuing the
remaining fiscal year 2008 emergency supplemental
appropriations request that's pending before Congress. You also
list specific impacts to certain programs if the supplemental
funding is delayed beyond the end of the month. Will these
impacts affect the readiness of units deploying to Iraq and
Afghanistan?
General Cody. If we get the timely funding, Senator, for
the $66.5 billion, of which--it's broken out--and military pay
is a large part of it, with the numbers of national guardsmen
we have, and reservists, on Active Duty, as well as the
operational dollars, and then, there's about $7.6 billion of it
for reset--if that money is not on time, we will not put any
soldier in harm's way without equipment. What we'll have to do
is fall in on equipment that's there and use it in theater
longer than we wanted to. But, it would have a cascading impact
in readiness over time.
A couple of times during the last 2 or 3 years we have sent
brigades, and left their equipment back, that they trained on,
and flown them over, and had them fall in on equipment that was
there, and left there for 2 years. That's the beauty of the
Army modular force, because all the brigades look alike now,
and we were able to send the 1st Cav falling in on 4th Infantry
Division's equipment, and vice versa, with helicopters and with
tanks and Bradleys. We don't want to do that too much, because
when you leave that equipment over there for 2 to 3 or 4 years,
the recapitalization dollars really creep up on you and you're
deferring the maintenance.
But, the short answer is, it will have an impact, but it
will not impact the equipping of the soldier. We will not let
that happen.
Senator Thune. What will be the impact to your current
readiness C rating if Congress delays the remainder of the
emergency funds?
General Cody. The readiness of the next-to-deploy units,
especially our Stryker brigades--two of our Stryker brigades
and two of our heavy brigades and our ability to build the next
infantry brigades--will be degraded in both equipping and then
the training, because they won't have the equipment to train
on.
Senator Thune. How does the delivery of partial
supplemental appropriations inhibit or affect the Army's plan
to improve readiness rates by funding reset activities?
General Cody. The two things that--with the reset piece--in
2007, Congress was very good about giving us all $17.1 billion
up front and we committed almost all of those dollars by
January 2008. That was where we were able to energize our five
depots and build back the Army prepositioned stocks that
enabled, quite frankly, the surge. If we do not get these
dollars on time, the $7.6 billion I talked about--most of that
is procurement dollars for long-lead items--we will not be able
to rebuild our heavy brigade combat team and our light brigade
combat team and our light battalion for Afghanistan on time,
and then, if something happens and General Petraeus needs more
forces to roll back in with, we will have to fly equipment over
from the States and take it away from units training.
Senator Thune. I want to direct this to the rest of the
panel, but, what do impact your Service's readiness may occur
from a delay in the passage of the second part of the fiscal
year 2008 emergency supplemental appropriation request?
General Magnus. I agree completely with General Cody, but
let me put this in three categories:
The delays in military pay, not only present us with a
financial problem, depending upon--as we run out of the fiscal
year appropriations for military pay, but they send a strong,
unmistakable signal to our seasoned warriors, who have been
willing, and their families have been willing, to sign them up
to reenlist. Whenever we see a significant delay in
deliberations regarding appropriations to support the pay for
our marines--and I'm sure it's the same for the other
Services--you have a very intelligent, very professional force,
and they also pause to be able to see what this means for them
and their future. So, my concern is the effect that it does
have, with a significant delay; and, therefore, we strongly
encourage Congress to appropriate the balance of those global
war on terror request funds that affect military pays.
Second, delays in readiness and reset funding that are
directed--that we need for contracting for warfighting
equipment and stocks, it simply means that--of course we will
continue to support the marines and the sailors, soldiers, and
airmen and the units that are forward, and the ones that are
preparing to deploy, but those that would be next, those that
will go late this year and early next year, there will be lead-
time lags for some of the equipment that would be under
contract this spring and this summer.
Lastly, perhaps, it's a longer-term effect; delays in the
operation maintenance fund and the procurements necessary to
effect depot maintenance will affect us in future years.
Thank you, sir.
Admiral Walsh. Sir, if I could add to the previous
comments.
We shouldn't presume that just because the Services are on
spending plans that will run out of money at different times
during the year, that we're not all affected by this. So for
example, the bridge in January got us through August of this
year, as far as Navy funding is concerned. But, if the Army
runs out of money first, the Pentagon looks at this as a
national effort, which requires everybody helping out. So, what
we would anticipate now is a reprogramming effort inside the
Pentagon that would then shift resources from various Services,
and now we have a different set of issues than I could describe
to you in my earlier remarks. We would have significant issues
with regard to depot-level maintenance, which right now, under
the current funding plan, is at 100 percent in terms of
programmed overhauls. Aviation maintenance is at 100 percent.
All of those calculations, now, present themselves in a
different light.
One of the reasons why the Navy can come to you today and
present the picture that we present is a reflection of where we
were, more so than where we are. If this was in the mid-1990s,
we would have a much different story to tell, and it had a lot
to do with the way we prioritize funding for readiness, as well
as the pricing for people. If we expect those kind of cuts to
take place during the summer, what that does is, number one,
introduce uncertainty for people who don't deserve uncertainty
at this point, in terms of their level of commitment to us,
because they don't know when the next check is coming, in some
cases, as far as our civilian workforce is concerned.
Second, it introduces a new range of variables here, in
terms of a force that's whole and a force that's serving as a
Strategic Reserve, a hedge, that's helping out with combat
support and combat service support. Now we introduce a range of
problems here that we haven't anticipated.
So, sir, I would strongly endorse the comments made by my
peers here.
Senator Thune. All right.
General McNabb?
General McNabb. As I listened to my fellow Vices, I would
just tell you that I echo what they mentioned. We also see
that, given the bridge, we're thinking about August as when we
would end up having to have real problems. Starting in June, we
start making adjustments. Just as Admiral Walsh mentioned, if
we needed to move money to help the Army and the Marines,
obviously that will be worked out in the Department. So, we'd
anticipate that we'd have to move that up. We would start
looking at additional training, looking at the full-spectrum
kinds of work that we have to do, and be ready to do tonight,
as I was mentioning. Then, the depot and the spares is one of
those things that--it is this committee and Congress's ability
to give us those supplementals to make sure that those spares
and the depot are fully funded, which has allowed us to
maintain the readiness that we have, especially over in OIF and
Operation Enduring Freedom.
When I look at the maintenance man-hours per flying hour
that is required today, versus where we were, say, back in
1992, the increase in our fighter forces has gone up 74
percent. I'll give you an example: the F-15 has gone from 13 to
28 maintenance man-hours per flying hours. Your spares and the
depot funding that you've done has allowed us to keep that
readiness high, even though you've gone up that dramatically.
Our overall force has gone up 40 percent. Those are the things
that you're making up for, and we really appreciate that. But,
that's what starts being at risk if we delay the supplemental.
Senator Thune. Also an argument for more, newer planes.
General McNabb. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Thune. General Magnus, 3,400 marines of the 24th
MEU, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, are currently deploying to
Afghanistan. This deployment was not anticipated during the
planning for Grow the Force. What is the impact on the Corps,
in terms of readiness and deployment-to-dwell measures, of this
added deployment requirement?
General Magnus. Thank you, Senator Thune.
The 3,400 marines that are deploying, which is the 24th MEU
and its battalion, and, separately, the 2nd Battalion, 7th
Marines, which is deploying out of Twentynine Palms, CA, adds
to the approximately 350 marines that are already in
Afghanistan; therefore, nearly 4,000 marines in Afghanistan.
Essentially, from last year, when we had added two
additional battalions, for a total of eight infantry
battalions, and we had moved a MEU ashore into OIF, totaling
over 25,000 marines. We reduced the number of infantry
battalions by two. We reduced the MEU out of OIF. But, as I
said earlier, we simply extended one MEU that was at sea, we
accelerated a second MEU that was going to go to sea later, and
we took one and put a third MEU in Afghanistan, adding to it
another battalion, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, and also adding
an additional battalion in Iraq, to provide security forces for
our installations, and a line of communication.
Effectively, there has not been a diminution of stress and
tempo on the force. Having said that, we trained these marines
for the mission. We trained the marines that are going to
Afghanistan for mountain operations and operations in an Afghan
cultural and language environment, and they're working
underneath General Dan McNeill and with our International
Security Assistance Force partners, and they are ready for
their mission. But, the effect is to prolong what we believe,
similar to what our soldiers in the Army believe, is, over the
long-term, an unsustainable tempo for the force. To mitigate
that, of course, we're growing the force, but growing the force
lags the demands of current combat operations. Your marines
will move to the sound of the guns when the Nation calls.
Senator Thune. Is this deployment an indicator of long-term
changes in the Marine's role in Afghanistan? How are you
postured, in terms of manpower, equipment, and training, to
support that role?
General Magnus. The shift of forces from Iraq to
Afghanistan has us basically having our feet, if you will, in
two boats at the same time. From a command and control
perspective and from a logistics support ability perspective,
this becomes very difficult, over the long-term, to sustain.
It's not just the number of battalions and squadrons, and the
number of marines whose boots are on the ground; it's those
critical enablers, as well as command and control and
communications assets. So, as the Secretary of Defense and the
President consider what force levels are necessary in Iraq, on
receipt of General Petraeus's report, there's consideration
going on, this week, and discussions over in Europe, about our
strategy in Afghanistan--we need to consider, not just for the
Marine Corps, but for the Joint Force, because the Army picks
up a tremendous load, supporting Marines with logistics in
theater, the Navy picks up a tremendous burden; there are more
sailors on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait, than
there are at sea. Of course, our Air Force supports what the
Marines can't support with our own air, particularly, of
course, strategic lift. But, over the short-term, we can
support this, as the Commandant has said. We do this because of
America's team that we're supporting. Over the long-term, there
has to be a posture reassessment, not only for the Marine
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, but for the overall force
commitment.
Senator Thune. Have you begun planning to provide
replacement force to relieve the marines when their deployment
completes, later this year?
General Magnus. Senator, we are always planning for
contingencies. Our preference is to recover the ability to
bring down our overall dwell time, to be able to let these
marines and their families get the rest, get the proper full-
spectrum training, in case something else unpredicted happens,
and, of course, to be able to refit them with the new gear.
But, as I said earlier, we will do what the Nation requires.
The Nation asked the Marine Corps to be ready, and we will move
to the sound of the guns, when told.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Thune.
General Cody and General Magnus, this has to do with
increasing Army and Marine end strength. Readiness improvements
in nondeployed forces for the Army and Marines depend
significantly on increases in end strength--74,200 for the Army
and 27,000 for the Marines.
General Cody and General Magnus, how and when will you know
if this level of growth is sufficient to meet demands for
trained and ready forces available for deployed commitments and
to restore our ground forces' strategic depth?
General Cody. Thank you, Chairman, for that question.
First, I'd like to put this in a strategic context, if I
could, because it really speaks to what your Army's going
through right now, which is the largest organizational change
since World War II as we transform while we're fighting--with
176,000 soldiers in combat today, we're transforming our units
to the Army modular force. At the same time, we're
restationing, as part of the global defense posture, 50,000
soldiers out of Europe and out of Korea. That impacts about
380,000 soldiers as we do all these moves. At the same time,
we're executing the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005
moves, which affect about 304 posts, camps, and stations. We're
doing all that while we're rotating, in and out of combat every
year, about 176,000 soldiers. So, growing the Army by 65,000 in
the Active Force, and the Reserve Force by 9,000, is critical
if we're going to be at this level of commitment downrange
while, at the same time, executing BRAC, global defense
posture, and rebuilding our infrastructure. So, it's a very
tightly woven plan.
When we build our six infantry brigade combat teams and our
eight additional combat support teams as part of the Active
Force, that'll give us 48 brigade combat teams in the Active,
and, in the National Guard, 28 brigade combat teams, by fiscal
year 2011. That means the Army can sustain about 15 to 16
brigade combat teams deployed on the Active side, and about
three to four deployed on the National Guard side, with a 1-
year-in/2-years-out for the Active, a 1-year-in/4-years-out for
the National Guard. Now, that is not our objective; our
objective goal would be 1-year-in/3-years-out for the Active;
1-year-in/5-years-out for the National Guard. But, once we get
to 76 brigade combat teams, as well as the supporting brigades,
we can sustain that level.
Right now, we're at a higher level, and that is why we're
at a deployment ratio of 1-to-1, and, in many cases, on our
aviation units, our civil affairs and Single Integrated
Operational Plan units, our military police (MP) units, it's
less than 1-to-1. We are fully funded for the equipment, and we
have a very tightly woven plan to build these brigade combat
teams. The first one, we built at Fort Hood, TX. That puts a
strategic context in what I was talking about. We built it at
Fort Hood, TX, because the units were deployed. We didn't have
the barracks for them. Their home is at Fort Knox, KY. So, we
built them at Fort Hood, TX, moved their families there, built
that unit up. It will deploy in the next 3 months. We
established it last year. It takes us about 15 months to build
it. It'll be fully trained, ready to go. My nephew is in that
unit, by the way. They'll go to Afghanistan to relieve the
brigade out of Italy. When it redeploys, it'll come back to
Fort Hood for about 90 days, and then move to Fort Knox, KY,
because, by that time, the military construction will be
completed.
So, as we talk about growing the Army, you have to look at
it in the complexity of BRAC, global defense posture, the
resetting of our force, and the in-and-out transition of
supplying trained and ready forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senator Akaka. General Magnus?
General Magnus. Chairman Akaka, thank you very much for the
question.
We're building a force that will give the Nation three
balanced Marine Expeditionary Forces. That force will also have
the time to be able to do the full-spectrum training that
allows them to be ready for the unplanned and foreseen
contingencies. Those forces will be ready, they will be
equipped. This will allow us to achieve a level of forces that
future commanders and chiefs will be able to draw on, that will
assure sustained tempos of operation, and still give us the 1-
to-2 dwell for our Active component forces, and a 1-to-5 dwell
for our Reserve Forces. Of course, in crises, the Commander in
Chief may elect to draw down even further on the tempo, but
those are looking at spikes. We're looking at a sustained level
of operations, where we build the force in the Marine Corps,
just as the Army is building, so that we don't see the
sustained operations themselves become the crisis, that--which
is, of course, the problem right now, where the level of
deployments we have right now, even as we build the force, are
becoming a tremendous challenge for our troops, as well as for
the institutions.
Building this force will give us Marine Air/Ground Task
Forces of combined arms, not only the 27 infantry battalions
that we're building--and we've already built 26 of the 27
battalions; the last battalion is 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines,
which we built in the next year--but, along with that, our--
large numbers of marines that wrap around the infantry forces
that are core of the Marine Corps: artillery forces, tactical
mobility on the ground, tactical mobility in the air,
engineers, MP, 1,000 new marines trained in intelligence,
command and control marines, fires--we have a battalion of High
Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) rockets that's going
into 14th Marines in the Reserves, and a battalion of HIMARS
rockets going into our Active component--those new HIMARS are
already on the ground at Al Taqaddum Air Base in Iraq right
now, at the battery level--and new aviation squadrons.
When will we be complete? It's very difficult to predict
the future, but the plan, right now, which has been well
resourced by Congress, has us on track to grow the force of
marines to 202,000 well before 2011. It is the equipment, both
the new equipment that is being procured as part of reset, as
well as the depot-level maintenance of the remainder of the
equipment, and, of course, the military construction, that will
slightly lag behind the Grow the Force. We're looking for the
stocks to be reset by around 2012, and the last of the new
construction will follow shortly thereafter. But, our focus is
on making sure that the marines are ready to be able to
continue operations throughout this time, sir.
Senator Akaka. General Magnus, about the Marine Corps
nondeployed C ratings, last month's readiness briefing to the
subcommittee made out the historically low levels of reported
readiness in our Army and Marine Corps. The percentage of
nondeployed units in the Marine Corps rated C-1 and C-2, or
generally ready for full-spectrum, worldwide deployment, was
significantly higher than in the Army. However, the Marine
Corps has emphasized that it is not conducting any full-
spectrum training; focusing, instead, in on counterinsurgency
for Iraq or Afghanistan. How can such a significantly higher
share of marine units be rated C-1 or C-2 if full-spectrum
training is not currently underway?
General Magnus. Chairman Akaka, thank you for the question.
Of course, the exact details of that readiness reporting, I
would be pleased to share with the committee or with any of the
staff in a closed session. But, let me answer your question
directly.
The readiness ratings, the so-called C ratings, of our
forces--and that's just not the Marine Corps, but our forces
that are forward in Iraq and Afghanistan and other contingency
operations--are based upon the mission that they are assigned.
So, if we take an artillery unit, and make it into a
provisional MP unit, or we assign it a road security unit,
which is not in its mission as an artillery unit, then we rate
it against the mission that is assigned. It's called percent
effective. So, they may be 100--and they should be 90 to 100
percent effective, depending upon the grade, the skills of
their personnel, and the kinds of equipment. They will have the
highest ratings, as I told you earlier, for their assigned
missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else we have
contingency operations. So, their ratings go higher because of
the mission that they are assigned at war today.
The units that are back home, they are being rated against
the global mission, the ``what if'' mission if something were
to break out tomorrow.
So, as they deploy forward, they get assigned as their
percent effectiveness against the mission that the combatant
commander has assigned them; the remainder of the units are
graded against the mission that they may be assigned, the full-
spectrum mission, I said before.
So, our ratings--I can't compare our ratings to the Army--
and we certainly could discuss this in a closed session--but we
have increasingly pushed the equipment, as well as the marines,
to those forward to fight, and our units that are forward, and
those that are going forward, are at the highest levels of
readiness. As I said earlier, we are beginning to see the
uptick in the last couple of months of the equipment readiness,
the equipment-on-hand ratings for those that are not in the
deployment cycle, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, General.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Gentlemen, if I could get each of you to
comment. You've all provided Congress recently with a list of
unfunded priorities to be considered in review of the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2009. Could you
designate, from that list, the items that will affect current
unit readiness, and a description of how that item will have a
direct impact on the readiness of your Service, and, in your
opinion, what items from the unfunded list are most critical to
unit readiness?
General Cody. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
I'd like to circle back to your question you asked me on
readiness, after I listened to my comrades, here. On the reset,
if it's late--you asked about readiness and how would it
affect--what I should have told you, with a follow-on to that,
was, if we don't get that money, the residual money for fiscal
year 2008 global war on terror, we run out of military pay in
June for the Army. That's what the Admiral was talking about,
in terms of the Department; we'll have to look at how we shift.
In July, we run out of operational dollars. So I was talking
directly to the $7.6 billion of reset, but the total $66.5, if
we go through what we did in July or June 2006, where we had to
almost shut down all the operations in our Army, it would be a
devastating blow, as General Magnus said, to the morale of our
soldiers, that 176,000 of them are serving 15-month tours right
now--if we don't get that money on time, it affects military
pay, and then it certainly affects our ability to provide
operational dollars. So, it has more impact than what I stated.
I was just dealing with the reset.
Having to deal with the money that we need, we're short
light, medium, and heavy tactical vehicles in the Army.
Congress has been very good about the $56 billion that General
Schoomaker, our previous Chief, and I briefed to you in 2006.
We're $17-some-odd-billion short of equipment across the
Active, Guard, and Reserve, most of it in the National
Guard. But, we do need light-, medium-, and heavy-wheeled
vehicles, and the money we requested in the supplemental and in
the fiscal year 2009 base budget, we need. We need the
trailers, we need the night-vision devices, and the aviation
support equipment and avionics, our radios. Those are the key
items that will enable us to reset our force faster and to
provide the National Guard with the equipment that they need
for their dual use.
Senator Thune. General Magnus?
General Magnus. Senator, thank you, again, for the
question.
We submitted an unfunded programs list to Congress, as
requested, earlier this year. That total request was $3
billion. We didn't prioritize that request, but let me tell you
the basis for the request.
We are already, today, 98 tactical aircraft short in our
inventory, in the midst of a war. Most of those aircraft lines
have closed, so the few aircraft lines that are open, both the
fixed wing and the rotary wing, are the ones for which we
submit a request where we have inventory shortfalls. As a
result of that, we requested approximately $600 million for new
aircraft procurement, both to replace aircraft that were lost
due to combat action, those that are lost to other attrition,
and pre-existing inventory shortfalls when we started this war.
That includes three UH-1 utility helicopters, two Cobra attack
helicopters. Additionally, we were short on aerial refuelers,
and we are modernizing a force where the KC-130F and KC-130R
tankers are two generations old and aging, and their
reliability and maintenance man-hours per flight hour are
rising rapidly, in a war where tactical airlift and tactical
aerial refueling is important to us. So, we have requested, on
the unfunded program list, an additional two KC-130Js off of
that Air Force production line.
Separate from the aircraft, we're concerned about our
ability to do our core competency missions, which is forward
presence in peacetime from the sea, as well as amphibious
forcible entry operations. The Navy is doing yeoman's work in
increasing the amount of ship construction that it can, to be
able to provide ships to support marines at sea. We have
requested, now, for the second year running, the Navy and the
Marine Corps, support from Congress for a 10th LPD-17. Our
concern about that is really a near- to long-term problem. The
Gulf shipyards which are capable of producing these ships are
about ready to lose 1,000 skilled workers, and the line is
about ready to close, and the amount of amphibious ships that
are necessary to carry marines in peacetime, as well as in
combat operations, is not at the level that the CNO and the
Commandant want, and, unfortunately, our constrained budgets
did not allow that to be funded.
Lastly, perhaps not the same kind of visibility that's
normally associated, but is our 20 military construction
projects, for about $300 million. That is probably the longest
lead time to be able to provide something for our troops and
for their families, is proper bachelor enlisted quarters,
proper working spaces. We have requested that because we are
accelerating the Grow the Force that we have asked for an
acceleration of these military construction projects.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Thune. My time's about out, and there's one other
question I want to ask you, Admiral and General, if you could
submit for the record the response to that question, it would
be very helpful.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Army's most critical unfunded requirements (UFRs) for fiscal
year 2009 focus on Army National Guard (ARNG) equipment shortages for
dual-use items. This UFR list was approximately $3.94 billion.
The original ARNG equipment UFR list has been modified by the Army
to account for substitutions for seven unexecutable lines on the
original list. The result is a slight decrease in the UFR, which is now
identified to be $3.93 billion.
All lines on the current UFR list will have a positive impact on
ARNG readiness. The acquisition of this equipment will enable the ARNG
to train to a higher level of proficiency to meet both State and
Federal missions while simultaneously supporting current overseas
missions. The most critical of the dual-use items are trucks (HMMWVs
and HEMTTs). The ARNG's on-hand quantity of trucks is at a critical all
time low. The receipt of trucks will have an immediate impact on
readiness and mission effectiveness.
Senator Thune. General Cody, General Casey's been very
candid about the impact of the deployments on Army readiness.
In testimony before this committee in November of last year, he
said that, ``Our readiness is being consumed as fast as we can
build it. We will act quickly to restore balance to preserve
our All-Volunteer Force, restore necessary depth and breadth to
Army capabilities, and build essential capacity for the
future.'' In testimony before the House Armed Services
Committee last September, he said that the Army is--and again
``unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for
other potential contingencies.'' Which potential contingencies
do you think are at greatest risk?
Second followup question would be, where does Congress need
to focus resources, in the short-term, to mitigate those risks?
General Cody. I've been doing this for 6 years; I was a G-3
of the Army, and a Vice Chief now for almost 4 years--and I've
never seen a lack of strategic depth be at where it is today.
As I told you and the Chairman, we're rotating these 23 brigade
combat teams, but that's what you see; you see those flags.
What you don't see is the 300-plus training teams, the aviation
brigades, the MP units, the 86 security-force companies that
are also a part of that 176,000 force that have to be
retrained, artillerymen doing infantry jobs. So, when we talk
about restoring strategic depth, it will go quicker with our
brigade combat teams, because they are doing some of their
combat work in counterinsurgency force, and they will come back
up quicker. It is our artillery forces and our other forces
that are doing nontraditional jobs that we worry about the
most. Right now, all the units that are back at home station
are training for--as I said before, to replace the next units
in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the surge comes down the way we
predict, and we get so many troops back, and brigade combat
teams back, and we can get the dwell time right, we will start
getting those units trained to full-spectrum readiness for
future contingencies. I don't know where those future
contingencies are, but I do know that this Nation and this
Joint Force need to have a division-ready brigade, an airborne
brigade ready for full-spectrum operations, a heavy brigade
combat team ready for full-spectrum operations, and a Stryker
brigade combat team ready for full-spectrum operations. We
don't have that today.
[The information referred to follows:]
Contingencies that require forces to operate over the full range of
military missions are at the greatest risk. For example, a large
conventional ground war. The Army is consumed with meeting the demands
of the current fight and is unable to rapidly provide full-spectrum
ready forces necessary for other contingencies. Current operational
requirements for forces and limited periods between deployments
necessitate a focus on counterinsurgency to the detriment of
preparedness for the full range of military missions.
To ensure strategic plans are coordinated and executed accordingly,
it is imperative that we rebuild readiness, achieve balance, restore
strategic depth for future challenges, and get continuous and timely
congressional support.
Thanks to the support and assistance that Congress has already
provided to the Army, it has enabled us to address critical resource
requirements during existing persistent conflict. The support and
assistance to cover costs of reset, modernize equipment, and maintain
quality of life for our soldiers are the key to keep our Army running.
Our operational demand continues and it is not decreasing. We need
timely resources to continue the training, equipping, and stationing
for our soldiers to properly conduct operations in time of war and to
meet current demand.
Senator Thune. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Thune.
General Cody, you just stated that the Army is short of
vehicles--light, heavy, and medium. My question to you is, why
then has the DOD just reduced your 2008 supplemental request
for medium tactical vehicles by $2 million, which would mean
buying only about 12,575 fewer medium-tactical vehicles this
year?
General Cody. Yes, sir. That speaks to timely funding. We
put that money in for the fiscal year 2008 global war on terror
supplemental. That was for the family of medium tactical
vehicles. Because we did not get all the money up front, and
now we're looking into the later fiscal year 2008, we cannot
execute those dollars. So, when we looked at what was remaining
of the $66.5 million, if you remember, for a short time, it was
also a foreign metals problem with parts of the transmission
and other things that--I'm not as up to speed as I should be--
we looked at it, and we said, ``We can't execute those
dollars.'' So we offered that back up to DOD, and said, ``We'd
like to use those dollars on joint urgent operational need
statements that have come into the field since we submitted the
2008 supplemental.'' In January and February, we got some more
operational need statements that we can execute with that
money, with the caveat that we need to put that money into the
2008-2009 supplemental when we can execute it. It was a timing
issue. Had we had the money in October/November 2007, we would
have put them on order.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, General Cody.
This question is for all the witnesses, having to do with
depot maintenance baseline and backlogs. Each of the Services'
base requests underfund their annual depot maintenance
requirements, and, as they have done so for many years, pushes
significant parts of it into the war supplemental
appropriations. I'm very concerned that the Services will
become trapped in an enduring inaccurate and inadequate depot
maintenance baseline well beyond the war, and beyond reset. The
question is, what are your views of the practice of pushing
large portions of annual maintenance requirements into
supplemental requests? What are you doing to ensure that your
Service will know its true maintenance requirements and funding
baselines after Iraq and reset?
General Cody?
General Cody. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this country is
blessed that we have these five depots. They truly are a
national treasure. We need to reevaluate how we sustain their
funding in the base. Much of the direct labor hours I
discussed, the increase of almost 18 million direct labor hours
across those five depots, almost all of that labor is being
paid for out of supplemental dollars. As we build the 2010-2015
Program Objective Memorandum, part of getting in balance of our
Army is not just in balance, in terms of supply and demand for
brigade combat teams, is getting in balance our depots and
putting into the base funding the requisite amount of OMA
dollars and procurement dollars to be able to sustain an Army
that we believe is going to be in this level of conflict for
some time.
So you'll see, as we build our programs, that we've looked
at the last 5 years, at each one of our depots--and I have my
charts that I can give to your committee--and you can see the
steady rise of the direct labor hours and the steady rise of
procurement dollars that's required for resetting our
equipment. We're using that data to build the new base for our
base budget for 2010 to 2015.
[The information referred to follows:]
I have enclosed charts on each of the Army's depots.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
General Magnus?
General Magnus. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
question.
Quite frankly, sir, the fiscal guidance always defines our
problem every year. Of course, there's always more needs than
there are funds for the needs. But, in a time of war, the
baseline budgets, which I know have grown significantly over
the past 6 years, are still inadequate to meet not only the
needs of the incremental costs of war but the effects on the
baseline planning, which, of course, could not foresee the
impacts on our equipment and on our installations.
For the United States Marine Corps, similar to my sister
Services and my fellow Vices here, about 65 percent of the
Marine Corps' budget, about 65 cents on the dollar, is the
military pay that supports the Marines. That includes the
Defense Health Program, the retirement accruals. But, of course
that's a must-pay bill. The Marine Corps' premier weapons
system is the United States marine.
When I account for the necessary operating and maintenance
funds to make sure the battalions and squadrons can do what
they have to do, to make sure that the installations can
support them, what I'm left with is, how much money does the
Commandant have left every year to do essential warfighting
investment, essential infrastructure investments, such as those
bachelor enlisted quarters--and we have literally doubled, and
then tripled again, the amount of funds we're putting in
bachelor enlisted quarters, in the baseline, to make sure that
we can house the marines that we're growing--and then, what's
left are the long-term costs about equipment sustainment, and
that includes depot maintenance, and the long-term costs of
facilities sustainment. When there aren't enough dollars, we
end up making some very, very difficult choices about what
things cannot be funded.
So, I would simply say that our intent, as General Cody has
indicated, as we are working through what our fiscal guidance
will be for what will be the President's budget for fiscal year
2010, the program objective memorandum 2010 through 2015, the
Marine Corps wants to fully fund one depot maintenance shift,
because, if we are working in excess of one shift--and, of
course, we are, today--that will be a direct result of the
effects of combat operations.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Akaka. Admiral Walsh?
Admiral Walsh. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add to the
comments of my colleagues by just saying that the effort here
on our part, is number one, to recognize the importance of
depot-level maintenance, for the points that you raised and
mentioned earlier. We've gone through this before, where we
haven't fully funded maintenance. We've lived with the outcome.
We had poor availability. It resulted in poor morale, poor
quality of life. So, as I look at our numbers of maintenance
that's actually done by supplemental, it's relatively small, by
comparison to the overall aviation and ship maintenance
accounts, but it is something that we're continuing to try and
migrate back into the baseline.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Admiral.
General McNabb?
General McNabb. Yes, sir. Just like everything else, you
have to deal with risk. Obviously, if we look across our
accounts, and we look at people, we look at readiness, we look
at facilities, and we look at modernization and
recapitalization, that's the part that we have to do the
balancing, just as General Magnus had mentioned. So, as we look
across those accounts, and we say--depending on how much money
we have, we will figure out how we balance that risk across all
of our accounts. We understand that the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and then Congress will look across all of this and
say, ``Okay, you're too risky here,'' and we'll balance that
across the force to make sure that we have the very best force
that every dollar can buy, and this is part of that.
We did take risk in our facilities. We did take risk in our
people. Our Chief and Secretary testified a couple of weeks ago
to that effect, and said that we simply cannot take any more
risk in recapitalization and modernization, nor in the
readiness of being able to do the kinds of things that this
committee is so interested in doing.
So, those are the two places that we went, okay, how much
can we take, and what could we end up being able to manage in
execution year? We are not happy--I'm not comfortable, as the
Vice Chief, that we're about 77 percent funded in our Depot
Programmed Equipment Maintenance (DPEM) account. You will see
in our unfunded requirement list that we do have about $600-
plus million for the DPEM. That is the risk that we're
assuming, that we know that we'll have to figure out how to
make up an execution year by figuring out better ways to do
things.
That is not a comfortable position. It is exactly where we
are on--pretty much across--which I know the other Services are
in exactly the same place, as we try to manage the risk across
all accounts.
Senator Akaka. I'd like to ask that question you just
raised, about the risk. My question would be, what kind of
risks to your readiness is created by depot maintenance
backlogs? The question to you, then, to all of you, is, what
are you doing to control it?
General Cody?
General Cody. As we have gone through the last 5 years of
ramping up our depots--when you talk about backlog, it's a
function of how quickly you can get the equipment back from the
combat zone, how quickly you can order the long-lead parts, and
how quickly can you mobilize more workforce to be able to do
this type of work? We're doing 12,000 recapitalizations a year,
just on Humvees. We're recapping all our Heavy Expanded
Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTTs). We're recapitalizing our
entire tank force of our Abrams tanks, at Anniston. On any
given day, we will have almost 100,000 radios, between
Tobyhanna and Letterkenny; over 125,000 machine guns and--50-
cal machine guns--we'll do at Anniston. That's the level that
we're talking about.
So, when you don't have timely funding, you push a bow wave
of either having to make a choice of having workers--right now,
we're not doing that, our workers are--at the depots, are
working every day, and, in some cases, like at Red River,
they're working 7 days a week on our track pads and our road
wheels to keep these tanks and Bradleys with their tracks--the
bow wave is really in the long-lead items--the engines, the
transmissions, and the long-lead items that we have to go back
to the vendor to order and that's what creates our backlog.
I go back to my theme: full and timely funding. We have
Lean Six Sigma in our depots today. As Admiral Walsh talked
about how fast the depots are doing things, it used to take us
120-some-odd days to recap a turbine engine down at Corpus
Christi; they're doing it in less than 45 days today. We have
Lean Six Sigma efficiencies, teaming with industry, to take
care of that backlog. But, what creates the backlog is not
having timely procurement dollars to buy the repair parts so
you can keep that workforce going. Then, if you don't have the
OMA dollars, and you have to start laying them off, or threaten
to have to lay them off because you don't get the money in
time, that causes backlogs, as you have to regenerate your
force.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
General Magnus?
General Magnus. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Currently, in terms of backlogs, our only depot throughput
problem is the availability of what I'll call ``carcasses,''
when we have out-of-production major end items of equipment,
such as our light armored vehicles, we're literally having to
go, not only to the bone yards, but go up to the Canadians,
which are making them for foreign military sales, and be able
to see if we can get carcasses. Because we have plenty of
capacity. The truth is, of course, as you indicated Mr.
Chairman, that this is all being funded by a combination of
baseline and supplemental, but we have no problem with our own
industrial capacity, and I've read many stories about
backlogs--we have been working hand-in-glove with the United
States Army; we have no problem with the prioritization of work
by the Army's depots, which do a lot of Marine Corps equipment,
especially our Abrams tanks.
We have had great success, and are continuing to work to
increase the efficiency at our Marine Corps Logistics Depot at
Albany and in Bartow, in California. Again, as General Cody
said, Congress has continued to provide us the funds that are
necessary to keep the depot capacity working, and it's working
well above its peacetime rate. We simply request that Congress
continue to appropriate the funds that are necessary to keep
the depots working at a wartime rate.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, General.
Admiral Walsh?
Admiral Walsh. Mr. Chairman, what I would add to what my
colleagues have already mentioned is that, in the case of Navy,
when we developed our Fleet Response Plan, we recognized that,
in order to provide for more availability of our ships, that we
were going to have to manage very closely the workload inside
the depot and the shipyard. So, when we looked at this, we
realized that we were going to need to work very closely with
the manpower in the depot leadership, as well as the shipyard
leadership, in order that we could provide an even loading and
not change requirements on them, so they could anticipate and
be ready. What we've found in the case over the last four
carriers that have gone into overhaul or extended periods of
maintenance in that the four of them have come out on time and
on budget. In the case of Stennis, she came out a day early and
underbudget. So, we continue to apply the lessons that we've
learned here, and we value the funding that goes into this
account, because it gives us the kind of predictability and
readiness levels that we need for our forces.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
General McNabb?
General McNabb. Yes, sir. Primarily, how we deal with this
is, we prioritize our assets of what's going in. If we don't
have full funding, if we end up saying that the depots--just
like the Army, I had already mentioned how much more efficient
our depots have gotten, and we're seeing that. Again, with the
great help of the committee and Congress, we've been able to
continue that kind of funding. But, when we don't have enough
money is, we prioritize all our assets, and we say, ``Which
ones are the most important, and which ones have to go first,
which ones can we take, again, risk on?'' But, we look across
the fleet and say, ``Which is the least capable of our assets,
or which ones are not pertinent to the war or our strategic
deterrence?'' that I mentioned before. So, we will then do
that.
Right now, our depots are doing superb, and they're stayed
up--like I said, 98 percent on time, which is unbelievable, and
we will continue to push that.
The other portion that I would like to mention is that
we're also looking for ways that we can share our best assets,
our most capable assets, with the total force. We used to have
16 associate wings in which Active and Reserve or Guard shared
airplanes. We are now extending that, under total force
integration, to say, ``If you have a new asset that is really
capable, if we've invested those kind of dollars, we need to
make sure that we share those.'' We have sharing relationships
now, between the Guard, Reserve, and Active Duty, that are
actually unprecedented, and it is really making a difference,
to make sure we bring the most capability to bear that we can.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune [presiding]. Gentlemen, the Commission on the
National Guard and Reserves just released a report that drew
attention to the high operational tempo and deployment schedule
for our personnel in the Reserve components. The Commission
went on to question whether a Guard unit, in particular, were
adequately trained and ready for State and home defense
missions. In your opinion, does the current readiness reporting
system accurately assess the readiness of Guard units to
respond to Homeland defense tasking and emergency requests by
the Governors?
General Cody. Senator, I'll take that, because I have most
of the Reserve components.
First off, there's no requirement that I know of for
readiness reporting to the Governor as to what he would use his
forces under State control. What we do have is Northern
Command, and the Army's component of Northern Command is Army
North, where we're establishing the consequence management
response force of which National Guard units are part of that.
I believe that we have to go back and take a look at the
mission sets that we would need for what we call the Chemical,
Biological, Radiological/Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE)
Consequence Management Response Force, to ensure that we have
the right mission essential task lists and the right pieces of
equipment for dual use in response for Homeland security. But,
the National Guard units and the United States Army Reserve
units report their C readiness, their combat ratings, for the
mission that they're designed to do, which is a wartime
mission.
Senator Thune. Does anyone want to comment? I know, General
Magnus, you do have most of the components, as you mentioned,
under your bailiwick.
General McNabb. Senator, probably our total force is one of
the things we're the proudest of, is the way we've done that,
and how we've integrated the total force across the board. When
we set up our air expeditionary forces, we took into mind that
we will not have tiered readiness, and there will be no
difference between our Guard, Reserve, and Active Duty.
Fifty-five percent of our Active Duty and 20 percent of our
Guard and Reserve are on call right now in support of a
combatant commander. That can very quickly surge to 80 percent,
if required. If the balloon goes up, we mobilize, and we do the
whole thing.
By not having tiered readiness and having the same
standards across the force, what a difference that makes, so
that we can very quickly bring that to bear.
So, that's the part that I think that has really paid some
dividends for us, and we're trying to take that to the next
level, again, with these total force initiatives. How could we
share--how can we even take this to a different level, sharing
airplanes at Guard and Reserve bases, having Active Duty people
stationed there, be able to take full advantage of that? We
think that's really paid some big dividends for the country.
General Magnus. Senator, for the Marine Corps--clearly, of
course--and General Cody's right America's Army and America--
the Army total force bears the balance of the Reserve component
and its National Guard. The Marine Corps Reserve, of course, is
not part of America's National Guard, but, as I indicated
earlier, we're building the 27th of our Active component
infantry battalions, which is the centerpiece of our combined
arms force. In addition, there are already existing nine
Reserve component battalions. Those 9 Reserve component
infantry battalions are just part of the 36,000 marines that
are in selected Marine Corps Reserve units.
All of the selected Marine Corps Reserve units are measured
against their wartime mission. The Marine Reserve units that
deploy to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wherever else
they may be deployed in the global war on terrorism, will be
measured in their effectiveness of the assigned mission. So, as
I said before, if we have an artillery unit that becomes a
provisional infantry unit, they will be measured against their
infantry mission. We will train them to it. We will equip them
to it. They will be at the highest levels of readiness before
they deploy.
General Cody. Senator, part of the Army's rebalancing--not
to get in balance by 2011, but the rebalance that we've been
doing since 2003--was to take a look at the Active component
and the Reserve component. If you remember, back before the war
started, there was a lot of combat forces inside the National
Guard, a lot of heavy brigades. What we did as part of the
rebalance, we said what we needed to do was take a lot of that
structure out, because it's not dual-purpose. Quite frankly, it
was too hard to keep full-spectrum-trained. So part of the
rebalancing of the force to help the Governors, especially in
the hurricane States--it doesn't help a Governor down in the
Gulf to have a heavy brigade combat team in his State. It is
much better, though, if he had truck companies, engineer
companies, engineer brigades, medical units. So as we rebalance
the Army--Active, Guard, and Reserve--we've built 28 brigade
combat teams to give depth to the total Army for combat. Then,
the rest of the force, we took, in the National Guard, with the
help of the Governors--and we had most of the Adjutants
General, as part of our General Officer Steering Committee, to
take a look at it--and we balanced out and created what we
called the engineer brigades, the maneuver enhancement
brigades. So most of the States will be supported by that and a
lot of combat service support.
The real issue for their readiness that the Governors are
concerned with, as we are, is their equipping. They were short
equipment when this war started, and what we have done is, we
monitor their equipment every year before the hurricane
crisis--or the hurricane season comes in. I review with every
Adjutant General--the 10 hurricane States--we review their
equipment. We have programmed, for fiscal year 2008, 1,000
trucks, 441 trailers, and hundreds of generators. But, in 2006
and 2007, we were able to procure and push out 3,900 trucks,
352 different type of engineered brand-new equipment. 2008 to
2009, the distribution for the National Guard will be about
400,000 items. Most of it is in the combat support, combat
service support that is dual-use for some type of natural
disaster that would help the Governors.
Senator Thune. You answered my question, but I was going to
get at that point of when it comes to distribution of
equipment, do you take into consideration the Guard's State and
homeland security missions and whatnot?
General Cody. Yes, we have fenced that money--since I've
been the G-3 and the Vice Chief, we have fenced all the Guard
equipping dollars, especially what we call dual-use equipment,
so that we can build back that for the Governors.
Senator Thune. Okay.
I think that's all we have, gentlemen. Thank you, again,
for your service. Clearly, these are issues which my takeaway
from all this is, we need timely supplemental funding, for one;
and, obviously, my view, increase in the top line to deal with
a lot of the competing demands. You're trying to do more and
more with less, and robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and I just
don't think we can continue to run the military that way.
But, thanks again for your testimony, thanks for your
service. Make sure that you let those who serve with you and
under your command--let them know how much we appreciate their
service.
Thank you all.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
cash management
1. Senator Akaka. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, the practice of using supplemental appropriations to
meet annual maintenance and reset requirements disconnects reliable and
timely resources from the sometimes long lead demands of managing
industrial operations to satisfy readiness requirements. This also
compounds each Service's annual cash flow problems. This is most
apparent in the Army, but also affects the other Services. Would you
characterize how cash management impacts your nondeployed force
readiness and what you are doing to deal with that challenge now and
into the future?
General Cody. The Army's extensive cash management maneuvering
caused by delays in receipt of supplemental funding does create some
risk in readiness for nondeployed forces. As funding priorities force
the shift of resources from nondeployed forces to theater operational
needs, the elements of unit readiness begin to degrade. Institutional
training, collective training, and unit level maintenance could be
curtailed or halted all together if global war on terror funds are
delayed. At the depot maintenance level, equipment for nondeployed
units may not be inducted into the depot system, but could sit idle in
a storage lot. This predicament can perpetuate long-term affects as
some depots may fall behind on planned production and may not order
enough spare parts to catch up after the supplemental is received. The
nondeployed units incurring resource restrictions on their readiness
efforts are likely the same units that will be preparing for deployment
within months. Depot and unit level maintenance delays can challenge a
unit's ability to train for their directed mission essential tasks
(METs) within the desired Army Force Generation timeline.
The Army is currently working with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) to overcome these challenges in fiscal year 2009. For
example, the Army, through OSD, will request a bridge supplemental
focused primarily on the military personnel and Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA) appropriations to alleviate these challenges.
This solution, however, still requires the timely passage of the fiscal
year 2009 main global war on terror supplemental to ensure continuity
of operations.
General Magnus. Readiness remains one of the top priorities for the
Marine Corps. Our number one priority is ensuring that deployed units
are properly equipped. As a result, nondeployed units tend to have the
lowest readiness. The Marine Corps continues to ensure its budget
requests contain the proper amount and allocation of executable
resources. Currently the issue is not funding, but industrial capacity
and asset availability for the depots to restore. We continue to work
on these problems to maintain optimal readiness given our external
constraints.
Admiral Walsh. Bridge funding has been instrumental in cash
management; avoiding substantial cash flowing of war costs from our
baseline readiness accounts. However, these bridge funds do not satisfy
the full-year request. Significant delay in the enactment of either the
bridge or the full-year supplemental request results in disruption of
program execution plans and precipitates higher future costs. If
supplemental funds for bridge (or full year) funding are not received
in a timely manner, Navy will reduce non-war related flying and
steaming hours, defer weapons systems and depot maintenance; actions
which would degrade nondeployed force readiness.
To lessen this degradation in readiness, Navy will also look at
eliminating non-global war on terror readiness training and
infrastructure support. Examples of the latter include scaling back or
curtailing contracted services for base operations and deferring FSRM
projects. These delays, deferments, and cancellations will force the
Department to accept more risk for future deployed forces. In addition,
to the extent that investment accounts are needed to finance current
operations, the resulting cancellations will increase costs and delay
delivery of much needed weapon systems.
General McNabb. Overall, the Air Force has been successful in
minimizing the cash-flow impact on our nondeployed forces. We're able
to work cash-flow issues with the help of the bridge funding Congress
provides and by shifting funds within Air Force accounts pending
enactment of supplemental appropriations. However, there is an
opportunity cost incurred when supplemental funds are delayed too long.
For example, lost training time cannot be bought back at the end of the
fiscal year. The Air Force has cash-flowed the global war on terror as
required and will continue to do so to support our deployed
warfighters.
troop readiness
2. Senator Akaka. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, there is consensus that the Army is stretched extremely
thin. Some argue that if we are not careful, the Army is in danger of
breaking. However, there does not appear to be the same ``broken or
breaking'' question with regard to the Marine Corps, Navy, or Air
Force. What readiness monitoring system does your Service rely upon
most to provide adequate warning before the danger of breaking becomes
acute?
General Cody. The stress on the Army, while significant, must be
taken into consideration when assessing the broader ability of
Department of Defense (DOD) as a whole to execute the National Military
Strategy in support of the President's National Security Strategy. The
Army uses a combination of systems to closely monitor readiness. Since
the Army is first and foremost a unit-centric service, our primary
readiness monitoring system is the Defense Readiness Reporting System
(DRRS)-Army. This system is unit focused and combines the resource
reporting strategy from the Joint Staff with MET evaluations. All of
these assessments are provided by the most critical participant in this
system--the unit commander. Other systems include equipping and manning
applications that measure serviceability of and availability of items
in an aggregate. Our personnel systems provide us aggregate manning
levels, critical skills, and retention rates of our most precious
resource--soldiers.
General Magnus. The Global Status of Resources and Training System
(GSORTS) remains the joint readiness reporting system of record. GSORTS
is a Joint Staff resource and unit monitoring system that provides
visibility to determine if units possess the required resources and
training to perform their designed or assigned missions. GSORTS is also
designed to support crisis response and contingency planning
information requirements. The system allows the Marine Corps to assess
its ability to organize, train, maintain, and equip its operating
forces for employment by combatant commanders. In addition to analyzing
and monitoring unit readiness through GSORTS reporting, the Marine
Corps solicits and collects input from Marine Forces Command (FORSCOM),
Marine Forces Pacific, Marine Forces Special Operations Command
(SOCOM), and Marine Forces Reserve, for the Marine Corps quarterly
Joint Forces Readiness Report (JFRR). Input from the Marine Forces
includes a subjective assessment of METs, as well as the identification
of top readiness concerns and deficiencies that impact their ability to
meet existing and future requirements. GSORTS data helps form the basis
of the JFRR assessment and the readiness status of deployed and
nondeployed forces. Finally, the Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies,
and Operations sponsors a Quarterly Readiness Board (QRB) process that
identifies existing and emerging readiness concerns and then develops
courses of action to address them.
Admiral Walsh. Navy's current readiness reporting system, the TYCOM
Readiness Management System (TRMS), is based on DOD's Status of
Resources and Training System (SORTS) construct. As such, TRMS/SORTS is
used to monitor the available resources and training conducted by all
reporting units. The resultant readiness assessment is an element of
managing the production of ready for tasking units in accordance with
the Fleet Response Plan (FRP), Navy's force generation model. TRMS/
SORTS addresses overall, resource area, and aggregate mission area
readiness, but not specific capabilities inside a mission area. Navy is
transforming its readiness reporting to a resource-informed,
capability-based reporting system aligned to the OSD's DRRS.
General McNabb. The Air Force uses a combination of readiness
monitoring systems. The GSORTS is the readiness system of record.
GSORTS provides the Air Force the ability to assess readiness of Title
10 responsibilities--organize, train, and equip. In addition to GSORTS,
the Air Force uses a wide range of readiness indicators including
individual personnel readiness, equipment readiness, deployment
indicators, and aircraft readiness to watch overall Air Force
readiness.
3. Senator Akaka. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, what critical indicators do you watch constantly to
avoid being surprised by a sudden or difficult to repair loss of
readiness?
General Cody. There are several indicators. Since the Army is a
unit-centric Service with a focus on people, we closely monitor the
aggregate filling of critical skill sets. Each month, the U.S. Army
Human Resources Command provides updates to the current and projected
fill rates for critical enlisted, warrant officer, and commissioned
officer skills. A sudden drop or a forecasted shortfall in any area
immediately triggers an action and prompts a review during the Army
Synchronization Meeting to examine courses of action. Next, we monitor
very closely the quantities and size of the request for forces (RFF)
from the combatant commanders. The Army tracks usage of units and
capabilities to ensure that we are either building new capabilities
and/or transforming units to meet an asymmetric threat.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps continuously monitors stress on
the force indicators for our individual marines and their families to
include, but not limited to: recruiting/retention rates, suicide and
divorce rates, unauthorized absence/desertion rates, substance abuse,
domestic abuse, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) rates among our
returning warriors, and unit deployment to dwell ratios. To monitor
operational unit readiness, we use the GSORTS. GSORTS reports serve as
the Marine Corps ``alarm system'' for operational readiness shortfalls
and are reviewed daily. GSORTS data is analyzed for trends, and briefed
to leadership monthly to highlight emerging readiness concerns.
Quarterly, the Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations
convenes a Readiness Board that assembles the Marine Corps readiness
community of interest (consisting of operational, support, and
headquarters organizations) that focus on identifying existing and
emerging readiness concerns, in order to develop solutions and courses
of action to address them. The Marine Corps also participates in the
DOD Global Force Management (GFM) process where we assess and
articulate Service risk and future challenges associated with the
apportionment, allocation, and assignment of forces available to meet
Combatant Commander requirements.
Admiral Walsh. Navy's current readiness reporting system, the TRMS,
is based on DOD's SORTS construct. This construct includes assessments
in the resource readiness areas of Personnel, Equipment, Supply,
Training, and Ordnance are closely monitored for issues or trends.
Additionally, Navy unit commanders use this system to evaluate the
resources and training available to conduct their designed primary
mission areas. Moreover, the Commander, United States Fleet Forces,
presides over the Fleet Readiness Enterprise Executive Committee (FRE
EXCOM). This forum, which includes the heads of our Warfighting
Enterprises, monitors TRMS/SORTS and additional metrics for each
enterprise.
General McNabb. The GSORTS is the readiness system of record and is
used by the Air Force to assess/monitor overall unit readiness based on
a resource perspective. In addition, the Air Force uses a wide range of
readiness indicators including personnel, equipment, deployment, and
aircraft monitoring systems to watch overall Air Force readiness.
global status of resources and training system
4. Senator Akaka. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, the current readiness reporting system--GSORTS--is
clearly inadequate to managing risk in both the deployment of forces
for contingencies and our strategic depth. This seems particularly the
case when the force is largely deployed already. What, in your view,
are the strengths and weaknesses of this current system and how are you
adapting to ensure that current unit readiness is clearly measured and
understood in a timely and reliable way?
General Cody. The Army complies with the current readiness
reporting requirements from both the OSD and the Joint Staff.
Additionally, the Army has developed supporting metrics to support our
readiness oversight requirements--these metrics include METs, squad
crew manning, and Army Force Generation data elements.
The current system does provide insight into the management of risk
and shows the strain of resourcing our Army in the personnel and
equipment arenas as well as the risk to execute core functions at the
tactical and operational levels for our nondeployed forces.
The Army is working closely with the Joint Staff and OSD to improve
the readiness reporting system. For instance, the Army was the first
Service to institute a web-based reporting system utilizing MET
assessments developed from Army doctrine. Our system also provided real
time linkages into authoritative data bases for personnel and equipment
to provide a more accurate resource assessment.
The Army's readiness policy is a dynamic and changing document--
since fiscal year 2008, we have updated the regulation 10 times to
accommodate new and emerging readiness requirements.
General Magnus. GSORTS remains the readiness reporting system of
record. GSORTS reports serve as the Marine Corps alarm system for
operational resource, training, and capability shortfalls. The strength
of GSORTS is that it allows the Marine Corps to assess its ability to
organize, train, maintain, and equip its operating force for use by
combatant commanders. GSORTS data enables an assessment of resource
(personnel, equipment supply, equipment repair, and training) levels,
at a selected point in time that can be used to evaluate the unit's
current capability against its designed mission. GSORTS also includes
the capability for a commander to assess his/her unit's ability to
execute its assigned mission through a subjective assessment and
commanders' comments. The commanders' comments enable the commander to
articulate anything that he or she feels important relative to unit
capabilities or shortfalls. Another advantage of GSORTS is that it is
an established system, with volumes of historical data for trend
analyses.
A shortcoming of GSORTS is its inability to assess a unit's ability
to perform individual METs (although this information can be provided
through commanders' comments in the training portion of the report).
Another weakness of GSORTS is the fact that it requires the manual
input of data from separate personnel, materiel, and maintenance
systems. Additionally, GSORTS has limitations associated with
classified network connectivity from some deployed locations and
somewhat antiquated user interface.
In addition to analyzing GSORTS reports daily, and briefing trends
to leadership monthly, the Marine Corps ensures that current unit
readiness is clearly measured and understood by soliciting and
collecting inputs from its force providing commands (Marine FORSCOM,
Marine Forces Pacific, Marine Forces SOCOM, and Marine Forces Reserve).
This input is included in the Marine Corps quarterly JFRR. Input from
the Marine Forces includes a subjective assessment of METs, as well as
the identification of top readiness concerns and deficiencies that
impact their ability to meet existing and future requirements. GSORTS
data helps form the basis of the JFRR assessment of Service warfighting
functions, and the readiness status of deployed and nondeployed forces.
The Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations also sponsors
a QRB that includes representation from each of the Marine FORSCOMs and
Headquarters Marine Corps organizations. The focus of the QRB is to
identify existing and emerging readiness concerns, and then develop
appropriate courses of action to address them.
Admiral Walsh. The GSORTS has been in use for some time. Its
strengths include the ability to provide a relatively objective
assessment of resource areas (Personnel, Supply, Repair, and Training),
which combine for a sufficient examination of a literal interpretation
of Services' Title X responsibilities to man, train, and equip combat
forces. Its significant weakness is that it fails to explicitly codify
what those combat forces can do with the resources and training they
have been given.
Navy is transforming its readiness reporting to a resource-
informed, capability-based reporting system aligned to the OSD's DRRS.
The DRRS will address these shortfalls.
General McNabb. The GSORTS is the readiness reporting system of
record. GSORTS has been a reliable readiness reporting system, and it
provides a significant amount of historical data for the Air Force to
analyze readiness trends. The Air Force has tools other than GSORTS
that we use to manage mission risk for deployment of forces.
Modifications to the method in which the Air Force presents and
schedules forces are improving Air Force ability to monitor strategic
depth, and provide an enterprise view of risk across functional
capabilities.
defense readiness reporting system
5. Senator Akaka. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, the DOD is developing and plans to deploy a new
system--DRRS--in the near future. What are your views of this new
system and how will it solve the problems we have now with GSORTS?
General Cody. The Army supports the DRRS concept of integrating
task and mission capability assessments into readiness reporting via a
web-enabled, net-centric reporting system. However, these capability
assessments must also include commander-validated resource level
determinations. The original DRRS construct only linked authoritative
data bases and provided no rule set governing resource levels for
units. The Army, upon implementation of our own capability assessments,
retained the longstanding and well understood resource metrics from
GSORTS and added capability assessments that are linked to the specific
resources required to execute the missions and tasks assessed. This is
accomplished through our system known as DRRS-Army.
For instance, before a commander can assess a task or overall
proficiency as a ``yes'' or ``qualified yes,'' he or she must validate
that the unit has the resources on hand to execute the task immediately
(i.e. ``fight tonight''). Any capability assessment that does not have
established rules to link resource availability would be overly
subjective. The Army does not support replacing a quantitative system
that informs the Department of resourcing shortfalls with a subjective
system that excludes resource metrics validated by the unit commander.
Furthermore, the DRRS Title 10 utility remains unresolved until an
authoritative policy is developed that is synchronized with the
existing Chairman's Readiness System and supported by software and
architecture that has been fully tested, formally approved, and fielded
DOD-wide.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps supports the development of DRRS
and its goal to build upon the current readiness reporting system,
GSORTS. When fully developed and accepted as the single integrated
readiness reporting system of record, it will enhance readiness
reporting through a capabilities-based, adaptive, near real-time
readiness reporting system that includes the resource reporting we now
have with GSORTS. One enhancement that DRRS will provide that is not
resident within GSORTS will be the ability to automatically pull data
from Service authoritative data sources and make automatic resource
level calculations. However, this feature is planned to be provided at
some future date. An additional enhancement of DRRS over GSORTS is that
it will include installations readiness reporting.
Admiral Walsh. The capability-based DRRS is a significant
improvement to the current GSORTS. GSORTS' greatest weakness is that it
fails to explicitly codify what missions that forces can perform with
the resources and training they have been given. DRRS allows
commanders, having been objectively informed of the status of resources
available to them, to subjectively assess their ability to perform
tasks under specified conditions to explicit standards. Navy is
transforming its readiness reporting to a resource-informed,
capability-based reporting system aligned to the DOD's DRRS.
General McNabb. The GSORTS is the readiness reporting system of
record. GSORTS has been a reliable readiness reporting system, and it
provides a significant amount of historical data for the Air Force to
analyze readiness trends. The Air Force has tools other than GSORTS
that we use to manage mission risk for deployment of forces.
Modifications to the method in which the Air Force presents and
schedules forces are improving Air Force ability to monitor strategic
depth, and provide an enterprise view of risk across functional
capabilities.
pre-deployment preparation
6. Senator Akaka. General Cody and General Magnus, what is your
system of after-action reports or trend analysis that connects the
quantity and quality of pre-deployment preparation and the consequences
of that preparation in combat?
General Cody. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
validates the relevance and effectiveness of pre-deployment training
based on operational experiences employed by various organizations
within TRADOC. These mechanisms are not redundant but address multiple
levels of soldiers and leaders. The Army Center for Lessons Learned
(CALL) gathers relevant observations insights, and lessons and tactics,
techniques, and procedures in order to analyze and disseminate
information gleaned from both deployed units, and units returning from
deployment, to provide to units preparing for deployment. CALL collects
after-action reviews from units returning from deployment, conducts
post-deployment collections on Army Corps returning from theater, and
gathers information via the Lessons Learned Integration Analysts
Network (L2I) which is located throughout the institutional Army,
operational Army, and forward deployed forces, and the request for
information system. CALL analyzes and disseminates the resulting
information rapidly through Army Knowledge Online, Battle Command
Knowledge System, CALL publications and handbooks, Initial Impressions
Reports, and L2I to accelerate adaptation, learning, and lessons/
knowledge sharing from pre-deployment through combat operations and
reset. The result is a significant increase in the Army's ability to
adapt faster, improving vertical and horizontal information sharing,
and increasing real time information sharing that aids unit training,
institutional training, and doctrinal updates based on current
operations.
The Battle Command Training Program remains both effective and
relevant in pre-deployment training through a variety of means. The
most effective method of obtaining operational feedback is through
staff assistance visits composed of observer trainers, senior retired
officers, and scenario designers. The purpose of these visits is to
build realistic exercise scenarios that accurately replicate the
operational environment. Additionally, in-theater subject matter
experts take part in battle command seminars and mission rehearsal
exercises. This approach has been especially effective in preparing the
10th Mountain Division to assume control of 3rd Infantry Division's
(3ID) operating environment following their transfer of authority with
3ID.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps is a learning organization. The
Marine Corps CLL (MCCLL), as part of their primary mission focus, has
an ongoing, aggressive information collection program to assist in the
assessment of unit pre-deployment training effectiveness. MCCLL is a
part of the Training and Education Command (TECOM) for just this
purpose. MCCLL conducts surveys and one-on-one interviews with
operational unit personnel before, during, or after deployment, to get
first hand feedback on the effectiveness of our training programs and
ways to make them better. The MCCLL then analyzes trends, produces
reports and products based on their collection initiatives, and
forwards identified issues to the appropriate agencies, advocates, and
proponents throughout the Marine Corps for consideration and action.
MCCLL has developed a web-based Lessons Management System that
receives observations, recommendations, and supporting documentation
from operating forces deployed around the world. Within MCCLL these
records, in conjunction with in-theater interviews, post deployment
commanders' conferences and unit After Action Reports, are reviewed by
senior analysts to identify both positive and negative trends or
patterns. MCCLL then forwards identified issues to those Marine Corps
agencies tasked with improving how we organize, train, and equip
marines.
In the current, rapidly changing counterinsurgency fight, our enemy
has their own relatively effective lessons learned processes, by which
they continuously try to adapt and overcome our tactics. It is critical
that hard won lessons and observations gained from ongoing operations
be analyzed and disseminated rapidly throughout the Marine Corps. To
assist in the quality and timeliness of the information feedback loop
from the operational forces back to the training and support
establishment, MCCLL fielded teams of liaison officers who are embedded
in each of our three Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEF), to include the
Iraq-deployed MEF. These liaison officers facilitate the two-way flow
of lessons learned and observations between the operational forces and
Training and Education Command's MCCLL. Liasion officers are also
placed at the Marine Corps' two primary pre-deployment training
exercise sites at Twentynine Palms, CA, and Yuma, AZ, for dissemination
of current, relevant information from CENTCOM operations to the
exercise training staff. This permits rapid update of course content
relating to friendly and enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures.
equipment failures
7. Senator Akaka. General Cody and General Magnus, what trends have
emerged with respect to casualty rates or equipment failures that have
resulted in changes in personnel, equipment, or training policies,
programs, or timelines?
General Cody. The Army has consistently incorporated lessons
learned into its equipping strategy. As the enemy has adapted, so has
our equipping strategy. Examples of this include the rapid improvements
in, and fielding of, Uparmored HMMWVs, Interceptor Body Armor,
Counterimprovised Explosive Device (IED) equipment, and Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. The Rapid Equipping Force has proven
to be invaluable in providing state-of-the-art equipment to our
deployed force in record time.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
General Magnus. The Marine Corps is a learning organization. We
continue to face an adaptive enemy and evolving threats. As we analyze
trends, we change our tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to
counter the new threats. These TTPs are incorporated into both home
station and Mojave Viper pre-deployment training and are further
refined based on the latest information available. Each Marine Corps
unit completes the required pre-deployment training program before they
are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Additionally, enhanced training
and simulation packages are provided to operate and maintain the
modified and newly procured equipment to increase survivability.
Force protection measures that reduce casualties are included in
both training and equipping our marines and sailors. As we identify new
force protection equipment needs, potential material solutions are
subjected to rigorous evaluations to ensure they are safe and
effective. For instance, the Marine Corps has evolved personal
protective equipment (PPE) items over time. In 2003, marines deployed
with the Outer Tactical Vest with integrated Small Arms Protective
Insert (SAPI) plates providing ballistic protection to the front and
back of the Marines' torso. Later, the SAPI plate coverage was expanded
to include both sides of the torso. Additional PPE armor was added to
cover the shoulders and legs. Helmets were lightened, and additional
padding and an improved chinstrap were added.
The Marine Corps' IED mitigation efforts have similarly evolved.
Soon after the initial invasion of Iraq, we recognized the need for
hardened vehicles. Armoring efforts and strategies evolved from a basic
Level 1 armor system designed to mitigate side IED blasts, through the
Marine Armor Kit, to the fully integrated uparmored High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) and the MRAP vehicle that
provides protection from side and underbelly IED attacks.
With respect to ground equipment failures, the Marine Corps has not
noted specific equipment failures in Iraq. We conduct continuous rapid
modifications, prototyping and proofing of Marine Corps equipment in
theater, and at home station. Specific examples include follow on
upgrades to motor transport and engineering equipment, mine roller
modifications, the Marine Corps transparent armored gun shield, and the
HMMWV egress assistance trainer.
readiness of personnel and units
8. Senator Akaka. Admiral Walsh and General McNabb, the Navy and
the Air Force have provided large numbers of personnel to perform
missions ordinarily assigned to ground forces. These sailors and airmen
perform tasks in-lieu-of soldiers and marines needed to fill other
units. What is your system to measure and evaluate the impact of these
assignments on the readiness of your personnel and units?
Admiral Walsh. The Navy uses several means to measure the impact of
non-traditional assignments. The Navy's operational readiness SORTS
reporting system currently lists all deployable commands at readiness
C2 or above. Additionally, Navy Personnel Command has undertaken a
series of regular surveys and assessments to monitor potential
indications that the increased deployment/workload demands may be
adversely impacting retention or ``health of the Force''. In order to
balance the increased joint global war on terror demand signal with
traditional maritime roles, Navy established manning redlines to
control and manage Fleet readiness (90 percent manned for sea commands/
75 percent manned for shore commands). Adhering to these redlines, Navy
can continue to meet deployment standards as well as all maritime
commitments and operational requirements. Fleet manning projections and
continuous monthly analysis show that Navy can sustain adequate manning
for sea/deployable commands.
Currently, augmentation numbers represent approximately 3 percent
of the Total Force and 2 percent of the Active component force.
General McNabb. In-lieu-of taskings require extensive training and
drive down deployment-to-dwell time. The training impact measured in
terms of man-years consumed is significant (7,739 man-years) and
current data breaks down as follow: validated taskings consume 5,073
man-years; time in the training pipeline consumes 1,785 man-years;
travel time (which averages 10 duty days per member) consumes 406 man-
years; reconstitution consumes 406 man-years; and investment from two
Air Force consumes 69 man-years.
In addition, in-lieu-of tasks remove our airmen from their assigned
AEF rotation cycle, which in effect requires them to exceed the
rotation policy as defined in OSD Force Deployment Rules for Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) (USD P&R memo
dated 30 Jul 04 and OSD Memo, ``Utilization of Total Force,'' dated 19
Jan 07). Ultimately, some Active Duty airmen are exceeding the 1:2
deployment-to-dwell ratio, while some Reserve component airmen have
exceeded the 1:5 mobilization-to-dwell ratio.
In-lieu-of tasks exacerbate an already high personnel tempo for
many career fields, and are driving down dwell time ratios toward 1:1.
Career fields primarily impacted by low dwell time ratios are security
forces, transportation, air traffic controllers, civil engineering, and
explosive ordinance disposal which comprise the majority of in-lieu-of
forces.
9. Senator Akaka. Admiral Walsh and General McNabb, what are the
observed and predicted impacts of this in-lieu-of requirement on Navy
and Air Force readiness?
Admiral Walsh. To date, Navy continues to meet all validated
missions at sea and ashore and stands ready to respond to security and
humanitarian contingencies, while continuing its present support to the
global war on terror. Although the requirements span a broad spectrum
of capabilities, they largely focus on Low Supply/High Demand (LS/HD)
skill sets that are mostly expeditionary in nature. Communities that
possess those LS/HD skill sets include: SEABEEs, Navy Coastal Warfare
units, Explosive Ordnance Detachments, Intelligence, Maritime Security,
Cargo Handling, Corpsmen with field qualifications, and Supply Officers
with contracting expertise. While Navy has been able to meet combatant
command demand to date, further demand in LS/HD capabilities may
challenge established readiness and/or personnel tempo redlines.
General McNabb. The Air Force has been in continuous combat for the
last 17+ years and it has resulted in a more combat-experienced force
than ever before. Although more frequent deployments along with
extensive, combat-focused training has produced more combat-experienced
airmen, these taskings have impacted our Operations Tempo, Personnel
Tempo, Training, and Deploy-to-Dwell ratios. The AEF construct was
designed to sustain a 12-month surge, however, the global war on terror
has presented a constant surge since late 2001. All of these factors
have stressed some skills at or near deploy:dwell ratios of 1:1 and
many others are nearing 1:2. Consequently, the Air Force is unable to
support additional taskings in some areas (Intel, Security Forces,
Explosive Ordinance Disposal, Engineering, etc). Currently over 49
percent of airmen are deployed in excess of the AEF construct of 120
days every 20 months, and we are implementing a plan to more accurately
reflect our current surge environment. While anecdotal evidence
suggests that in-lieu-of, along with other factors (global war on
terror, Stop Loss, downsizing, emerging missions, etc.), may have had
an impact on retention, it is very difficult to accurately quantify and
isolate in-lieu-of mission support's impact given the dynamic
environment and the lack of exit survey data.
aircraft readiness
10. Senator Akaka. Admiral Walsh, the most recent Quarterly
Readiness Report to Congress indicates that the Navy's deployed
aircraft readiness rates have been steadily just below goals for
several quarters. What is the principal problem for the Navy in meeting
its deployed aircraft readiness goals and what are you doing to get
back above goal?
Admiral Walsh. Several years ago, the Navy changed its metrics for
tracking aircraft readiness. The previous goals of Full Mission Capable
(FMC) and Mission Capable (MC) rates, which remain the readiness
criteria reported to Congress, do not vary over the course of a
deployment cycle, and might drive a squadron commander to buy material
readiness that is not needed for that phase of the deployment cycle.
The Navy's FRP now tracks aircraft readiness by the Ready for
Tasking (RFT) metric, which has the goal of ``the right readiness at
the right time at the right cost.'' RFT measures readiness at the
squadron and system level and enables Navy leadership to manage that
readiness to achieve the appropriate level of readiness for each given
phase within the FRP cycle. RFT supports cost-wise readiness and
incentivizes commanders to achieve the appropriate amount of material
readiness at each phase of the FRP.
Managing to this new metric, the Navy has met all of its tasking
with the appropriate level of readiness.
11. Senator Akaka. Admiral Walsh, in your prepared statement you
say that the Navy's fiscal year 2009 request funds 97 percent of your
ship maintenance needs. However, you also say that the Navy is short an
additional $10.9 billion to meet its reset requirements, including ship
and aircraft depot repair. Of the total ship and aviation depot
maintenance requirement, annual and reset, what percentage is funded by
the fiscal year 2009 base request and what are the readiness
consequences of this shortfall?
Admiral Walsh. The fiscal year 2009 annual baseline Ship and Air
Depot Maintenance requirement is $5,451 million. The budgeted fiscal
year 2009 baseline request is $5,268 million, which funds 97 percent of
the annual baseline requirement.
Included in the fiscal year 2009 Ship Depot Maintenance baseline
shortfall is funding for 31 surface ship availabilities and 1 submarine
availability. Without this funding the surface ships will experience
degraded material condition, and the submarine will not be able to
deploy. The fiscal year 2009 baseline request includes the full
Continuous Maintenance and Emergent Restricted/Technical Availability
funding the Navy needs to maintain adequate material condition to meet
Fleet requirements.
The fiscal year 2009 Aviation Depot Maintenance funding request
provides deployed squadrons with 100 percent of their primary
authorized aircraft, while 82 percent of nondeployed squadrons are
projected to possess the CNO's goal of 90 percent of their primary
authorized aircraft.
Of the Navy's $10.9 billion reset requirement, $2.6 billion is for
Operations and Maintenance, Navy, for ship, air, and other maintenance.
$0.7 billion of this $2.6 billion is requested in the fiscal year 2008
supplemental. The $2.6 billion requirement includes funds necessary for
ongoing global war on terror operations and the funds necessary to
restore the required level of combat capability to meet the Global
Naval Force Presence Policy upon the cessation of global war on terror
operations.
12. Senator Akaka. Admiral Walsh, does the additional $120 million
for ship maintenance identified as an unfunded priority by the Chief of
Naval Operations fully fund the Navy's annual and reset requirements?
Admiral Walsh. The $120 million for ship maintenance identified as
an unfunded priority fully funds the Navy's annual baseline fiscal year
2009 requirement but it does not fund global war on terror related or
reset requirements.
mission requirements
13. Senator Akaka. General McNabb, this year's budget request
proposes an Air Force end strength of 316,600 airmen; down more than
43,000 airmen from fiscal year 2005. A recent Air Force study says that
86 combat wings require between 330,000 and 335,000 Active airmen, and
this year's Air Force unfunded priority list includes $385 million
necessary to add back that drawdown to meet mission requirements. In
what mission areas are you accepting greater risk with only 316,600
airmen?
General McNabb. The Air Force's Required Force--``what's needed per
the 2006 QDR''--is 86 modern Combat Wings with 330,000 Active Duty
airmen in fiscal year 2009 growing to 335,000 by fiscal year 2015.
However, without additional resources, the Air Force has no choice but
to program a portfolio that increases risk in CSAR-X, Intelligence,
Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR), KC-X, and Battlefield Airmen
capabilities and missions.
Risks and thus the requested growth is primarily associated with
new or emerging missions. Without the growth and associated budget and
end strength for emerging mission sets, we have little to no capacity
to internally offset new mission demands with a lean Air Force that has
already sustained significant reductions, primarily in support and
logistical functions. Necessary growth is focused on operating,
maintaining, and supporting an 86 Combat Wing force as envisioned in
the last QDR and combatant command requirements today and for tomorrow.
In order to provide Global Vigilance, Global Reach, Global Power,
Space, Cyber, and Agile Combat Support capabilities that will dominate
in all spectrums of the battle space, the Air Force seeks manpower for
an increase in Predator (MQ-1/9) and Global Hawk capability, together
with the Distributed Common Ground System capability required for full
intelligence exploitation. The transformation of the Army into brigade
combat teams and their associated programmed end strength growth of
65,000 drives a requirement for the Air Force to provide additional
combat weather and Tactical Air Control Party capability imbedded
within a Battlefield Airman Wing. Long-overdue purchases of vital
future systems such as CSAR-X, KC-X Tanker, and latest-generation
strike aircraft, along with the operations and maintenance capability
to employ them, demand investment in human capital as well. Total Force
Initiatives, creating synergies through integrated, collaborative
relationships established between Regular and Air Reserve component
forces, require some investment as they transform and prepare our force
for demanding missions.
14. Senator Akaka. General McNabb, what is the Air Force doing to
mitigate this shortfall and reduce the stress and workload on its
people?
General McNabb. There are two dynamics involved in the manpower end
strength shortfalls. One dynamic involves transitioning the force to a
much leaner and very different Air Force through the targeted
reductions of the past several years, which significantly impact
support and logistical manpower line. The second dynamic involves
properly resourcing an Air Force to meet emerging missions that
combatant commanders and our Nation require.
To stay within budget, yet provide vital dollars to recapitalize
the fleet, we have undertaken an array of transformational approaches
that help mitigate end strength shortfalls. The Air Force continues to
implement functional reengineering, reachback, warfighting
headquarters, and continuous process improvement strategies that
transform our Service to meet present and future missions. Our
functional communities and major commands are using a combination of
these techniques to fundamentally reshape the way in which they perform
the mission. Simultaneous with recent reductions efforts, Air Force
senior leaders launched transformational organizational efforts to
reduce Major Command (MAJCOM) headquarters functional footprints and
centralize management support for activities previously spread across
the Service. In addition, future Air Force base operating support
management in MAJCOMs is increasingly supported by reach back in FOAs;
MAJCOMs remain responsible for operational readiness of all assigned
units.
Air Force Smart Operations 21 activities, being systematically led
and implemented across the Service, employ continuous process
improvement techniques and encourages a new way of thinking. This
strategy is already producing process efficiencies, enhanced
productivity, and measurably improved support to the warfighter.
As for the dynamic caused by evolving and emerging missions,
combatant commands already demand more capability, such as that
congruent with growing our force to an 86 combat wing strength, than
our force structure can reasonably sustain without the added resources,
both ``iron'' and people. Commander demands for more ISR, more cyber,
more support for Army missions and more irregular warfare compel us to
stretch existing systems and people to the limits. With the reductions
already introduced to the force elsewhere, mitigated by deliberate
actions described earlier, there is no capability to offset without
incurring serious impacts and risk to other ongoing missions. The only
way to meet these ever increasing demands and create the force to meet
an uncertain future is to both recapitalize the fleet and provide the
human capital to meet the missions. Proper top-line resourcing will
ensure our Air Force can continue to fly, fight, and win for our Nation
in the air, space, and cyberspace.
15. Senator Akaka. General McNabb, in your prepared statement you
acknowledge that the Air Force fell 7 percent below its enlisted
retention goal for fiscal year 2007. Does this shortfall have a greater
impact on particular or critical enlisted skills and what are the
specific readiness implications?
General McNabb. Ending fiscal year 2007 at 7 percent below
retention goal did not present itself as a problem with regards to
strength because the Air Force is already in a downsizing phase.
However, the Air Force did lose more enlisted airmen than desired in
Zones B (6 to 10 years of service) and C (10 to 14 years of service) as
a byproduct of slightly downward trends in retention. Critical skills
did not contribute more to this phenomenon than did non-critical
skills.
In terms of readiness implications, the Air Force has been in
continuous combat for the last 17 years and it has resulted in a more
combat-experienced force than ever before. Although more frequent
deployments combined with extensive, combat-focused training has
produced more combat-experienced airmen, these taskings have impacted
our Operations Tempo, Personnel Tempo, Training, and Deploy to Dwell
ratios. The AEF construct was designed to sustain a 12-month surge,
however, the global war on terror has presented a constant surge since
late 2001. All of these factors have stressed some skills at or near
deploy to dwell ratios of 1:1 and many others are nearing 1:2.
Consequently, the Air Force is unable to support additional taskings in
some areas (Intel, Security Forces, Explosive Ordinance Disposal,
Engineering, etc.) and currently, over 44 percent of airmen are
deployed in excess of the AEF construct of 120 days every 20 months.
In a normal scenario, the retention we experienced in fiscal year
2007 would create some concern. However, since the Air Force Active
Duty strength is programmed to drop from 334,200 in fiscal year 2007 to
328,600 in fiscal year 2008 and 316,600 in fiscal year 2009, the
retention trend is not as disturbing. Further, our fiscal year 2009
budget submission includes an increase in the Selective Reenlistment
Bonus (SRB) of $61.4 million which will allow us to target retention
incentives where most needed in the enlisted force.
retention
16. Senator Akaka. General McNabb, how has the Air Force responded
to this shortfall and what are the projections for enlisted retention
for fiscal year 2008?
General McNabb. The Air Force has secured an additional $61.4
million in SRB initial-pay funding for fiscal year 2009. Retention
trends by zone and overall have been and are projected to remain level
in fiscal year 2008. However, since retention trends are short of our
fiscal year 2008 goal, we're highlighting the need for increased SRB
funding projections for fiscal year 2009.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Thune
body armor
17. Senator Thune. General Cody, I have a question about the
purchase of the next generation of body armor for the Army. I have been
briefed that the Army is in the process of soliciting vendors for the
next generation of personal armor known as X Small Arms Protective
Insert (XSAPI) offering better protection than the current Enhanced
SAPI. The Army has the funds to procure 966,000 sets of the new armor,
the full requirement, which it plans to do in fiscal year 2008. Please
provide me the status and timelines for this acquisition.
General Cody. The Army posted a solicitation for the next
generation of body armor on May 27, 2007. The original closing date of
the solicitation was June 25, 2007. However, on June 6, 2007, the Army
agreed to extend the solicitation to allow flexible body armor systems
to compete and to conduct testing of Preliminary Design Models (PDMs)
at the Aberdeen Test Center with Director, Test and Evaluation
oversight. Multiple vendors requested extensions in order to build the
required PDMs, without disrupting Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert
(ESAPI) deliveries to deploying soldiers.
The next generation body armor solicitation subsequently closed on
February 7, 2008, and the source selection process is ongoing. The Army
expects to award the contract in August 2008. The first deliveries of
next generation ballistic plates will begin third quarter 2009. The
Army requested funding in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental for 270,000
sets of next generation ballistic plates for deployed and deploying
soldiers. Additionally, the Army submitted a budget request in the
fiscal year 2009 supplemental to continue the production of next
generation ballistic plates contingent upon validation of the
capability requirement.
18. Senator Thune. General Cody, will the timeline for the Army's
procurement of XSAPI in any way cause a temporary lapse in the ready
availability of body armor to soldiers in the field?
General Cody. The timeline for the Army's procurement of XSAPI will
have no effect on the availability of body armor to deployed soldiers.
The ESAPI worn with the Outer Tactical Vest or Improved Outer Tactical
Vest is in use with deployed soldiers and provides protection against
the current threat. The Army completed the procurement of the
acquisition objective of 966,000 sets of ESAPI and the Defense
Logistics Agency has contracts in place to sustain ESAPI.
19. Senator Thune. General Magnus, this committee recently received
testimony from the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway,
about his decision to halt the procurement of the new generation
Modular Tactical Vest (MTV), due to complaints from marines about its
weight and restrictiveness. Will this decision affect the readiness of
Marine Corps forces or prevent them from having proper body armor?
General Magnus. The Marine Corps is procuring sufficient quantities
of MTVs to outfit marines deployed in support of OIF and OEF. The
Marine Corps will complete the purchase of the last 24,000 vests in
order to ensure that there are enough vests to rotate through units
deploying in and out of theater.
With this initial capability fielded to all deployed forces we are
now using feedback from our marines and sailors to refine the vest into
a system that can further enhance the performance and safety of the
warfighter.
20. Senator Thune. General Magnus, could you please describe the
nature of the concerns with the existing design for the MTV, and your
understanding of whether the Marine Corps intends to redesign the vest,
proceed with this current design, or revert to a vest design similar to
the Army's?
General Magnus. The MTV was developed in response to an urgent need
in theater for increased coverage based on data derived from wound
analysis as well as other desired attributes that include an emergency
quick release, multiple medical access points, and improved weight
distribution. The MTV was chosen as a result of a deliberate
procurement process that ensured warfighter participation and ultimate
acceptance. The MTV was planned to be an interim step toward a longer-
term ballistic vest solution. During the third quarter fiscal year 2008
we have scheduled a series of focus groups with our returning units who
operated in OIF with the MTV. We will collect focus group input in
order to determine the extent of a redesigned vest. Thus far, the
majority of feedback we have received relates to the weight of the
vest. With the current design of the MTV, we are able to mitigate a
portion of this weight through weight distribution using the
cummerbund. This takes the weight directly off of the shoulders and
distributes it throughout the torso. We continue to challenge industry
to develop a lighter solution for the current level of ballistic
protection.
21. Senator Thune. General Magnus, will this pause in procurement
jeopardize, in any way, your requirement to fully outfit future
deploying forces with body armor?
General Magnus. The recent pause in procurement allows the
collection of data that will aid in determining the extent of redesign
to the MTV; this will not affect our ability to outfit future
deployments. The Marine Corps is procuring sufficient quantities of
MTVs to fully outfit current and planned force requirements in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
fiscal year 2009 unfunded requirements list for the military services
22. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, each Service Chief recently provided Congress with a
list of unfunded priorities to be considered in review of the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2009. Please designate from
that list the items that will affect current unit readiness and a
description how that item will have a direct impact on the readiness of
your Service.
General Cody. The Army's most critical unfunded requirements (UFRs)
for fiscal year 2009 focus on Army National Guard (ARNG) equipment
shortages for dual-use items. This UFR list was approximately $3.94
billion.
The original ARNG equipment UFR list has been modified by the Army
to account for substitutions for seven unexecutable lines on the
original list. The result is a slight decrease in the UFR, which is now
identified to be $3.93 billion.
All lines on the current UFR list will have a positive impact on
ARNG readiness. The acquisition of this equipment will enable the ARNG
to train to a higher level of proficiency to meet both State and
Federal missions while simultaneously supporting current overseas
missions. The most critical of the dual-use items are trucks (HMMWVs
and HEMTTs). The receipt of trucks will have an immediate impact on
readiness and mission effectiveness.
General Magnus. The attached spreadsheet provides a list of items
that will impact Marine Corps readiness.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Admiral Walsh. Items that will impact current unit readiness are:
Item #1 - Critical Maritime Patrol Improvements $548.3 million
(recently refined to $585.2 million) - Funds required to
address critical deficit of P-3C aircraft resulting from recent
Red Stripe of 39 airframes.
Item #9 - Ship Maintenance $120 million - Funds required
maintenance in fiscal year 2009 for 31 surface ship
availabilities and 1 submarine availability. Without this
funding the surface ships will have degraded material
condition, and the submarine will not be able to deploy.
Item #18 - Weapons Enhancements $181.8 million - Funds
required for enhancements to include maintenance of in-service
weapons, and recertification of 105 backlogged surface launched
missiles to decrease the gap in the current inventory.
General McNabb. The Air Force provides the following spreadsheet
with unfunded requirements and their impact on Air Force readiness. The
spreadsheet is not in priority order.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
23. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, in your opinion, what items from that unfunded list are
most critical to unit readiness?
General Cody. All lines on the current unfunded requirements list
will have a positive impact on ARNG readiness. The acquisition of this
equipment will enable the ARNG to train to a higher level of
proficiency to meet both State and Federal missions while
simultaneously supporting current overseas missions. The most critical
of the dual-use items are trucks (HMMWVs and HEMTTs). The ARNG's on-
hand quantity of trucks is at a critical all time low. The receipt of
trucks will have an immediate impact on readiness and mission
effectiveness.
General Magnus. The 10 Blount Island construction projects provided
in question 22 are most critical to Marine Corps readiness. If these
projects are not authorized, readiness will suffer significantly in the
near future during the retrograde process.
Admiral Walsh. Items that are critical to current unit readiness
are:
Item #1 - Critical Maritime Patrol Improvements (P-3)
Item #9 - Ship Maintenance,
Item #18 - Tomahawk Missiles
General McNabb. The Air Force provides the following spreadsheets
with the most critical unfunded requirements, not in priority order, as
they pertain to unit readiness.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
defense readiness reporting system
24. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, the current system for reporting unit readiness, known
as GSORTS, is in the process of being updated to be able to assess with
a greater degree of efficiency whether military forces are prepared to
conduct assigned or emergency missions. In June 2002, DOD issued a
directive establishing a new DRRS. Since then, DOD and the Services
have struggled to fully implement the system and each Service has a
different implementation plan. Please provide me a status within your
Service of the use of DRRS.
General Cody. The Army supports DRRS, however, rather than
implement the DRRS software system currently under development by OSD,
the Army chose to refine and improve its existing reporting system into
an advanced web-enabled reporting system designed to meet the reporting
requirements outlined in DOD Directive 7730.65 DRRS. This system is
called DRRS-Army. The development and implementation of the Army's new
system was accomplished through internal program management and
funding. DRRS-Army ensures the Army preserves the capability to
effectively measure and manage unique Army readiness equities.
This readiness reporting system is an indispensible tool in the
Army's command management system and it was considered critically
important to the complete visibility and management of Army
organizations and units. This includes all the measured resource areas
such as: personnel, equipment, maintenance and training as mandated by
the Joint Staff, as well as many unique Army metrics measured in the
Army's readiness reporting system. Moreover, the Army has incorporated
and embraced the concept of reporting METs as outlined in DOD Directive
7730.65. Army units report their resource metrics based on requirements
outlined in their MTOE as well as their METs into the Army readiness
reporting system DRRS-A. That information is shared with DRRS. To
assist with integration, the Army has established a functional
management team and a program management office for the express purpose
of working with the OSD DRRS.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps supports the development and
implementation of DRRS, but has not accepted it as the single readiness
reporting system of record. The GSORTS is still the readiness reporting
system of record for the Joint Staff and the Services, because of the
present limitations of DRRS. DRRS has not yet met its requirements to
provide:
(1) A functional and tested input tool that allows units to
input SORTS information directly into DRRS to prevent dual
reporting in GSORTS and DRRS
(2) Business tools for DRRS data analysis that integrates
unit readiness information for both resources and METs
(3) Aggregated DRRS readiness data and easy access to
archived readiness information which is retrievable (real-time)
via the business tools identified above
(4) Near real-time information data feeds from Service
authoritative data sources that have been tested and validated
A Marine Corps Task List and procedures for regular reviews and
update of this list have been developed. Approved Mission Essential
Task Lists (METLs) were loaded in DRRS for most Marine Corps units and
workshops are planned for remaining unit METL development.
Some Marine units and installations, per their Marine Force
(MARFOR) Commanders' direction, are assessing their METs in DRRS to
comply with combatant commanders' requests. These units are serving as
a useful test bed for DRRS reporting. However, those commanders are
dual reporting their readiness via GSORTS and DRRS. To help facilitate
training and education for units that are reporting their METs in DRRS,
the DRRS Implementation Office has helped the Services fund DRRS
Specialist personnel located at the Operating Forces headquarters to
conduct this training and education.
HQMC (POR) published DRRS implementation responsibility guidance in
MARADMIN 390/07 to set the conditions for the implementation of DRRS.
Subsequently, in February 2008, HQMC published amplifying guidance in
an Interim DRRS Policy & Procedures for Marine Corps Units and
Installations document which will be the basis for a Marine Corps Order
on DRRS once it is accepted as the single readiness reporting system of
record.
The Marine Corps is in compliance with OSD Implementation Guidance
for DRRS, with one exception. The USMC has not required units to report
in DRRS, because it would impose a dual reporting requirement (GSORTS/
DRRS). The DRRS Implementation Office (DIO) has stated that it is a
Service decision when the Services will switch readiness reporting to
DRRS. During the interim, the Marine Corps works closely with the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness (DUSD(R)) DIO, the
Joint Staff (J-39), and other Services to develop the remaining
functionality, tools, and policy to implement DRRS as the single
readiness reporting system of record.
Admiral Walsh. Under the direction of United States Fleet Forces,
Navy intends to formally implement its DRRS-Navy (DRRS-N) this calendar
year. The to-do list contains two software builds, hardware
installations that will continue into fiscal year 2009, and policy
documentation. DRRS-N achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in
the fall of 2006 and is in operation at more than 65 shore
installations and onboard more than 35 Fleet units.
In order to preclude dual reporting, DRRS-N has the ability to
generate and transmit legacy resource-based SORTS reports to both the
DRRS and the GSORTS systems. Further, warfighting enterprises and
capability portfolio managers are beginning to explore force
generation, force sourcing, adaptive planning, and strategic resourcing
uses for the authoritative data contained within this system and the
larger Navy Readiness Reporting Enterprise portfolio of applications.
This transformation will continue for several more years but is
progressing as planned.
General McNabb. The Air Force is implementing DRRS in accordance
with published OSD guidance. Currently, some Air Force units report
monthly in both DRRS and SORTS. The Air Force implementation plan for
DRRS includes a user interface being developed by the OSD. Air Force
users of DRRS will be able to input both their SORTS and DRRS
information through the OSD provided tool once it has been fully tested
and fielded. The Air Force is providing training to our units to
facilitate the cultural change to a capabilities-based reporting
system.
25. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, if your Service is not using DRRS, please explain why.
General Cody. The Army supports DRRS, however, the Army chose to
refine and improve its existing reporting system into an advanced web-
enabled reporting system called DRRS-Army (DRRS-A). The development and
implementation of the Army's new system was accomplished through
internal program management and funding. Using DRRS-A ensures the Army
preserves the capability to effectively measure and manage unique Army
readiness equities.
General Magnus. The position of the Commandant of the Marine Corps
is that: ``The Marine Corps supports the development and implementation
of DRRS, but will not direct units to report (MET assessments) in DRRS
until it meets its stated requirements and is accepted as the single
readiness reporting system of record.''
In spite of this, some Marine units and installations, per their
Marine Force Commanders' direction, are assessing their METs in DRRS to
comply with combatant commanders' requests. These units are serving as
a useful test bed for DRRS reporting. However, those commanders are
dual reporting their readiness via GSORTS and DRRS.
DRRS provides unit and installation commanders with the ability to
assess their METs and missions. However, DRRS has not yet met its
requirements to provide:
(1) A functional and tested input tool that allows units to
input SORTS information directly into DRRS to prevent dual
reporting in GSORTS and DRRS
(2) Business tools for DRRS data analysis that integrates
unit readiness information for both resources and METs
(3) Aggregated DRRS readiness data and easy access to
archived readiness information which is retrievable (real-time)
via the business tools identified above
(4) Near real-time information data feeds from Service
authoritative data sources that have been tested and validated
The input tool for SORTS reporting is under development but is not
ready for full functionality testing and validation. A final, detailed,
USMC/DIO test plan has not been agreed upon. Data from some Marine
Corps authoritative data sources (ADSs) are populating DRRS, but
automatic, ``near-real time'' data feeds have not been developed. ADS
inputs to DRRS require accuracy validation and testing prior to Service
acceptance. Formal System Interface Agreements between the Marine Corps
and OSD/DIO have not been signed and
Data analysis tools and access to aggregated, historical DRRS data
are necessary to respond to requests for readiness information from
Marine Corps leadership, Joint Staff, OSD, and congressional inquiries.
These DRRS data analysis business support tools are still being
acquired and developed by DIO.
HQMC (POR) published DRRS implementation responsibility guidance in
Maradmin 390/07 to set the conditions for the implementation of DRRS.
Subsequently, in February 2008, HQMC published amplifying guidance in
an Interim DRRS Policy & Procedures for Marine Corps Units and
Installations document which will be the basis for a Marine Corps Order
on DRRS once it is accepted as the single readiness reporting system of
record.
Admiral Walsh. Not applicable. Navy is transforming its readiness
reporting to a resource-informed, capability-based reporting system
aligned to the OSD's DRRS.
General McNabb. The Air Force is implementing DRRS in accordance
with published OSD guidance.
26. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, in your opinion, when do you believe DRRS will achieve
full operational capability in your Service?
General Cody. The DRRS is currently under development. The Army's
readiness reporting system DRRS-A achieved full operational capability
in October 2006. The Army established DRRS-A to support reporting
requirements for OSD, the Chairman's Readiness System and unique Army
information requirements.
General Magnus. Spiral development of the DRRS does not lend itself
to a natural developmental progression timeframe and setting specific
dates for full operational capability is difficult. To date, full
operational capability (FOC) for DRRS is yet to be defined. The OSD's
DIO and/or the J39 can best predict a FOC date. Progress on, and
successful development of DRRS ought to be event driven. That said, the
Marine Corps supports the implementation of DRRS and we work closely
with the DIO and the Joint Staff (J-39) to develop the functionality,
tools, and policy to fully implement DRRS. We will accept it once it
fully meets its stated requirements and is accepted as the DOD's single
readiness reporting system of record. Testing, validations, and system
certifications are necessary before that happens.
Admiral Walsh. Navy, working in conjunction with OSD and the Joint
Staff, is awaiting OSD FOC definition before fully defining Navy FOC to
ensure that the Navy DRRS based system maintains alignment with the
larger DRRS effort. DRRS-N is expected to replace SORTS by mid-fiscal
year 2009.
General McNabb. The OSD, DIO is implementing DRRS throughout the
Department. OSD declared FOC for the MET Module in October 2007.
Continuous and additional capability will be fielded as those
capabilities come online.
27. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, if your Service currently has difficulties implementing
DRRS, please provide details and a description of the corrective
measures.
General Cody. Currently DRRS system is in development has not
achieved its stated functional or operational capabilities. DRRS is
currently not capable of providing visibility necessary for the Army to
accomplish its Title 10 mission to train, equip, and resource the Army.
The Army retained this capability to view and assess all registered
operational Army forces in the DRRS-Army Readiness Reporting System.
The Army does not anticipate significant corrective action required as
the Army is not dependant on DRRS to fulfill its Title 10 mission.
The Army is actively engaged with the Joint Staff and the DIO, as
well as the recently established three-star level DRRS Executive
Committee (DEXCOM) governance process. The DEXCOM governance process
will help prioritize and integrate policy, processes, and IT systems
requirements for DRRS.
General Magnus. The difficulty implementing DRRS is that it is
still a system in development. There are some significant system
development issues, yet to be resolved, that preclude Marine Corps
acceptance of DRRS as the single readiness reporting system of record.
DRRS has not yet met its requirements to provide:
(1) A functional and tested input tool that allows units to
input SORTS information directly into DRRS to prevent dual
reporting in GSORTS and DRRS
(2) Business tools for DRRS data analysis that integrates
unit readiness information for both resources and METs
(3) Aggregated DRRS readiness data and easy access to
archived readiness information which is retrievable (real-time)
via the business tools identified above
(4) Near real-time information data feeds from Service ADSs
that have been tested and validated
The input tool for SORTS reporting is under development but is not
ready for full functionality testing and validation. A final, detailed,
USMC/DIO test plan has not been agreed upon. Data from some Marine
Corps ADSs are populating DRRS, but automatic, ``near-real time'' data
feeds have not been developed. ADS inputs to DRRS require accuracy
validation and testing prior to Service acceptance. Formal System
Interface Agreements between the Marine Corps and OSD/DIO have not been
signed and are still being worked.
Data analysis tools and access to aggregated, historical DRRS data
are necessary to respond to requests for readiness information from
USMC leadership, Joint Staff, OSD, and congressional inquiries. These
DRRS data analysis business support tools are still being acquired/
developed by the DIO.
The Marine Corps has been actively engaged with the Joint Staff,
and the DIO, as well as an active participant in the various forums of
the recently established 3-star level DRRS Executive Committee (DEXCOM)
governance process. The DEXCOM was established (Dec 07) to oversee and
expedite the full implementation of DRRS. The DEXCOM governance
process, once finalized, will help prioritize and integrate policy,
processes, and IT systems requirements for DRRS.
Admiral Walsh. Navy is not experiencing any specific difficulties
implementing its version of the capabilities-based DRRS. The most
significant remaining challenges to implementation surround publishing
policy guidance at all levels and training our commanders and their
staffs on the system. Navy intends to implement DRRS-N fleet-wide this
calendar year.
General McNabb. DRRS implementation continues with no significant
problems.
marine corps amphibious operations
28. Senator Thune. General Magnus, the Marine Corps' role in Iraq
and Afghanistan has necessarily drawn away from the ability to train
and develop in expeditionary warfare. How do you propose to rebuild
this fundamental expertise throughout the ranks of the Corps in order
to retain the full skills and capabilities required to project power
ashore from the sea?
General Magnus. In order to fully train to the requirements of
expeditionary warfare, the Marine Corps will have to increase dwell
time for combat units. Our end strength growth to 202,000 marines is
based on three main goals:
1. Creation of three balanced MEFs capable of responding
equally to combatant commander requirements
2. Reduction of the strain on individual marines and their
families, and prevention of a decrease in readiness
3. Reduction of strain on the institution by strengthening
our capacity to train to the range of skills necessary for
combined-arms maneuver, amphibious, mountain, and jungle
operations
Goal number 3 will allow us to maintain the skills required for the
full range of military operations while allowing us to continue to
train to those skills currently required in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Marine Corps' Professional Military Education System maintains
the skills necessary for expeditionary warfare through the various
formal schools. For instance, all new second lieutenants participate in
a 3-day Amphibious Familiarization Exercise aboard naval shipping. The
career-level school for Marine Captains, Expeditionary Warfare School
(EWS), provides 176 hours of instruction, practical application, and
shipboard instruction on amphibious operations. Students are taught to
employ amphibious and Maritime Preposition Force doctrine to examine
the deployment and employment of a Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF)
in an expeditionary environment. Additionally, our Command and Staff
College (CSC) provides nearly 300 hours of instruction in the
``Warfighting from the Sea'' section of the curriculum. Students learn
to integrate the unique amphibious and expeditionary warfighting
capabilities of the MAGTF into a larger joint environment.
Lastly, we are developing a standards-based MAGTF Exercise program
to maintain proficiency in core warfighting functions. This program
will culminate in a MAGTF Combined Arms Exercise for, up to, brigade-
sized unit levels. It will provide a robust evaluation capability and
will support employment of combined arms maneuver, amphibious
operations, and maritime prepositioning operations in current and
future operational environments.
marine corps warfighting systems in combat
29. Senator Thune. General Magnus, the Marine Corps has fielded
numerous new weapon systems in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the MV-
22 aircraft, the MRAP vehicle, upgraded body armor, and counter-IED and
anti-sniper systems. What is your assessment of the impact that these
newly fielded weapon systems are having on reshaping the battlefield in
the war on terrorism?
General Magnus. From the beginning of the global war on terrorism,
through today, the threat to our forces has continued to develop and
change. The variety of newly fielded force protection equipment and
weapons systems has allowed us to aggressively match our training and
equipment to the changing threat, thereby enabling our continued
success.
Supporting marines in combat, the transformational tilt-rotor MV-22
Osprey has performed beyond expectations. As an example, a flight of
just two MV-22s can accomplish its assigned missions in half the time
it would take four CH-46s to carry out the same tasks. Additionally,
the Osprey's operational reach spans the entire range of the area of
operations assigned to Multi-National Force-West while flying a
majority of its mission profile outside the typical assault support
threat envelope. The V-22 is not merely the next step in helicopter
design, but a leap forward in vertical lift. The MV-22 can fly over or
around threats, thereby reducing the exposure to the enemy to minutes
instead of hours. Tilt-rotor technology has expanded the reach of the
operational commander to a theater-wide scale as it provides the range
and speed of a fixed wing aircraft with the flexibility of a
helicopter. The MV-22 is not merely a new aircraft but a critical
enabler for the future of Marine Air Ground Task Force operations.
The newly-fielded force protection systems, such as electronic
jammers and mechanical road clearing devices, have significantly
reduced the effectiveness of improvised explosive devices (IED).
Today's body armor, with integrated ESAPIs, has proven to save lives.
Today's generation of PPE is far more advanced than that of even 10
years ago. Not only does body armor protect against shrapnel from
indirect fire and IEDs, but also against small arms rounds, including
7.62 x 39mm, the AK-47 round.
The MRAP vehicle has also brought critical force protection
capability to the battlefield, providing commanders on the ground with
a highly survivable platform from which to conduct motorized operations
including route clearance and ground casualty evacuation. The MRAP,
operating in combination with other vehicle systems, enables commanders
to execute flexible and ever evolving counter insurgency tactics that
have been highly successful in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. MRAP
vehicle use in Afghanistan is limited due to the vehicle's weight and
that country's mountainous terrain. While the MRAP vehicle has proven
to be exceptionally successful in protecting troops conducting
motorized operations, it should be noted that its weight and size do
not make it an ideal platform for all environments or operations.
30. Senator Thune. General Magnus, what impact are heavier systems
and increased armor having on Marine Corps' mobility and
maneuverability?
General Magnus. As the Marine Corps continues to armor existing
vehicles and buy heavily armored vehicles, such as MRAP, there is a
trade-off between protection, payload, and performance. As we increase
protection through armoring, we risk losing some payload and/or
performance, thus decreasing mobility and maneuverability.
Sacrificing performance and payload for protection is a necessary
concession in places like Iraq where the MRAP has proven to save lives.
Much of Iraq's existing road infrastructure supports heavy vehicles
like the MRAP; unfortunately, they do not perform as well in off-road
situations. Further, their weight and size make them unsuitable for
alleyways and many unimproved surface roads and bridges. To mitigate
these tactical considerations, we have maintained an inventory of
uparmored HMMWVs (UAH); however the additional armor on UAH increases
their weight, degrades their service life, and increases maintenance
requirements. We are mitigating some of these impacts in the near-to-
mid-term by procuring a new family of HMMWVs, Expanded Capacity
Vehicles, which are better designed to carry armor and come with the
ability to add degrees of armor protection through armor kits, without
having to armor all vehicles.
In the future, the Marine Corps' light vehicle fleet, the family of
Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV), will be purpose-built with
scalable armor and a better capability to operate on and off-road while
under increased armor loads. The JLTV will be heavier, even when
unarmored, than HMMWVs and that concerns us due to increased weight's
impact on ship transportability. We will continue to conduct informed
design trades to ensure we field the best expeditionary vehicle
possible. In the medium category of vehicles, represented by the Marine
Personnel Carrier we are seeking a vehicle that gives us protection
flexibility while balancing performance requirements and
transportability constraints.
There is no question that our future vehicle fleet will be larger
and heavier but it is not growing unconstrained. The Marine Corps is at
its core a naval expeditionary force; we must view all combat
development efforts through an expeditionary lens ensuring we are light
enough to get to the fight quickly, but then have sufficient firepower
and force protection to complete the mission. We must retain our
ability to operate on and from amphibious shipping and must always
remember that there are more places in the world, with more challenging
terrain, than where we are now. Our vehicles must be designed to
support the requirements of the marine in the field.
31. Senator Thune. General Magnus, what is your assessment of the
effectiveness of the urgent needs process in balancing the need to
rapidly field new warfare systems with the need to validate
requirements and ensure safe and effective operation of these systems?
General Magnus. I believe that we are effectively balancing the
need to rapidly fill the critical operational requests of our deployed
marines with the necessity to validate requirements and ensure fielding
of safe and effective solutions. Today, this is done as rapidly as is
possible through our Urgent Universal Needs Statement (UNS) process.
The Marine Corps has already reduced the average time to process an
Urgent UNS from 142 days to roughly 83.2 days--a better than 40 percent
increase in efficiency. In conjunction with this efficiency increase,
the Urgent UNS process subjects each request to a full Doctrine,
Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel,
and Facilities review. This review is designed and has proven the
necessity to identify potential integration or safety issues, validate
the requirement, and ensure proposed solutions satisfy the need.
32. Senator Thune. General Magnus, what efforts are you considering
to improve upon this process in order to better support the warfighter?
General Magnus. We are meeting the critical operational needs of
our deployed marines and their commanders as rapidly as is possible
today; however, we are continuously working to meet these critical
needs even more quickly tomorrow. Two years ago, simultaneous to a
requested Naval Audit Service report, the Deputy Commandant for Combat
Development and Integration implemented a series of industry-best
practices, such as Lean Six Sigma, to evaluate and rapidly improve the
existing process. Our acquisition professionals at Marine Corps Systems
Command also recently began the Lean Six Sigma method to provide even
greater efficiency within the acquisitions process.
We have created and launched a collaborative on-line Virtual Urgent
UNS (vUUNS) tool to enable simultaneous efforts and to ensure complete
visibility of each submission across the Marine Corps. Based on
Microsoft SharePoint applications, this vUUNS system provides
additional visibility, transparency, accountability, and oversight
needed to better support forces. Our General Officers are personally
involved to provide oversight and expertise. Already the Marine Corps
has trimmed the average time to process an Urgent UNS from 142 days to
roughly 83.2 days--a better than 40 percent increase in efficiency--and
we are continuously improving the process.
In the near future, we will expand this Virtual Urgent UNS system
to include the Marine Requirements Oversight Council (MROC). The MROC
approves reprioritization of available resources or a request for
supplemental funding, and directs further action across Headquarters
Marine Corps. Additionally, we will publish a Marine Corps Bulletin to
provide updated procedural instructions to the operating forces. We
will continue to look for opportunities to speed the process all the
while ensuring it remains a flexible, but disciplined, process so that
the warfighter gets effective and quality solutions.
grow the force initiative for the marine corps
33. Senator Thune. General Magnus, the Marine Corps has embarked on
an ambitious plan to grow the number of assigned personnel by 27,000
marines by 2011 in order to provide some relief to the high rate of
deployment. When do you anticipate this initiative to grow the force
will have a direct impact on the Marine Corps' unit readiness ratings?
General Magnus. The impact on readiness ratings of growing the
Marine Corps Active component personnel end strength to 202,000 will be
gradual, but this initiative is a necessary step towards minimizing
stress on our force and meeting the demands of the long war. The
increase in structure will provide the capabilities for three balanced
MEFs ``each possessing significant ground, aviation, combat logistics,
and command and control capability'' available for global sourcing and
capable of executing full spectrum operations. Our end-strength growth
is designed to move the unit deployment-to-dwell time ratio, currently
near 1:1 for most units, to a more acceptable ratio of 1:2. This
increased dwell time will provide units with additional time to conduct
multi-capable training, and significantly reduce the strain on marines
and their families. Our increase in training capacity will be gradual,
as we stand up new units, add end strength, and grow our mid-grade
enlisted and officer leadership. These are all vital parts of our
growth that cannot be developed overnight.
Although growing our force structure presents challenges, we are
progressing well. Last year we stood up two infantry battalions and
added capacity to our combat engineer battalions and air naval gunfire
liaison companies. One of these infantry battalions is deployed in
support of OIF, and a second is scheduled to deploy in the next Iraq
rotation. This year, we will add a third infantry battalion, and
increase capacity in much needed skill sets including: intelligence,
communication, civil affairs, military police, unmanned aerial vehicle,
helicopter, air command and control, combat service support, and
explosive ordnance disposal. Additionally, our growth in fiscal year
2008 will add 200 marines to the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, and
nearly 500 to our Training and Education Command to manage the
increased accessions and training requirements.
34. Senator Thune. General Magnus, in your written statement, you
state that the goal for growing the force is to increase the dwell time
ratio from 1-year deployed/1-year off to 1-year deployed/2-years off.
Will you be able to achieve this goal assuming current operations tempo
in Iraq and Afghanistan?
General Magnus. The overall goal for the Marine Corps growth of the
force, also known as the 202k Plan, is to provide force structure to
build a balanced Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) capability for
the long war, while simultaneously balancing the current operational
demand in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Commandant's intent is to achieve a
1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio in the short-term in order to accomplish
more comprehensive training that will enable MAGTFs to achieve success
in all types of military operations. The initial growth has provided
some dwell relief for many units across the Marine Corps, and we
continue to strive for a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio as our growth
continues. However, even at the completion of our growth to 202k, the
Marine Corps will not be able to provide 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio
across the total force, assuming the current operations tempo in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Additionally, individual requirements to fill
transition and training team, non-standard units and joint individual
augment requirements continue to increase, with resultant stress.
fleet response plan
35. Senator Thune. Admiral Walsh, the Navy has been deploying its
ships and air wings under the construct of the FRP for several years
now, with the intent of generating greater availability from its forces
despite declining numbers. How would you assess the readiness of
today's forces under the FRP, as compared to the former deployment
cycle?
Admiral Walsh. On September 11, 2001, Navy could only muster 2 of
its 12 carriers for a surge response. Today, the FRP force generation
model and the readiness resources Congress provides combine to enable
Navy leadership to provide our National Command Authority with a robust
response capability. With 11 carriers, Navy now maintains, on average,
almost 3 deployed carrier strike groups (CSGs) plus an additional 3
CSGs in a 30-day readiness posture and a 7th CSG in a 90-day readiness
posture. The value of this force posture is not easily depicted in our
current resource-based readiness reporting system, however, it is
required by the Secretary of Defense approved Global Response Force
EXORD, which tasks Navy CSGs and ESGs to maintain a high state of
readiness for potential contingencies. In the FRP construct, increases
in the operational element of a unit's operations and maintenance cycle
coupled with our commitment to full operational spectrum training are
providing a force that is more disciplined, more focused, more ready,
more often.
36. Senator Thune. Admiral Walsh, what metrics are being employed
to measure the effectiveness of deploying forces under the FRP, and
what are the current trends with these metrics?
Admiral Walsh. Navy's current readiness reporting system is the
TRMS. TRMS addresses overall, resource area, and aggregate mission area
readiness, but not specific capabilities inside a mission area. Navy
units, including deploying units, are measured by both their available
resources and the proficiency they have achieved to certify their
progress through the various gradations of FRP readiness. Capability
measures have remained somewhat stable over the past 5 years, due in
large part to the continuing maturation of the FRP construct and
relative stability over this period of our available funding.
37. Senator Thune. Admiral Walsh, how will Navy air wings be able
to sustain their readiness under the FRP with the approaching shortfall
in strike fighter aircraft--a shortfall that may stretch from two to
four air wings at its peak?
Admiral Walsh. Peak Department of the Navy strike fighter shortfall
is projected at 125 aircraft in 2017 for the Navy and Marine Corps. The
Navy shortfall predicted by the F/A-18 inventory model is 69 aircraft
in 2017. The impact on air wings is manageable at this level, with
assumption of operational risk. The Navy will be able to fully field 7
CVWs at desired strength, or 10 CVWs at a reduced number of strike-
fighters per carrier.
Should the shortfall increase above current projections due to
delays in JSF, budget cuts reducing F18E/F procurement, or early Hornet
retirement, there will be a more significant negative impact on CVWs
with resultant smaller and less effective airwings.
38. Senator Thune. Admiral Walsh, do you anticipate amphibious
ships to be inducted into the FRP, and what demands will this place on
the Marine Corps to stay lock-stepped with Navy surge force planning?
Admiral Walsh. The amphibious ships have been incorporated into the
FRP, and the associated metrics were developed to reflect the
rotational presence and contingency demands for that force. As such,
there is a requirement for Expeditionary Strike Groups, which include
the Marine Expeditionary Units and amphibious lift capacity. The goal
is two Expeditionary Strike Groups on deployment at all times with a
third in surge as a rotational relief. The goal for amphibious lift is
21 amphibious ships capable of delivering forces and equipment in a
non-forcible entry manner. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense
approved Global Response Force EXORD tasks amphibious ships to be ready
to respond to worldwide contingencies.
air force reduction in personnel
39. Senator Thune. General McNabb, we've heard today that the Army
and the Marine Corps are adding personnel in order to meet emerging
threats. In contrast, the Air Force has chosen to cut end strength over
the past 2 years in order to pay for equipment modernization. This is
occurring at a time of extremely high operational tempo (OPTEMPO) for
the Air Force. I notice from a review of your latest quarterly
readiness report, many units are coded C-4 due to personnel shortages.
Is there a correlation?
General McNabb. There is not a correlation between C-4 units and
the Air Forces' end strength reduction. To maintain a balanced budget,
the Air Force had to make difficult choices in order to transform a
Cold War legacy to a modern force capable of meeting the challenges of
the 21st century. As the Air Force cuts end strength, we are
continually monitoring stressed career fields impacted by a continuing
high OPTEMPO. We actively track our stressed career fields and use this
data to focus on the specialties that require the most management
intervention. To help mitigate stress, the Air Force is looking at
skills retention bonuses, promotions, force shaping exemptions, and
process improvements. We diligently watch for those career fields whose
dwell ratios worsen and look for avenues to relieve this strain.
40. Senator Thune. General McNabb, what metrics does the Air Force
have in place to measure the effects on readiness from a reduction in
the end strength?
General McNabb. As the Air Force cuts end strength, we are
continually monitoring stressed career fields impacted by a continuing
high OPTEMPO. We actively track our stressed career fields and use this
data to focus on the specialties that require the most management
intervention. To help mitigate stress, the Air Force is looking at
skills retention bonuses, promotions, force shaping exemptions, and
process improvements. We diligently watch for those career fields whose
dwell ratios worsen and look for avenues to relieve this strain. We
have identified over 70 career fields that have low dwell times and
placed them on the ``Career Fields to Watch'' list. In fiscal year
2007, we continued to manage and shape the force. We met short-term end
strength targets while preserving the right airmen skills for the
future. In a time when fewer people are qualified to serve, the Air
Force continues to bring in the brightest candidates possible. Despite
the demands associated with increased OPTEMPO, we have not lowered our
recruiting standards. In fact, for the eighth consecutive year the Air
Force has exceeded recruiting goals.
41. Senator Thune. General McNabb, if you had to determine the most
pressing problem with Air Force current unit readiness today in terms
of people, training, or equipment, which would it be?
General McNabb. The Air Force has been in combat ops consistently
for 17+ years. It has taken a toll, and our overall readiness is in
decline across the board. The aging fleet of aircraft and spacecraft
combined with a high OPTEMPO (people) are the most pressing readiness
concerns for the Air Force. The Air Force flies and maintains the
oldest aircraft inventory in Air Force history. The average age of our
aircraft is over 24 years, and we're flying this equipment harder than
ever, accelerating the wear and tear on our inventory. Since Operation
Desert Storm the Air Force has flown 2.2 million hours per year on
average with an inventory that numbers 31 percent fewer aircraft that
are 42 percent older. We have witnessed an 11 percent decline in our
Fully Mission Capable rate, and this rate would have decreased even
further were it not for the superb work of our depots and our
maintainers. The high OPTEMPO has also affected our airmen and their
families. Some elements of our force are stressed with deployment to
dwell ratios at 1 to 1. Notably, we've seen declining reenlistment
rates among our mid-level NCOs. We are watching all indicators closely
and doing everything we can to maintain the quality of life for our
airmen and their families.
support for homeland security/homeland defense missions
42. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves
recently released a report that drew attention to the high operations
tempo and deployment schedule for our personnel in the Reserve
components. The Commission went on to question whether Guard units in
particular were adequately trained and ready for State and Homeland
defense missions. In your opinion, does the current readiness reporting
system accurately assess the readiness of Guard units to respond to
Homeland defense tasking and emergency requests by the Governors?
General Cody. Yes, the current readiness reporting system will
accommodate these assessments. Currently, the readiness reporting
system is designed to reflect the ability of a unit to execute the
mission for which the unit was designed and organized. Army units are
organized and designed to operate across the spectrum of military
operations--which would include operations in support of civil
authorities.
In 2006, the Army adapted its reporting system to capture METs
along with the mission or plans that those tasks were supporting (core
functions, directed mission, or contingency mission). This enables the
chain of command--both Federal and State--to provide specific mission
guidance for units to prepare to operate across the range of military
operations--including military support to civil authorities.
Finally, the Joint Capabilities Database (JCD) is being developed,
which illustrates the Adjutant General's assessment of his/her State's
joint force capabilities to respond to State missions. It highlights
the State's most critical functional capability shortfalls and provides
an indicator of any potential mobilization impacts. It is centered on
the Essential 10 Capabilities (command and control; transportation;
communication; aviation; logistics; security; engineering; medical;
maintenance; and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
explosive). It also reflects the States' internal assets that the Army
would not otherwise have visibility of, such as States' Departments of
Transportation and Public Safety.
General Magnus. This question is not applicable to the Marine Corps
because its Reserve component is not part of the National Guard.
Admiral Walsh. While Navy does not have a Guard element, we have
made significant strides in creating global visibility of our shore
establishment capabilities and have established tasks in support of
NORTHCOM for their Homeland defense role.
General McNabb. The current authoritative DOD Readiness Reporting
System, the GSORTS, does not presently assess Homeland defense missions
or emergency requests by the governors. The Services, likewise, do not
easily lend themselves to providing an accurate assessment of a
military units' ability to fight forest fires, or respond to a
hurricane in support of a domestic response for example either. These
legacy systems are designed to measure a unit's full wartime
requirement for which it was organized or designed.
However, the new DOD DRRS, with its MET building capability, will
be able to track multiple mission sets, which will include domestic
support type missions. As we transition to DRRS, NGB is working closely
with OSD-PR to ensure the functionality of our JCD is incorporated.
The JCD is a complimentary, unclassified, separate, and unique
system of evaluating every State's preparedness for National Guard
Domestic Operations (NGDO). This unclassified data can easily be shared
with our stakeholders who do not have access to classified DOD systems.
Whereas DRRS tracks assessments of METs, the JCD captures the status of
capabilities of the National Guard of every State and territory at two
levels: (1) to respond to the most frequent NGDO missions experienced
over the last 10 years, and (2) to respond to major catastrophic
incidents as articulated in the National Planning Scenarios. In all of
these events, we discovered that for these non-wartime requirements,
the Essential 10 Capabilities provide the common denominator best
suited to assess preparedness. DRRS will track our unit's ability to
perform any assigned tasks, and the JCD is tracking Essential 10
Capabilities across the States, regions, or nationally.
43. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, when making resource and funding decisions for the
procurement and distribution of equipment in the headquarters for each
of your Services, how do the Guard's additional State and Homeland
security missions affect the risk assessment and priority of delivery?
General Cody. The Army's resource and funding strategy for
equipment procurement and subsequent distribution is designed to
support the Army's Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model. ARFORGEN, which
is used for both Active and Reserve components, creates a framework for
the structured progression of increased unit readiness over time,
resulting in recurring periods of availability of trained, ready, and
cohesive units. For ARNG BCTs, as an example, ARFORGEN accounts for the
preparation and readiness of both operational deployments in support of
combatant commander requirements and for domestic response in support
of the Homeland defense/Homeland security (HLD/S) missions.
Army senior leaders examine the ability of ARNG units to accomplish
assigned missions at various ARFORGEN stages during monthly strategic
readiness updates where equipment levels of selected ARNG units are
measured in accordance with standard Army metrics. Because ARNG units
have dual responsibilities, additional senior leader review sessions
are held on a periodic basis that monitor overarching ARNG equipment
fill, with a special emphasis on the 342 dual use items that have been
identified by the ARNG as being of critical importance to the 10
critical HLD/S capability areas. The Army senior leadership also
conducts periodic reviews of equipment fills for selected States and
islands that are subject to hurricanes.
Army critical requirements for the next 24 months are reviewed
semi-annually during the Army Equipping and ReUse Conference (AERC) and
distributions are adjusted and synchronized to ensure that the most
critical requirements are addressed across all components. As a result
of the latest AERC conducted in January 2008, the Army was able to
schedule the delivery of about $17.5 billion of equipment for the ARNG
in the next 24 months. Final AERC decisions are approved by the Vice
Chief of Staff of the Army, typically within 30 days of the conference
and involve all senior leaders to include the Director of the ARNG and
OCAR.
The composition of the critical dual use list and the Army's
ability to adequately fund, procure, and distribute those items
continues to be a major focus area as the Army builds its 2010-2015
program. As part of that process, the ARNG, as well as the Army
Reserve, are active participants in the programming and distribution
process. The Army also works closely with the Joint Staff in
maintaining adequate visibility regarding equipment requirements and
resourcing.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps takes a holistic approach to
equipping its forces. When equipment is ready for delivery at the unit
level, the unit with the highest priority receives the equipment. All
factors including mission are evaluated to determine priorities. The
Marine Corps does not discriminate between Reserve and Active Forces
when determining equipment delivery.
Admiral Walsh. The Navy Reserve does not have a State or Homeland
security mission.
General McNabb. In the process of creating the Air Force's budget
submission we evaluate all requirements--Active Duty, Air National
Guard, and Air Force Reserve--from a total force perspective in order
to provide resources for existing and emerging requirements. Final
decisions are based on a careful review of capabilities provided by
funding these missions along with all other Air Force requirements.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
directed DOD to identify and plan for Homeland security requirements.
Once identified, these requirements will be prioritized within the
Total Air Force. Resources and risks will then be balanced based upon
inputs from the Regular Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force
Reserve. As part of the Total Force Integration process, Headquarters
Air Force is working hand-in-hand with the National Guard to embed
emerging dual-use capabilities within the Air National Guard.
aging aircraft
44. Senator Thune. Admiral Walsh, the Navy has been forced to
ground one-third (39 of 135) of its P-3 maritime patrol aircraft due to
fatigue cracking of critical structural members, related to the Navy's
efforts to maintain and operate the aircraft well beyond its original
expected service life. What impact is this grounding having on the
Navy's ability to meet its maritime patrol and reconnaissance
requirements?
Admiral Walsh. The grounding of the 39 aircraft, including 10
deployed aircraft, had significant operational impact. The precise
details of the impact are classified, and can be briefed separately as
desired. The Navy will continue to work with the Joint Staff and
component commanders to use the GFM Allocation Plan to optimize P-3
allocation as inventory constraints permit.
Note: The ratio of grounded aircraft, 39 of 135, as expressed in
the question is incorrect. When the Red Stripe occurred in December
2007, the total inventory of P-3Cs was 160 (now 157). Thus,
approximately 25 percent of the total inventory of aircraft was
affected by the Red Stripe.
45. Senator Thune. Admiral Walsh, what is the current status of
correcting this deficiency, and when do you expect to have the fleet
restored to full operation?
Admiral Walsh. The long-term recovery plan has been established,
but will be refined based on actual depot performance and continued
engineering analysis. The short-term mitigation plan for recovering the
39 grounded P-3Cs is already underway. As of 31 March 2008, five
aircraft have been inducted into depot. While the P-3 Recovery Plan
projects that the number of mission capable aircraft will continue to
decline until approximately fiscal year 2010, the number of mission
capable P-3s should reach pre-Red Stripe levels in fiscal year 2013.
46. Senator Thune. Admiral Walsh, since this deficiency was
identified too late to correct in the fiscal year 2009 budget, what is
the Navy's financing strategy to complete these repairs in a timely
manner?
Admiral Walsh. An Above Threshold Reprogramming (ATR) of $228
million for procurement for P-3C wing panels and outer wing box
assemblies is awaiting congressional approval. Additional fiscal year
2008 and fiscal year 2009 funding is being separately requested through
supplementals for supporting hardware and installation, and
acceleration of the Fatigue Life Management Program (FLMP). The Navy's
fiscal year 2009 Unfunded Programs List contains $548.3 million for
Critical Maritime Patrol Improvements which specifically addresses the
critical deficit of P-3C aircraft. Refinements in installation cost
estimates after submission have revised this amount to $585.2 million.
It is estimated that the cost of addressing this critical deficit is
$585.2 million. Materials and installations planned for procurement in
fiscal year 2010 and later will be submitted as part of POM-10.
individual augmentees
47. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, demand in theater for specialized ground forces has
resulted in the deployment of thousands of military personnel as
individual augmentees, or in-lieu-of assignments to CENTCOM. We've also
heard the term ``designer forces'' to describe ad hoc units culled
together at the last moment to meet an urgent demand. Are the demands
being placed on individual augmentees proving excessive or difficult to
meet?
General Cody. Individual augmentee requirements are increasingly
difficult to meet. Mid-grade officers and non-commissioned officers are
being assigned from across the Army to meet individual augmentee
requirements which results in significant shortages across the
remainder of the force. This directly affects Army's ability to meet
requirements and also provide a ready force. Every additional
individual requirement adds additional stress to the Army personnel
system and creates shortfalls in the force.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps uses individual augments to fill
Joint Manning Document (JMD), Transition Training Team (TT), and
Service Augment (SA) billets. Currently there are approximately 480
JMD, 876 TT, and 737 SA requirements. These billets are non-T/O
structure, uncompensated billets, which means that they must be filled
by pulling marines from Active Duty units or Reserve component
volunteers. Again, because of the uncompensated nature of these
requirements, the Marine Corps cannot build additional structure to
meet these demands. The purpose of the 202K build is to increase the
warfighting capabilities of the Marine Corps, to reduce unit deployment
to dwell ratio, and to allow the Marine Corps to train in its
traditional warfighting missions; its purpose is not to fill individual
augmentee requirements. The Marine Corps can continue to support the
current level of individual augmentee requirements; however, any
sustained increase in individual augment or unit operational
commitments will reduce the Marine Corps' ability to meet individual
augment requirements.
Admiral Walsh. Navy is able to provide the Joint Staff with a broad
range of sourcing solutions, including assignments that are
traditionally filled by ground forces. Significant numbers of combat
support and combat service support personnel relieve the Army and
Marine Corps in mission areas where we can expand Navy skills, with
mission specific training, to provide required support. Responsibility
to win the global war on terror falls on the military as a whole, and
by building on traditional maritime skills, our sailors continue to
make a significant contribution ashore. Our Navy will continue to
support the global war on terror on the ground, in addition to
performing its maritime mission afloat.
The demands being placed on sailors performing as individual
augmentees are being closely monitored by our Service. With feedback
through our Navy Component Commander Detachments in theater, we are
able to address the training and proper employment of our sailors.
Continuous feedback from theater to U.S. Fleet FORSCOM and Navy staff
refine expectations of sailors with respect to the level of training
received to their assign billet. Where inconsistencies exist, Navy
engages with theater for resolution to ensure proper employment.
To ensure continued support without exceeding stress on the force,
the officer and enlisted communities are in the process of assessing
the impact of Individual Augmentation (IA) assignments on community
health and retention across the force. Inherent stress is placed on
certain Limited Supply/High Demand (LS/HD) communities due to the small
pool of available personnel and high demand for specific Navy skill
sets. Several Navy mission communities have been or are being stressed
to capacity by the global war on terror. Examples include Explosive
Ordnance Disposal, Medical, Supply, Chaplain, Intelligence, Information
Warfare, Information Professionals, Engineering Duty, and Naval
Construction Battalions (SEABEEs).
As Navy continues to drawdown in end strength, we will continue to
assess the impacts of enduring IA requirements on the operational
force.
General McNabb. IAs have a large impact on operations. CENTCOM
relies heavily on IAs and their requirement for IAs continues to
increase. Currently the Air Force supports 2,256 IA requirements
supporting all combatant commands. This is an increase of 11 percent
for all the IA requirements from fiscal year 2007. The Air Force
continues to successfully exceed combatant command sourcing
requirements by fair sharing all career fields to include low supply
and high demand fields across the Service by carefully monitoring each
dwell rate.
48. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, do you see a negative impact on morale and retention as
a result of the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
General Cody. The pace of deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq has
not had an adverse impact on overall retention or morale. In fiscal
year 2007, retention of officers was slightly better than the overall
10-year average and recent incentives have garnered over 9,000
additional man-years of obligated service among year group 2006 and
2007 officers. Units currently deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq have
reenlistment rates averaging between 110-120 percent of their yearly
goals. This is a significant indication of the quality of leadership
within our ranks, shows that soldiers believe in what they are doing,
and that soldiers value the tradition of service to the Nation.
Currently, all Army components are on track to achieve or exceed the
2008 enlisted retention mission. The Active Army retained almost 70,000
soldiers in fiscal year 2007, finishing the year at 112 percent of the
retention mission. The Army Reserve finished the year achieving 119
percent of the retention mission and the ARNG finished at 100 percent
of their retention mission.
General Magnus. No, I do not see a negative impact on retention as
a result of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Marine Corps
enlisted retention remains strong. The Marine Corps has achieved over
15,300 total reenlistments including 7,330 First Term and 7,977 Career
or Subsequent Term reenlistments to date in fiscal year 2008. This
level of retention is unprecedented. The Marine Corps is also currently
meeting its retention goals for officers.
In addition, I do not see a negative impact on morale, which
remains strong in our ranks despite our ongoing operations.
Admiral Walsh. Ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to
have minimal, if any, adverse impact on retention or morale as
retention remains strong, overall attrition is trending downward and
sailor morale remains positive.
The war on terrorism, IA assignments, and an increased sea/shore
ratio create challenging retention and morale environments, which we
continue to monitor very closely.
Navy's enlisted retention posture remains strong and supports end
strength requirements. Navy attained 98 percent of fiscal year 2007
numeric reenlistment goal for Zone A (0-6 years of service) and
exceeded numeric goals in both Zone B (6-10 years) and Zone C (10-14
years). We have also attained at least 96 percent of numeric aggregate
reenlistment goals in each of the three zones during the first 5 months
of fiscal year 2008.
Navy's aggregate officer retention posture for fiscal year 2008
also remains strong and supports end strength requirements. Some
officer communities are experiencing retention shortfalls at specific
pay grades, to include:
Surface Warfare (O3)
Submarine (O3)
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (O4)
Special Warfare (O4)
Civil Engineer Corps (O4)
Preliminary survey data indicate O3 retention in the Surface and
Submarine communities are negatively affected by the unpredictable
nature of IA assignments. Global war on terror support assignment
detailing was recently developed to ameliorate this concern. Sailors of
all ranks will now be detailed to most IA assignments during
predictable career windows. This should result in less uncertainty
within the force.
The O4 shortfalls identified above are largely as a result in
expanding the size of these communities in order to meet QDR/global war
on terror demand signals. The year groups filling these O4 billets were
assessed to meet the demands of smaller communities.
Morale, welfare, and quality of life for sailors and their families
remain a top priority as we continue to focus on providing adequate
pay, health care, housing, proper work environments, and continuum of
training and education for sailors. Targeted special and incentive pays
are also essential to successful retention of sailors in critical
skills.
General McNabb. There is no substantial evidence to indicate that
the global war on terror has had a negative impact on morale. During
the last several years our airmen have dealt with a host of events to
include stop loss, downsizing, increased deployments, in-lieu-of
taskings, emerging missions, declining reenlistment bonuses, and
economic recovery. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that each of
these events has had an impact on retention, it is extremely difficult
to accurately quantify and isolate any single factor given the dynamic
environment.
We believe our airmen's perception of quality of life has a direct
bearing on morale and retention. In October 2007, a survey of 1,000
Active Duty airmen and civilians assessed the effectiveness with which
we communicate our emphasis on quality of life and 96 percent of
respondents agreed that quality of life is an important enabler for an
airman's success in combat. Part of the perception of quality of life
is related to predictability in deployments and the workload shouldered
by those who do not deploy but continue with home station missions.
Since the onset of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, our units
have consistently had some portion of their military deployed at any
given time. Our military members are typically ready to deploy, and
find those deployments personally and professional fulfilling. In that
respect, morale is good and retention is steady. However, the
additional workload left behind at home station when those military
members deploy does stress morale. We've anecdotally recognized the
departure of military members who were simply tired from carrying the
additional workload. If there is a negative impact on morale and
retention as a result of ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we
see that impact focused more on those who remain behind than on those
who deploy.
49. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, have the Navy or Air Force evaluated the impact to
parent commands' readiness caused by the fairly significant number of
gapped billets associated with individual augmentees?
General Cody. Unfortunately, the Army cannot address whether the
Navy or Air Force have evaluated this issue.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps nondeployed units are often
critically short officers and senior enlisted (unit leaders, trainers,
and planners), due to the continuing requirement to provide individual
augmentees for transition teams, joint headquarters, and other
requirements in support of OIF and OEF. While these Marine leaders are
enhancing the capabilities of Iraqi and Afghan security forces, and
performing needed functions with our deployed joint headquarters, their
extended absence from their parent units does negatively impact
readiness and adds to the stress on the force. Specifically, this
leadership drain degrades the parent unit's ability to effectively
train and lead their marines as well as develop unit cohesion.
Additionally, the absence of senior leadership has created deficiencies
in staff expertise, command and control capability, and the ability to
proficiently conduct operational planning. The negative impact of
providing individual augments on nondeployed units has been highlighted
in Marine Corps testimony and joint readiness reporting venues, such as
the JFRR.
Admiral Walsh. To date, Navy continues to meet all validated
missions at sea and ashore and stands ready to respond to security and
humanitarian contingencies, while continuing its present support to the
global war on terror. Should Fleet or IA demands increase, we will
eventually see a decline in readiness. Readiness is currently being
maintained at the cost of reduced manning levels in shore staff
assignments. As a consequence, we have observed sailors and government
service civilians working longer hours, having reduced leave
opportunities and postponing some scheduled professional development
courses.
Currently, augmentation numbers represent approximately 3 percent
of the Total Force and 2 percent of the Active component force. All
deployable commands are at SORTS readiness C2 or above. The Fleet
centric nature of Navy's readiness reporting systems, however, makes
assessing readiness impacts ashore more difficult. Fleet manning
projections and readiness indicators are continuously assessed to
ensure proper levels of manning are maintained.
At current sustainment levels, a growing strain on our force is
especially evident in the following communities supporting global war
on terror: Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Medical, Chaplain,
Intelligence, Information Warfare, Information Professionals,
Engineering Duty, Supply Community, Civil Engineer Corps, and Naval
Construction Battalions (SEABEES). These communities have experienced
constant and increasing demand from combatant commands requiring
multiple tours. Because these are unfunded requirements tasked to our
Service to source, Navy believes there is a mismatch between Navy's
planned manpower/fiscal reduction strategy and the impact of the
enduring IA mission on sustaining our operational force, specifically
in nontraditional combat service support and combat service roles and
missions to our Service. As Army builds up to its new end strength
total and Navy continues to draw down to predicted Service levels we
anticipate these combat service support missions will transition back
to Army support.
General McNabb. Currently the Air Force supports 2,256 IA
requirements across all combatant commands. This is an increase of 11
percent for all the IA requirements from fiscal year 2007. Most CENTCOM
sourced individual augmentees, for example, are in grades E-6 through
O-5 and, support 284 1-year tour lengths and 1,469 6-month tour
lengths. This is an increase of 30 percent for these tour lengths over
fiscal year 2007. The CENTCOM requirement for IAs continues to
increase. The Air Force evaluates command readiness through a process
known as SORTS. This process assists units in determining their mission
readiness/capability.
airmen on the ground in iraq/afghanistan
50. Senator Thune. General McNabb, the Air Force has provided
significant in-lieu-of forces on the ground to support operations in
Iraq. My concern is that we are reacting to taskings from the other
Services by using personnel not ideally trained for the mission. Are
you comfortable that they are getting the needed training before
deploying?
General McNabb. We are confident in-lieu-of airmen are receiving
the required training to perform their assigned in-lieu-of mission. The
enemy, however, continues to change their tactics, techniques, and
procedures; therefore, we continue to transform our training to address
and counter the developing enemy threat. We take a dual approach to
ensure our airmen are prepared to meet and execute these non-standard
missions: select the right airmen to fill in-lieu-of taskings; and
ensure in-lieu-of airmen receive the required training to operate and
survive outside-the-wire.
Second Air Force established a Training and Equipment Requirements
Board (TERB) to monitor and modify training to meet the gaining
commander's needs and ensure in-lieu-of airmen can operate and survive
in their deployed environment. The TERB is a formal process to review
current in-lieu-of training and determine redundancies and shortfalls
and implement fix actions for any disconnects. When the Air Force
discovers training shortfalls outside the TERB window, second Air Force
and Air Force Central Command (AFCENT) work with CENTCOM and FORSCOM to
immediately resolve training disconnects.
By selecting airmen with core skill sets similar to missions they
will be performing and continually assessing and modifying in-lieu-of
training to meet the ever-changing threat, we ensure airmen have the
most current skill sets necessary to perform their assigned mission.
51. Senator Thune. General McNabb, are they getting the right
equipment necessary to operate in that environment, particularly force
protection equipment?
General McNabb. This question specifically references the
approximately 12,000 airmen who deploy annually in the in-lieu-of
category. Yes, personnel are receiving the necessary force protection
equipment to include the Advanced Combat Helmet and the Interceptor
Outer Tactical Vest with Level IV ESAPIs.
52. Senator Thune. General McNabb, has this training changed as a
result of lessons learned, and if so, how?
General McNabb. Yes--ensuring airmen are properly trained to
perform their assigned mission is our top priority. Given the changing
enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures, it's essential that we
continue to transform training to counter evolving threats. Three
different organizations working together utilize lessons learned and
validated feedback to modify training: 1) CENTCOM is continually
monitoring and changing minimum training requirements for in-lieu-of
soldiers, sailors, and airmen; 2) FORSCOM and First Army also tailor
blocks of training based upon feedback received from their down-range
Liaison Officers; 3) Second Air Force, working closely with AFCENT and
Air Force functional managers, modifies training based upon lessons
learned and airmen skill sets. As an example, all airmen receive
training on Blue Force Tracker based on feedback from the Area of
Responsibility (AOR).
53. Senator Thune. General McNabb, how has the integration worked
with the Army?
General McNabb. The integration process between Army and Air Force
personnel has evolved over the last 2 years and is going very well. The
Air Force has worked long and hard with the Army to solidify the
training curriculum and equipment requirements, to include the
appropriate timeline for training. These efforts ensure our airmen
receive timely training as well as meeting the training and equipping
requirements established by our deployed combatant commanders. In
addition, we utilize the Training and Equipping Requirements Board
(TERB), co-hosted by 2nd Air Force and AFCENT, to update training and
equipment requirements for our airmen. The TERB also includes active
participation from Headquarters Air Force, Air Combat Command, Air
Mobility Command, Air Force Security Forces Center, Air Force Civil
Engineering Support Agency, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army FORSCOM, Air Force
functional area managers, as well as deployed Air Expeditionary Group
leaders.
54. Senator Thune. General McNabb, do you see anything that needs
to be improved in this process?
General McNabb. No, we believe we have addressed all known training
and equipment issues at this time. We are currently working with the
Army to improve training processes as well as increased training
standardization. To achieve this goal, we're working with FORSCOM and
first Army to decrease the overall number of combat skills training
sites as well as actively working to ensure our airmen receive the same
high standard of training across the board.
unfunded requirements list for the air force
55. Senator Thune. General McNabb, this year, the Air Force
submitted an $18.7 billion unfunded requirements list. This is 4 times
as large as the Navy's, 5 times as large as the Army's, and 10 times
larger than the Marine Corps'. Why do you have such a large unfunded
requirements list?
General McNabb. Global trends over the last decade have presented
significant challenges to our organization, systems, concepts, and
doctrine. Would-be adversaries are developing asymmetric approaches to
attack vital levers of U.S. power and ascendant powers are posturing to
contest U.S. superiority with ``Generation 4-plus'' fighter aircraft,
increasingly lethal air defense systems, proliferation of surface-to-
surface missiles, and a resurgence of counterspace capabilities.
Demands for ISR and space capabilities, that simply did not exist a
decade ago, as well as a renewed emphasis on modernization and emerging
cyberspace threats to meet existing and expected challenges, have
placed significant stress on our baseline budgets.
The Air Force fully supports the fiscal year 2009 President's
budget and is appreciative of the increased funding over the last
decade. These funds have given us the resources to win today's fight,
take care of our people, and slowly modernize for tomorrow's
challenges. While the fiscal year 2009 budget provides a moderate
increase over the fiscal year 2008 budget and enables us to meet
today's global commitments, additional funding is necessary to ensure
air, space, and cyberspace dominance for the 21st century. The fiscal
year 2009 unfunded requirements list identifies our most critical needs
should additional funding be made available. The majority of the list
is tied to the weapon systems, personnel, and support necessary to
equip our required force of 86 modernized combat wings.
56. Senator Thune. General McNabb, what top items on this list will
improve readiness rates?
General McNabb. The Air Force provides the following spreadsheet
with unfunded requirements and their impact on Air Force readiness, not
in priority order.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
readiness for other potential contingencies
57. Senator Thune. General Cody, I would like to clarify an answer
provided during today's hearing. General Casey has been very candid
about the impact of the deployments on Army readiness. In testimony
before this committee on November 15, 2007, he said ``our readiness is
being consumed as fast as we can build it.'' In testimony before the
House Armed Services Committee last September, he said that the Army is
``unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other
potential contingencies.'' Which potential contingencies do you believe
are at greatest risk?
General Cody. Contingencies that require forces to operate over the
full range of military missions are at the greatest risk. For example,
a large conventional ground war. The Army is consumed with meeting the
demands of the current fight and is unable to rapidly provide full-
spectrum ready forces necessary for other contingencies. Current
operational requirements for forces and limited periods between
deployments necessitate a focus on counterinsurgency to the detriment
of preparedness for the full range of military missions.
To ensure strategic plans are coordinated and executed accordingly,
it is imperative that we rebuild readiness, achieve balance, restore
strategic depth for future challenges, and get continuous and timely
congressional support.
Thanks to the support and assistance that Congress has already
provided to the Army, it has enabled us to address critical resource
requirements during existing persistent conflict. The support and
assistance to cover costs of reset, modernize equipment, and maintain
quality of life for our soldiers are the key to keep our Army running.
Our operational demand continues and it is not decreasing. We need
timely resources to continue the training, equipping, and stationing
for our soldiers to properly conduct operations in time of war and to
meet current demand.
58. Senator Thune. General Cody, in what readiness accounts does
Congress need to focus resources in the short-term to mitigate these
risks?
General Cody. Thanks to the support and assistance that Congress
has already provided to the Army, it has enabled us to address critical
resource requirements during existing persistent conflict. The support
and assistance to cover costs of reset, modernize equipment, and
maintain quality of life for our soldiers are the key to keep our Army
running. Our operational demand continues and it is not decreasing. We
need timely resources to continue the training, equipping, and
stationing for our soldiers to properly conduct operations in time of
war and to meet current demand.
59. Senator Thune. General Cody, can the Army respond to a domestic
emergency on the scale of Hurricane Katrina?
General Cody. Yes, since Hurricane Katrina, the Army has taken
numerous steps to improve our readiness in response to a large scale
domestic emergency. Even though the Army is heavily committed with
Iraq, Afghanistan, and global war on terror, it still has capabilities
to respond to natural disasters with the National Guard, U.S. Army
Reserve, and the Active component. In the event of a major disaster or
emergency, and in support of a Federal response, the Army will respond
rapidly to the affected area. Our primary mission is to save and
sustain lives and relieve suffering in the affected region. The Army
plays an important role in disaster response; however, all our efforts
are in support of FEMA working closely with State and local officials.
The Army is aggressively planning to anticipate the needs of our
Federal, State, and local partners to speed our response to those
affected by disaster.
The Army has a comprehensive equipping strategy to source hurricane
State shortfalls, including materiel and operational solutions.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, in coordination with FORSCOM,
Army Materiel Command, ARNG, U.S. Army Reserve Command, and U.S. Army
Pacific Command developed an equipping plan which supports the Army's
response to defense support to civil authorities (DSCA) missions and
provides assistance to the ARNG's response to a governor's request for
support when needed.
Defense support to a domestic emergency is a very complex
functional operation and requires broad cooperation with Federal,
State, and local elements. The Army is ready to assist civil
authorities in lifesaving and life-sustaining actions, in mitigating
damage and recovery.
army prepositioned stocks
60. Senator Thune. General Cody, prepositioned stocks are critical
enablers to the DOD's military strategy and they help ensure that the
military has material and equipment available for rapid deployment
should future conflicts occur. However, the Army has depended upon
equipment from Army prepositioned stocks (APS) for operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan and, according to the Government Accountability Office,
to accelerate creation of two additional BCTs. How important are the
APS to the Army's ability to meet other potential contingencies, like
Korea?
General Cody. APS are a proven enabler of the Army's ability to
rapidly project forces into an area of operations. APS provides the
strategic depth and responsiveness to deploy globally to any
contingency operation. The almost 7 years of fighting the global war on
terror have demonstrated that the APS program is flexible, responsive,
and critical to the Army's ability to deploy forces in support of the
combatant commander requirements and adapt to changing strategic
requirements. APS is used to support OIF and OEF. In addition, APS
supported the BCT acceleration effort. The Army evaluates the strategic
risk and implements mitigation factors, whenever APS equipment is
required. The Army remains committed to maintaining an APS pool of
equipment in order to meet current and future contingency planning
requirements. All APS equipment sets will be reconstituted at a
readiness posture of 95-100 percent of fill by fiscal year 2015. This
is contingent on available resources, operational requirements, and the
continued support of Congress to fully resource the administration's
budget requests for Army equipment.
APS-4 equipment in Korea and Japan remains in a high state of
readiness and is available to repond to potential contingencies. APS-4
comprised of an Heavy BCT (over 90 percent of fill) and a tailored
Sustainment Brigade (over 85 percent of fill). APS-4 will be completed
by fourth quarter fiscal year 2008. In addition, APS-3 afloat has a
port opening package capability in Guam over 89 percent of fill. This
set consists of a temporary afloat set of 20 units on the U.S. Naval
Ship Pomeroy. The total sustainment brigade set will be completed in
fiscal year 2011.
61. Senator Thune. General Cody, what is the current state of the
APS required to support war plans in Korea?
General Cody. The heavy BCT is currently filled with 96 percent
equipment and over 95 percent equipment readiness. The sustainment BCT
is currently filled with 88 percent of its equipment and above 90
percent equipment readiness. The largest shortage in the sustainment
brigade is uparmored HMMWVs set to arrive from July-September 2008.
Several low-density items are scheduled for arrival through 2010.
Watercraft fill rate is currently 97 percent. However, watercraft
readiness continues to below the standard. Readiness is hindered
because the Army is currently installing new navigation systems on
landing craft and utility vessels over the next year. Operational
projects fill rates are being increased using funds received in the
fiscal year 2008 supplemental.
62. Senator Thune. General Cody, how much funding is provided for
APS in the fiscal year 2008 budget and how much is requested in the
fiscal year 2009 budget?
General Cody. Based on the current budget position, the Army has
funded a total of $375.3 million for APS in fiscal year 2008. The
fiscal year 2008 request includes $340.2 million for maintenance and
operations of all APS set equipment and $35.1 million for procurement.
For fiscal year 2009, the Army requested $5.3 million for procurement
and $928.6 million for operations and maintenance of critical APS
requirements. In addition, the Army requested $3.2 billion in the
fiscal year 2008 supplemental (of which $1.3 billion has been received)
for reconstitution of APS stocks. The fiscal year 2009 supplemental
request is currently under development.
63. Senator Thune. General Cody, do you anticipate change, either
in a positive way or a negative way, in the readiness of APS by the end
of this calendar year? If so, can you quantify that change in
readiness?
General Cody. Yes. APS sets in Kuwait will see a significant
increase in readiness this calendar year. The Army is in the process of
reconstituting the infantry BCT set in Kuwait and it will be fully
mission capable by the end of the calendar year. APS-4 will see a
slight increase. Currently, equipment fill for the APS-4 heavy BCT is
96 percent and is not anticipated to change by the end of calendar year
2008. The equipment fill of the sustainment brigade is currently 88
percent and is anticipated to increase to 90 percent by end of fiscal
year 2008. HMMWVs are the key shortages and are scheduled for delivery
between July-September 2008. APS-4 watercraft readiness will increase
following the fielding of critical new navigation systems. The
remaining APS sets are not being reconstituted during the current
calendar year.
64. Senator Thune. General Cody, can you describe the Army's
strategy to replenish each of its APS sets?
General Cody. The Army has approved APS Strategy 2015 to replenish
all APS equipment sets by 2015. APS-2 is a land-based heavy BCT
equipment set and will be completed by fiscal year 2015. APS-3 consists
of two infantry BCTs with two complementary sustainment brigades. One
infantry BCT, with uparmored wheeled augmentation, and one sustainment
brigade pairing will be completed by fiscal year 2011. The other
pairing of an infantry BCT, with uparmored wheeled augmentation, and a
sustainment brigade will be completed in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal
year 2015 respectively. APS-4, the Korean-based Heavy BCT and
sustainment brigade sets will be completed in fiscal year 2008.
Finally, APS-5 consists of several components. The Heavy BCT equipment
set, with uparmored wheeled augmentation, is expected to be complete by
fiscal year 2010. An infantry battalion set, with uparmored wheeled
augmentation and a forward support company, will be completed by fiscal
year 2011. APS-5 fires brigade and two sustainment brigades will be
started in fiscal year 2013 and completed in fiscal year 2015.
65. Senator Thune. General Cody, when does the Army estimate it can
replenish APS and what will the cost be?
General Cody. Except for APS 4 equipment, all other APS sets were
issued to support OEF/OIF and must be reconstituted. Given the Army's
current overall equipping priorities and requested funding through
2015, the Army plans to reconstitute all worldwide APS equipment sets
in accordance with the approved APS Strategy 2015 incrementally from
2009 through 2015. The Army's cost estimate to implement APS Strategy
2015 is $10 billion which is spread across both supplemental requests
and the Army budget. This estimate includes: $1.5 billion received from
the fiscal year 2007 supplemental and $1.3 billion from the fiscal year
2008 supplemental to support initial APS rebuild efforts. The Army will
track the reconstitution of APS in accordance with the approved
strategy and timeline. We plan to have all APS sets reconstituted by
the end of fiscal year 2015. Reconfiguration of APS will be along the
modular construct to support future contingencies with rapid response.
deploying medically unfit soldiers
66. Senator Thune. General Cody, recent reports from the 4th
Infantry Division allege that soldiers who are medically unfit have
been deployed to Iraq. Understanding the Army is still investigating
these allegations, I would like to ask a few questions about the
underlying Army policy. What are the standards of medical and dental
readiness of soldiers for overseas deployment?
General Cody. The standards of medical readiness for overseas
deployment are provided in the Department of the Army Personnel Policy
Guidance (PPG), CENTCOM Modification 8 to the PPG, and Army Regulation
(AR) 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness. All soldiers undergo Soldier
Readiness Processing (SRP) prior to deployment to identify any medical
problems that might preclude deployment. Each soldier is evaluated by a
healthcare and dental provider for clearance or to address any
conditions identified. Soldiers may deploy if their condition can be
rectified prior to deployment. Medically or dentally unfit soldiers
will not deploy.
Some soldiers have physical limitations from previously identified
medical conditions. These limitations are detailed on a form known as a
Physical Profile. Profiles provide medical guidance from the health
care provider to the commander for use in determining a soldier's
fitness to deploy. If the commander can meet the soldier's physical
limitations during the deployment, the soldier may deploy. AR 40-501
provides guidance on soldiers possessing Physical Profiles.
For certain medical and dental conditions, the theater medical and
dental standards may be stricter than those in AR 40-501, and these
conditions require a waiver from the theater surgeon, the top medical
authority in theater, to deploy. The surgeon's decision is based on the
environmental conditions and medical capabilities available at the
soldier's particular deployment location.
If a soldier has significant physical limitations that impact on
his/her medical readiness, the soldier is evaluated by an Military
Occupational Specialty Medical Retention Board or a Medical Evaluation
Board to determine if the soldier meets the qualifications of his/her
duties and meets the medical retention standards for military service.
This process determines if the soldier may remain in military service,
and if so, provides the limitations for a permanent Physical Profile.
Dental readiness standards are found in DOD policy (OSD (HA) Policy
Memos 06-001, 02-011, and 98-021). There are standard dental
classifications for all the military Services. Servicemembers in dental
fitness class (DFC) 3 or 4 cannot deploy unless the DFC is corrected to
Class 1 or 2.
67. Senator Thune. General Cody, have any changes in the policy
been implemented since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began? If so,
what are they?
General Cody. Yes, the Army Personnel Policy Guidance, the theater
CENTCOM policy, and Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 have changed over the
last 7 years. As theater medical resources improved and changes in
medical practice allowed, soldiers with some medical conditions that
were restricted from deployment at the beginning of the war are now
allowed to deploy to certain areas. The campaign in Iraq initially
involved maneuvering Army units covering large areas, with uncertain
camps and rest stops. The Army began the process of establishing the
initial supply lines and support services in the theater. Over time,
the Army has continued to develop operating bases with routine sources
of water and electricity. The predictability of support services
available to the soldier is now much more consistent and enduring.
These developments in theater provide conditions capable of supporting
soldiers with some specific medical needs or limitations. For example,
a change to AR 40-501 allows soldiers with less severe sleep apnea to
deploy to areas where electricity is available to allow use of a
continuous positive airway pressure device used for treatment. The
Army's initial role in Afghanistan was more unconventional, but
continuing operations have resulted in similar development of operating
bases with dependable support supplies and services. The policies
affecting dental conditions that limit deployment have not changed.
68. Senator Thune. General Cody, is it possible that commanders are
overriding professional medical judgments in order to deploy soldiers
because of shortages within units?
General Cody. It is a common misperception that a soldier with a
limiting physical profile is nondeployable and yes, ultimately the
commander decides whether or not a soldier deploys. However, physical
profiles that state ``nondeployable,'' ``do not deploy,'' or ``no field
duty'' are invalid. Profiles delineate physical limitations of the
soldier, not whether or not the soldier is deployable.
Deploying a soldier that is not capable of supporting the mission
decreases mission accomplishment. It would be counterproductive to the
command to deploy soldiers that cannot contribute to mission
accomplishment.
69. Senator Thune. General Cody, do you have any information on the
number of soldiers that are being returned from theater because of an
underlying medical condition which should have prevented their
deployment?
General Cody. No, there is currently no method to distinguish
servicemembers evacuated from theater for underlying conditions that
should have prevented deployment from those who developed new
conditions in theater or unexpected exacerbation of a pre-existing
condition which necessitated evacuation from theater.
70. Senator Thune. General Cody, do you think there is a stigma to
seeking medical attention for PTSD? If so, could we inadvertently be
deploying soldiers overseas with PTSD?
General Cody. The Army continues to take steps to reduce the stigma
that accompanies seeking help for behavioral health issues. The most
recent Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) findings indicate that the
stigma associated with seeking behavioral health intervention has been
reduced in comparison to the previous MHAT surveys. We are encouraged
by this reduction, and we will continue efforts to reduce stigma by
implementing programs such as the Army's Chain Teaching Program that
trains soldiers to identify the symptoms of PTSD and Traumatic Brain
Injury, and educates them on how to obtain the needed care in a
supportive and nonjudgmental manner. Regarding the overseas deployment
of soldiers with PTSD, all soldiers receive a predeployment medical
review, and if a soldier has PTSD symptoms, we follow established DOD
guidelines. Not all soldiers with PTSD symptoms are precluded from
deployment. Each soldier's case is looked at on an individual basis.
The Army continues to pursue ``best practices'' in the medical care of
our soldiers. Newly instituted programs such as RESPECT-mil and Academy
for Excellence exemplify this point. These programs provide advanced
training to primary care providers to identify the signs and symptoms
of PTSD.
recommendations of the commission on the national guard and reserve
71. Senator Thune. General Cody, the Army Reserve and the National
Guard have contributed enormously and indispensably to operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan and to homeland security since September 11. The
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves submitted its report on
January 31. Among other requirements, the Commission called for formal
recognition of the establishment of an Operational--vice Strategic--
Reserve. This would require maintaining the Army Reserve and National
Guard at a higher level of readiness. This recommendation would require
additional resources and new constructs for employing the Reserve
components for assessing readiness. The Commission found that the level
of full-time support relates to the readiness of Reserve and National
Guard to deploy. The Commission found that Army funding for full-time
support has not been sufficient. The report includes a detailed
recommendation on how the Army could restructure its full-time support
program to improve readiness and effectiveness. Can you describe the
Army's program for full-time support to Reserve component units?
General Cody. The Army's full-time support program is a concept
developed as a result of DOD Directive 1205.18, ``Full-Time Support
(FTS) to Reserve Components,'' which requires the Reserve components
(RCs) to maintain a cadre of full-time support personnel who are
responsible for assisting in the organization, administration,
recruitment, instruction, training, maintenance, and supply support.
The Army's RC full-time support personnel are predominantly comprised
of career-oriented Active Guard Reserve (AGR) soldiers and dual status
military technicians (MTs).
Full-time support soldiers fill critical positions in Reserve
units, most notably positions related to personnel, training and
operations, and supply and maintenance. Other functions critical to
unit function are performed by FTS staff such as facilities management,
fiscal operations, information technology support, and medical support.
The combined efforts of the FTS personnel ensure that the soldiers are
properly trained, equipped, and ready to deploy.
The fiscal year 2008 ARNG and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) full-time
support requirements are funded at 69 percent for a combined total of
82,020 AGRs and MTs. The validated full-time support requirement is
119,241 FTS personnel. At the end state of the current increase in
fiscal year 2013, funding supports 77 percent of the AGR requirements
and 69 percent of the MT validated requirements.
The emerging operational demands caused by pre-mobilization
requirements, the surge, OSD's January 2007 12-month mobilization
policy, and suspended stop loss policy have resulted in the Army
augmenting deploying units with Full Time Equivalent (FTE) and Active
Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) manpower. FTE and ADOS designated
personnel fill the career FTS void for a short duration as determined
by mission requirements. The Army expects to continue reviewing full-
time support requirements, resourcing, and readiness issues.
72. Senator Thune. General Cody, are you familiar with that
specific recommendation and would you comment on it?
General Cody. The Army, like OSD and the other Services, is
currently conducting a comprehensive review of the Commission's 95
recommendations, including a full evaluation, their relationship to
each other, their relationship to other Army programs and initiatives,
their cost if approved, and how they will be funded if approved.
For this reason, it is premature for the Army to take definitive
positions on specific recommendations. Additional time is required to
collect and analyze input from throughout the Army's organization to
render valid and feasible positions. However, the Army acknowledges
that a new model may need to be adapted to provide improved full-time
support to the Army's Reserve components, especially as the Army
transitions its Reserve components from a Strategic Reserve to an
operational force. Some implementation of FTS changes have already
begun to satisfy Homeland defense requirements and civil support
responsibilities.
The Army agrees that a manpower review is warranted and has
commissioned Rand Arroyo to conduct a Full Time Support Requirements
Analysis, scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2009. The study will
consider the changes in force structure, deployment frequency, and the
overall projected Army requirements for the National Military Strategy.
Since September 11, the men and women who serve in the Army's
Reserve components as citizen-soldiers have mobilized and deployed in
support of the global war on terror in unprecedented numbers. Their
dedication to duty and sacrifice, as well as that of their families and
employers, is unsurpassed. I am encouraged that the Commission and
Congress agree on the need to assess, and possibly change, some of the
institutions, laws, and policies that support our Reserve components.
73. Senator Thune. General Cody, can you explain what is being done
to improve equipment fielding to both the Guard and Reserve?
General Cody. First and most importantly to our soldiers, no unit--
including Reserve component units--deploy without a full complement of
combat capable equipment. Second, in the case of Homeland defense and
security missions, the Army is committed to ensuring that the ARNG has
all the equipment necessary to execute these missions successfully.
The Reserve component is being equipped at an unprecedented rate.
Since September 11 (fiscal years 2001-2007), the Army has resourced
over $15.3 billion in ARNG procurement and $4.5 billion in Army Reserve
procurement. Between January of 2008 and December 2009, the Army will
field over 400,000 items to the ARNG, worth $17.4 billion, and over
118,000 items to the Army Reserve, worth $4 billion.
We agree that equipment fill for nondeployed units is at an
unacceptable level and requires significant modernization. The Army is
committed to an investment strategy across its program to fill
shortages, including replacing older trucks, radios, night vision
devices, aviation assets, and engineer equipment. For fiscal years
2008-2013, the Army has resourced $29.3 billion for ARNG equipment and
$11 billion for Army Reserve equipment.
army operation and maintenance--family support
74. Senator Thune. General Cody, the budget request for fiscal year
2009 increases funding for family and community support, child care,
community activities, and youth programs in excess of $742.0 million.
Please explain how family support programs will reach those who do not
live on or near an Army base--especially families of deployed members
of the Guard and Reserve--who are themselves experiencing significant
deployment-related challenges.
General Cody. The Army Integrated Family Support Network (AIFSN)
offers soldiers and families the support they deserve, especially, the
geographically dispersed. This web-based resource ``connects'' the
geographically separated Army and families, and provides access to
family programs and services. The idea is to harness the resources that
are already in place, and use personal contact and technology to
improve on the delivery of service so families get support closest to
where they live. AIFSN reached initial operational capability in March
2008, and FOC will occur in September 2008.
From mobilized soldiers, to recruiters, to families located outside
reasonable driving distances to military facilities--AIFSN provides
standardized baseline services, information, tools, and resources. It
is made up of Army Community Service, Child and Youth Services, Guard
Family Assistance Centers, Reserve Readiness Centers, and civilian
community agencies. By combining and linking resources, AIFSN gives
Army families a choice. Army families are able to access services by
phone, the internet, and when situations dictate, travel to the nearest
facility to receive personalized support. AIFSN's support services
network increases overall family readiness, improves quality of life,
and helps prepare families for anything that might come their way.
AIFSN has incorporated a ``Yellow Ribbon'' program into the
delivery of services to all soldiers and families. This delivery system
provides information, services, referral, and proactive outreach to
soldiers, spouses, employers, children, and youth throughout the entire
mobilization process. When fully operational in September 2008, it will
provide a single, holistic, institutional network of standardized
services.
Army-sponsored child care is available in all 50 States for both
Active and deployed Reserve component families. Working with a
centrally contracted national vendor, families receive assistance
locating and enrolling in local child care programs. Fee assistance is
provided and assures that child care fees paid by the soldier are
comparable to those paid in Army installation child care programs.
Programs for geographically dispersed Army youth are available in all
50 States through partnerships with the Boys and Girls Clubs and
National 4-H programs. Additionally, Operation: Military Kids,
available in 42 States, is a collaborative effort with America's
communities to support military children impacted by the global war on
terror.
We have completed two Army-wide training sessions for Family
Program and Child and Youth Services staff to focus on the baseline
services soldiers and families need. Additionally, localized community-
based training will ensure geographically dispersed families receive
the support they need where they live. The first ``Building Community
Partnerships'' training will be conducted in Chapel Hill, NC, by the
University of North Carolina Citizen Soldier Project. Additional
training will be conducted at various locations throughout the United
States.
75. Senator Thune. General Cody, how many additional families do
you expect to reach in fiscal year 2009?
General Cody. Sixty percent of Army families live off post. AIFSN
expands family services to the Active and Reserve component to help
families respond to transitions, separations, and deployments, and to
alleviate the everyday stress associated with military life.
Army Child and Youth Services will serve an additional 62,000
families in the Active and Reserve components in fiscal year 2009 in
programs and services provided on post and in local communities. This
is a 31 percent increase from fiscal year 2008.
76. Senator Thune. General Cody, do you anticipate further requests
coming in the supplemental, and if so, what are the additional
requirements for families that are not included in the base budget
request?
General Cody. The AIFSN and our other existing family programs will
be fully funded in fiscal year 2010.
However, we may require additional supplemental funding for an
emerging requirement under development for a Survivor Outreach Services
program for families of our fallen military heroes. This program will
help families cope with their loss, stabilize their present situation,
secure their future, and provide a full spectrum of life skills,
education, and continuing support.
new army field manual
77. Senator Thune. General Cody, last month, the Army released an
updated version of Field Manual (FM) 3.0 ``Operations'' to reflect an
increasing emphasis on stability and civil support. This is the first
update since September 11 and is a departure from past doctrine. The
revised FM describes an operational concept where commanders employ
offensive, defensive, and stability and civil support operations
simultaneously as part of interdependent joint force. In this manual
the importance of stability operations is elevated to co-equal with
combat operations. Do you think the changes in the FM will generate any
changes in readiness reporting?
General Cody. The shift to full spectrum operations and smaller,
more versatile units affects how Army forces manage training and
readiness. Some readiness reporting policies and procedures will change
to align with the new doctrine; however, the basic principles
underpinning the Army readiness reporting process will remain constant.
These basic principles include maintaining a unit focused, commander
centric readiness reporting system and measuring current unit status
against the specific mission requirements. It is important to
understand that readiness reporting provides the yardstick for
measuring the current mission capability of units and identifies stress
on the force. While this measuring tool does not fundamentally change
with doctrinal changes, new doctrine may warrant new or revised
measurements or metrics.
78. Senator Thune. General Cody, will a BCT have to assess how it
performs information operations?
General Cody. Yes. With all operations, not just information
operations (IO), we conduct combat assessments to determine the
relative success in achieving our objectives. The BCT utilizes all
available organic and supporting collection assets that affect its area
of operations, to collect data, and produce intelligence to aid
assessments.
The collected data is employed by the BCT's Non-Lethal Effects cell
to assess the effectiveness of the BCT's IO actions. The cell has
subject matter experts assigned to it from the following areas; IO,
electronic warfare, targeting, civil affairs, psychological operations,
and the Judge Advocates General corps.
The efforts, methods, means, and assessments of nonlethal effects,
such as the influence of the indigenous population and the enemy, are
integrated with lethal effects through the BCT targeting process
(decide, detect, deliver, and assess).
79. Senator Thune. General Cody, will the new FM have any immediate
impact on ongoing procurement and modernization programs?
General Cody. We are looking at the impacts of the new doctrine
across all areas (organization, training, materiel, leadership,
personnel, and facilities). We believe that the primary impacts will be
on leader development, training and developing, and maintaining the
operational context, with minor equipment and formation changes. The
Army will assess the impact of this new doctrine on its procurement and
modernization programs as it develops.
80. Senator Thune. General Cody, will the new FM generate changes
to the requirements documents for the Future Combat Systems?
General Cody. It is too early to tell. However, the Army will make
the necessary changes, if any, as required.
impact of growth in special operations forces
81. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, as results of the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR), the DOD announced plans to grow Special Operations Forces (SOFs)
by 13,000 personnel by 2010. This entailed training more Army, Navy,
and Air Force personnel for Special Operations missions as well as
establishing a Marine Corps component. Has this initiative affected the
current unit readiness levels for the Services?
General Cody. Due to the ongoing establishment of new
organizations, unit readiness appears to drop significantly in the Army
SOFs community. This is misleading because the numbers from the new
organization(s) negatively impact overall C-rating results. These units
have begun reporting well before their interim operational capability
in order to fill requirements for personnel and equipping.
Historically, Army Special Operations units have generally maintained
steady-state readiness, with normal post-deployment dips during dwell
and have not been significantly impacted by the growth of new units.
The Army plans to add a fourth battalion for each Active component
Special Forces Group, a fourth company for each Ranger battalion, a
fourth battalion to the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, as
well as an Active component Civil Affairs brigade headquarters and
three additional Civil Affairs battalions.
General Magnus. The creation of Marine Forces, Special Operations
Command (MARFORSOC) did not affect current readiness levels for the
Marine Corps. Although MARFORSOC and the reconnaissance community have
competing requirements for some occupational specialties, the
appropriate long-term planning and growth initiatives have been
implemented to ensure that both the conventional Marine Corps and
MARFORSOC have a steady flow of marines to fill their respective
structures.
Additional manpower requirements levied on the reconnaissance
community have been appropriately planned for by the Reconnaissance
Occupational Field Managers and USMC Manpower and Reserve Affairs. The
growth plan for additional reconnaissance capabilities within the
Marine Corps has been programmed for manning increased over several
years, and has not had a significant impact on readiness.
MARFORSOC Special Operations Battalions (MSOBs) were created
initially from the reflagging of Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance
Companies. This included structure, inventory, and equipment. Marine
Special Operations Advisor Group (MSOAG) was created from the pre-
existing USMC Foreign Military Training Unit (FMTU). This included
structure, inventory, and equipment. Elements of the MARSOC
headquarters were established by redesignating preexisting USMC
structure. Other elements of MARSOC were created through the
redesignation of structure from the Special Operations Training Group
(SOTG) from I and II MEF. Equipment programs were shifted from the
former Force Reconnaissance and FMTU elements as the primary means of
equipping MARFORSOC. Funding to offset the additional costs of
equipping MARFORSOC were requested through the fiscal year 2006
supplemental process. Subsequent funding was budgeted through the
Program Objective Memorandum (POM) process. The majority of required
facilities came from existing base structures. Additional funding was
budgeted through SOCOM to support required MILCON.
Admiral Walsh. This has not affected current unit readiness for
Navy. Naval Special Warfare (NSW) enlisted Special Operator billets are
programmed to grow by about 14 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal
year 2010. As of March 2008, NSW enlisted community manning is at 80
percent (1,747/2,174) of fiscal year 2008 programmed authorizations.
To meet increasing requirements, we have steadily increased
enlisted accessions since 2005. Through the second quarter of fiscal
year 2008 we have already accessed, or contracted into our Delayed
Entry Program, 100 percent (1,089/1,089) of this year's Enlisted SEAL
recruiting goal. In contrast, we recruited just 59 percent (829/1,400)
and 91 percent (1,274/1,397) through all of fiscal year 2006 and fiscal
year 2007, respectively.
General McNabb. The Air Force is meeting personnel and training
requirements of the SOCOM, and while we are experiencing some
challenges in a few critical skill sets (e.g., Combat Controllers
(CCT), Para-rescue Jumpers (PJ), Intel, Career Enlisted Aviators
(CEAs)), overall AFSOC is 101 percent manned (11,235 assigned/11,089
authorized--Active Duty officer and enlisted only).
As a result of the 2006 QDR; Air Force Special Operations Command
(AFSOC) has/will add an additional 771 Active Duty officer/enlisted
authorizations across fiscal year 2007-2011; these areas include:
- Combat Aviation Advisors (6 SOS - +120)
- UAS (3 SOS - +275)
- Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination (11 IS - +124)
- U-28 (319 SOS - +98)
- Special Mission Unit (24 STS - +102)
- Data Masked (DM - +52)
However, we expect AFSOC to continue to grow as their SOF sister
Service counterparts have grown by over 13,000 positions without a
commensurate increase in AFSOC airlift capability that these forces
rely on for mobility on and off the battlefield.
Rapid growth brings inevitable challenges with recruiting,
assessing, and training personnel for the SOF mission. Still, the Air
Force has continued to man AFSOC at levels equal to or greater than the
rest of the service. Some of our chronic critical skills include:
PJs (1T2)--AFSOC at 67 percent, Worldwide Air Force (WWA) at
58 percent
CCT (1C2)--AFSOC at 64 percent, WWA at 49 percent
General Intel (1N0)--AFSOC at 94 percent, WWA at 83 percent
Sensor/Imagery Analysis (1N1)--AFSOC at 84 percent, WWA at 77
percent
Flight Engineer (1A1)--AFSOC at 92 percent, WWA at 99 percent
Loadmaster (1A2)--AFSOC at 93 percent, WWA at 91 percent
82. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, are the Services meeting the personnel and training
requirements of SOCOM?
General Cody. In response to the realities of the post-September 11
environment, the Army will grow approximately 12,000 additional SOFs
related authorizations by the end of fiscal year 2013. This growth
includes: adding an additional battalion to each Special Forces Group,
growing an additional special operations aviation battalion, bringing
the 75th Ranger Regiment's structure into line with the Army's modular
construct, and adding additional civil affairs and psychological
operations structure to both Active and Reserve components. The Army
fully understands the need to resource these critical requirements and
has initiated various incentive programs to ensure the retention of
high caliber SOF and SOF support personnel.
In response to concerns expressed from both SOCOM and the U.S. Army
Special Operations Command (USASOC) regarding the need for support
personnel, the Army instituted retention bonuses to encourage quality
support soldiers to relocate to USASOC organizations, ensuring that
USASOC has the requisite skills necessary to support operations. Many
of these skill sets are in high demand for overall Army transformation,
and this teamwork with USASOC and SOCOM illustrates the Army's
commitment to resourcing all SOF requirements. Additionally, in
recognition of the significant missions performed by both SOCOM and
USASOC the Army seeks to fill all deploying SOCOM organizations at 100
percent in the aggregate. Additionally, the Army is projecting to fill
SOCOM's headquarters at 100 percent by the end of fiscal year 2008.
The SOF community fully meets their training requirements and only
seeks limited training assistance from the general-purpose Army. For
those limited instances, (e.g., for intermediate level professional
military education) SOF personnel share proportionally in any training
capacity shortfall. Furthermore, the Army works closely with the SOF
community to achieve training efficiencies, where possible, and to
integrate SOF forces into the training of Army expeditionary forces,
when appropriate.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps is working towards meeting the
training requirements of SOCOM. The Individual Training Course (ITC)
under the Marine Special Operations School will be implemented no later
than first quarter fiscal year 2009 and will provide MARSOC Commands
with Special Operations marines trained to perform the basic individual
skills associated with foreign internal defense, direct action, special
reconnaissance, and unconventional warfare. Additionally, Special
Operations marines attend mission appropriate specialized courses such
as Basic Airborne, Basic Reconnaissance, Military Free-fall
Parachutist, Marine Combatant Diver, Scout Sniper, Urban Sniper,
Mountain Sniper, SERE, Joint Tactical Air Controller, Joint Service
Training Program, Jump Master, Ranger, Pathfinder and other appropriate
schools to ensure that Marine Special Operators are trained with the
required skills to accomplish their SOCOM assigned missions. Unit
driven pre-deployment specific training ensures each deploying Marine
Special Operations Team (MSOT) or Company (MSOC) has trained to
accomplish the full spectrum of missions assigned and each MSOC
completes a SOCOM Deployment Certification Exercise (DCE) prior to
deploying with their associated MEU (SOC).
The Service continues to meet the vast majority of SOCOM's
personnel requirements, which has placed great demands on the Marine
Corps' High Demand/Low Density Military Occupation Specialties,
particularly in the 0321 Reconnaissance field, 0211 Counter
Intelligence/HUMINT Specialists, as well as the rest of the
intelligence and signals intelligence fields. The Marine Corps has just
approved an internal reorganization of MARSOC to ensure that the right
numbers and mix of grades and MOSs are available to MARSOC in order to
accomplish its assigned missions. The Commandant has made the manning
of MARSOC a top priority. SOCOM's requirements for marines in the SOCOM
Headquarters, the various Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs),
Joint SOCOM, and other SOCOM units remain high priorities for manning
as the Marine Corps seeks to balance the competing demands of its own
forces.
Admiral Walsh. Naval Special Warfare (NSW) enlisted SEALs are in
extremely high demand to meet global war on terror mission requirements
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and locations around the world, and that demand
is increasing. NSW enlisted Special Operator billets are programmed to
grow by about 14 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2010. As
of March 2008, NSW enlisted community manning is at 80 percent (1,747/
2,174) of fiscal year 2008 programmed authorizations.
Meeting DOD-directed growth requirements, while maintaining the
highest quality standards among Navy SEALs, continues to be a top
priority. In order to accomplish this, we have established an
aggressive, two-pronged approach to increase production while
decreasing attrition.
To meet increasing requirements, we have steadily increased
enlisted accessions since 2005. Through the second quarter of fiscal
year 2008 we have already accessed, or contracted into our Delayed
Entry Program, 100 percent (1,089/1,089) of this year's Enlisted SEAL
recruiting goal. In contrast, we recruited just 59 percent (829/1,400)
and 91 percent (1,274/1,397) through all of fiscal year 2006 and fiscal
year 2007, respectively.
Attrition among NSW candidates has declined at boot camp as
evidenced by the significantly increased rate at which candidates
remain in the program between fiscal year 2006 (30 percent) and thus
far in fiscal year 2008 (nearly 90 percent). In addition to developing
the capacity to recruit and train additional SEALs, Navy has dedicated
considerable resources to maintaining the senior enlisted leadership
necessary to lead and mentor increased numbers of new SEALs. The
holistic approach to managing the complex NSW pipeline will take time
to fully realize; however, the overall trend is positive and we will
continue refining best practices until future growth requirements are
met.
Through enhanced special and incentive pays for recruiting and
retaining enlisted SEALs, we are making great strides toward meeting
fiscal year 2011 growth requirements. For instance, we have:
Increased enlistment bonuses for SEAL recruits to $40,000.
Established a $90,000 reenlistment bonus which has yielded
much success in reenlistment rates in fiscal year 2008-to-date
in Zones A--97 percent; B--86 percent; and C--90 percent.
Established a Critical Skills Reenlistment Bonus in fiscal
year 2005 for senior enlisted SEALs and Special Warfare Combat
Craft Crewmen with 19-25 YOS.
Extended Assignment Incentive Pay eligibility to NSW
personnel over 25 YOS.
Added SEAL commanders (O5) to those eligible for the
prestigious Stockdale award.
Expanded Naval Special Warfare Officer Continuation bonus to
SEAL Limited Duty Officers.
Established NSW recruiting directorate, led by a SEAL O6, to
assist CNRC in recruiting young men with the determination and
ability to succeed as SEALs.
Naval Special Warfare is meeting recruiting goals for SEAL line
officers in training (118X) through all recruiting sources. Limited
SEAL officer quotas for all accession sources continue to make SEAL
line officers qualified in Special Warfare (113X) an extremely
competitive warfare specialty. Based on trends over the past 10 years,
we expect to achieve SEAL officer recruiting goals beginning in fiscal
year 2009 and beyond.
We are currently examining future resourcing requirements for a
number of areas to further support SOCOM/Naval Special Warfare Command
initiatives, including:
Travel and support for targeted recruiting events to be
conducted by NSW Recruiting Directorate (RD). Established with
military and civilian manpower authorizations provided by NSW,
the NSW RD augments Navy Recruiting efforts by targeting high
quality candidates for NSW.
Continued improvements at Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL
Training to enhance SEAL candidate success.
Continuation of a Navy Parachute Course which provides an
economic alternative for SEAL pipeline Parachute training,
reduces lost training time, and releases senior SEALs from
instructor duty requirements.
Development and distribution of rate training materials in
support of recently established Special Operator (SO) and
Special Boat (SB) ratings.
Completing a 3-year Alternative Final Multiple Score Pilot
program to develop and assess an improved methodology for
selection for advancement of SO/SB personnel.
Rectifying historical underfunding the Student IA of SEAL and
SB student pipeline training requirements.
Expanding non-SEAL personnel support in logistics,
intelligence, and other combat support and combat service
support functions.
General McNabb. AFSOC is experiencing tremendous growth into new
mission areas (ISR via manned and unmanned aircraft, Unconventional
Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense, and light aviation for mobility
throughout the globe). As should be expected with such rapid growth,
inevitable challenges occur with recruiting, assessing, and training
personnel. Still, the Air Force has continued to man AFSOC at levels
equal to or greater than the rest of the Service. The new growth areas
are receiving the full allotment of students, and in some cases, above
the required levels. AFSOC continues to receive highly-trained,
qualified personnel into all their weapons systems. The current level
of expertise required to fight the war on terror is extraordinary, and
Air Force training continues to be superb. The caliber of pilot, combat
systems officer, enlisted aviator, or battlefield airman is testimony
to the Air Force's commitment to providing the very best training.
capability-based readiness assessments
83. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, during the past 10 years, DOD has advocated for
doctrinal changes in force management. Combatant commanders used to
plan for and request specific units to meet operational plans. Now,
combatant commanders are being asked to request and plan for a specific
capability or an effect in warfare. The goal is to provide the Services
more flexibility in tailoring forces to meet the specific requirements
of a mission. This should result in a higher rate of readiness by
deploying only those forces that were absolutely necessary, while
freeing up non-essential personnel for other tasks. How far along are
the Services in transitioning to capabilities-based force management?
General Cody. The Army fully supports the DOD transformation to
capabilities-based force management under the GFM umbrella. To assist
combatant commanders' capabilities planning, the Army has been actively
involved in development of policy and Concept of Operations for the GFM
Adaptive Planning initiative. To enhance combatant commanders
capabilities requests for current operations in the future, the Army
supports the GFM initiative to integrate global requirements and force
readiness information. The Army leads the Services in providing
availability and readiness data for global force visibility.
The Army supports combatant commander capabilities-based requests
in the existing process by mapping army units to RFF unit type codes.
In this way, the Army quickly identifies all force units with abilities
to support any capabilities-based request. As a part of GFM, the Army
proactively supports capabilities-based force management through the
use of processes and systems such as ARFORGEN to manage cyclical
deployment preparation, Army Global Outlook System (ARGOS) for theater
security capability requirements, Joint Training Integrated Management
System (JTIMS) to manage operational exercise demands, and the DRRS-A
to handle readiness status of capabilities Army wide.
General Magnus. In 2005, the GFM construct was implemented to
transform the previously reactive force management process into a near
real-time, proactive process that streamlines and integrates
assignment, apportionment, and allocation of forces. Since GFM's
inception, the Marine Corps has continued to refine internal processes,
including implementation of biannual force synchronization conferences,
that reconcile rotational, emergent, and future force generation across
all aspects of the Marine Corps. The internal processes result in a
holistic understanding of demands upon the Marine Corps and provide
senior leadership with more informed sourcing recommendations that
account for operational and institutional risk, modernization,
transformation, training, and readiness.
Additionally, the DOD GFM Board (GFMB) provides a collaborative
joint forum in which sourcing solutions are recommended to meet
combatant commander demands. As requirements are identified by
combatant commanders (CCDRs), Joint Force Providers (JFP), and the
Services, are able to validate those requirements and provide solutions
that match required capabilities to the maximum extent possible. When a
requested capability cannot be met, the GFM process incorporates risk
analysis from the CCDRs and JFPs in order to provide the Chairman and
SECDEF a fully vetted, prioritized sourcing recommendation for final
decision.
The Marine Corps is also involved with the Force Management
Integration Project (FMIP) sponsored by the Deputy Under Secretary for
Readiness (DUSDR), Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) and the Joint Staff.
The FMIP mission is to develop and execute a plan to integrate and
synchronize policy, processes, authoritative databases, and technology
affecting force sourcing and GFM to enable more coherent, effective,
and efficient adaptive planning and execution.
Admiral Walsh. Navy unit readiness is reported through the SORTS,
and provides a measure of a unit's capabilities. The measure, however,
is defined in terms of Major Combat Operations capability and may not
accurately address unit performance below Major Combat Operations. Navy
has instituted Fleet Response Program (FRP) SORTS reporting which
captures the assessment of a unit's ability to perform specific tasks
of war, known as Naval Warfare Mission Areas, and is most accurately
reflected in the Unit Status Assessment. Unit status is the critical
measure of a unit's ability to meet the required capabilities, as
specified by the CCDR, within the FRP cycle.
DRRS is a readiness Program of Record that will provide
capabilities-based readiness assessments. METs will be the basis for
readiness reporting and will serve as the building blocks for CCDR
Request for Capability (RFC) and Joint Capability Areas. DRRS will
capture, aggregate, and provide unit, group, or force readiness and is
intended to support Joint Task Force training, readiness, and
certification processes. Navy's version of DRRS (i.e., DRRS-N) will
provide readiness information to the joint and interagency communities
in a DOD-common format.
DRRS-N achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in the fall of
2006 and is in operation at more than 65 shore installations and
onboard more than 35 Fleet units. DRRS-N is expected to replace SORTS
by mid-fiscal year 2009.
General McNabb. Air Force tailored capabilities are Unit Type Codes
(UTCs) which are managed as subsets of units. The Air Force executes
capability-based planning and employment utilizing Unit Type Codes and
the Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF) force generation construct
to present Air and Space Expeditionary Task Forces (AETF). Per Air
Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2, commanders are advised to ``begin
developing a force structure by outlining the necessary air and space
power capabilities needed for an operation and then follow up by
deploying the appropriate tailored force required.'' Per AFDD 1, ``The
AETF will be tailored to the mission. It should draw first from in-
theater resources, if available. If augmentation is needed, or if in-
theater forces are not available, the AETF will draw as needed from the
AEF currently on rotation.'' The AEF and AETF constructs enable the Air
Force to sustain readiness by deploying only those forces necessary to
successfully accomplish the mission.
84. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, what are the pros and cons to this type of force
management?
General Cody. Capabilities-based force management increases
visibility across the DOD and within the Services. Increased visibility
allows the Army to better understand the capability quantities
available and better evaluate its force structure sufficiency for
current operations. This allows the Army to best manage its force
inventory and provide capabilities effectively and efficiently.
There is a holistic benefit to unit deployments. Command and
control, maneuver, sustainment, and the ability to deploy and redeploy
as a cohesive unit are not always considered when supporting a
capabilities-based request. It is best to correlate requests with
current force structure, perhaps requiring augmentation or other
temporary actions to meet the requirement.
Generally, when CCDRs request capabilities, the Army is able to
capture which capabilities are most needed, and to provide the best
trained, equipped, and led unit to match the request. Capabilities-
based requests enable the Army to effectively modify its force mix and
inventory over time to best support CCDRs' actual needs.
General Magnus. The formalization of risk assessment is a distinct
pro under the GFM construct. While continually under refinement, the
capabilities-based GFM construct has facilitated the global
prioritization of requirements matched to strategic end-states. GFM
established common business rules that CCDRs, Joint Force Providers
(JFP), and Services understand and operate under. It applies strategic
risk assessment based upon real time demands and resource availability.
Service ``red-lines'' establish institutional risk tied to readiness,
capabilities, and health of the force that further articulate potential
risk for future force generation. Lastly, the collaborative process
enhances joint cooperation leading to a joint solution with formal
validated risk assessments to realize informed, effective decisions.
Conversely, structured Service organizations will not always match
required capabilities in size or scope. Thus, capabilities-based
sourcing often leads to ``ad-hoc'' and ``in-lieu-of'' solutions that
entail atypical, uncompensated organization of units with non-doctrinal
command relationships. Additionally, capabilities-based sourcing tends
to force myopic specialization to meet single capability demands that
degrade the core competencies of a truly multi-capable force over the
long-term.
Admiral Walsh.
Pros:
In 2005, GFM was created to transform a previously reactive force
management process into a near real-time, proactive process.
Historically, the DOD conducted strategic force management through a
decentralized, ad hoc process that framed decision opportunities for
the Secretary of Defense. For OEF and OIF, the Secretary made crisis
action planning force management decisions in response to a combatant
command RFF or RFC. To support these decisions, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff hosted ad hoc ``wargames'' to identify forces to
support those OEF/OIF requests and determine risk mitigation options.
GFM enables the Secretary to make more proactive, risk-informed
force management decisions integrating the three processes of
assignment, apportionment, and allocation. This process facilitates
alignment of operational forces against known apportionment and
allocation requirements in advance of planning and preparation
timelines. The end result is timely allocation of forces/capabilities
necessary to execute combatant command missions (to include theater
security operation tasks), timely alignment of forces against future
requirements, and informed Secretary of Defense decisions on the risk
associated with allocation decisions.
The relationship among the assignment, allocation, and
apportionment processes will transition over time to a single,
integrated, capabilities-based process that supports the National
Defense Strategy. Aligning the three processes under GFM was an interim
step. As the GFM Data Initiative, Adaptive Planning Initiative, and
DRRS field usable tools and capabilities, GFM will enable the military
departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to manage force availability.
GFM will also enable the designated Joint Force Providers to monitor
force availability over time, identify risks to execute CCDR missions,
forecast sourcing challenges to execute contingencies, and project
Reserve component unit mobilization/availability.
Cons:
DRRS has highlighted the need for reporting readiness measured
against specific mission capabilities vice broad design capabilities.
Services are tasked to break down designed capabilities in Core METs
and develop Employment METs that map to Unified Joint Task Lists
(UJTLs).
MET data is being defined to a level of detail that may become
onerous for the Services to capture.
The shelf-life of Employment MET data is a function of changes to
the CCDRs mission requirements.
Progress of employment MET development across the Services has been
mixed. GFM's full potential will not be realized until the complete MET
library is defined and documented.
General McNabb.
Pros:
Provides the Service the ability to present tailored forces with
the appropriate capabilities to the CCDR; ability to present forces in
their vulnerability period who are right, ready and trained; leverage
Service expertise to choose the ``best'' force vice the most
``familiar'' force (a function of system upgrades, software, weapons,
and equipment).
Cons:
Increased workload required to manage ``tailored'' capabilities.
The Air Force tailored capabilities are Unit Type Codes (UTCs) which
are managed as subsets of units; possibility to initially receive an
inadequate force based on an ill-informed request (this may effect
either capabilities or unit based decisions).
85. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, has there been a demonstrative impact on current unit
readiness as a result of this method of force management?
General Cody. The Army's efforts to grow, transform, and modularize
the force have resulted in the development of forces that can be
tailored by the force provider to meet CCDR's requirements. However the
current demand challenges the supply that we can maintain through the
Army Force Generation process. In turn, the high demand relegates the
Army to ``just in time'' readiness, creating counterinsurgency-focused
forces that attain required readiness just prior to deployment. Until
the demand decreases below the level of our sustainable supply, we will
continue to consume Army readiness as fast as we build it. Thus, it is
the demand for forces which has most significantly depleted Army
readiness, rather than the method by which the force is managed.
General Magnus. One area where there has been a demonstrative
impact on readiness as a result of capability-based force management is
``in-lieu-of'' sourcing. In-lieu-of sourcing is an overarching sourcing
methodology that provides alternative force sourcing solutions when
preferred force sourcing options are not available. An in-lieu-of
force/capability is a standard force, including associated table of
organization and equipment that is deployed/employed to execute
missions and tasks outside its core competencies. An example of this is
an existing artillery battalion, provided with a complete training and
equipment package, deployed to fill a security force battalion
requirement. The positive effect of in-lieu-of sourcing is that it
mitigates the stress on specific high demand capabilities. In the
example given above, the in-lieu-of sourcing of an artillery battalion
to fill a security force role alleviated the need to fill the
requirement with an infantry battalion. The negative effect of in-lieu-
of sourcing is that the designated unit requires time to train, and
equip to perform the assigned in-lieu-of mission requirement, which
negatively impacts their ability to train and maintain proficiency with
their core competencies.
Admiral Walsh. Since the CCDRs continue to submit RFF vice RFC it
is not possible to provide an objective assessment of the impact on
current readiness as a result of this method of force management. Navy
expects to see improvements in the alignment of the readiness of its
forces to anticipated presence and surge demand as those requirements
become better defined. Strategic documents and the upcoming QDR will
further mature this process as transformational policy and lexicon is
injected into these events.
General McNabb. The Air Force executes capability-based planning
and employment utilizing the Air and Space Expeditionary Force (AEF)
and Air and Space Expeditionary Task Forces (AETF). The AEF/AETF
construct provides the Air Force the ability to present tailored forces
with the appropriate capabilities to the CCDR and the ability to
present forces in their vulnerability period that are right, ready, and
trained. Deploying the appropriate tailored forces enables the Air
Force to sustain readiness by deploying only those forces (tailored
forces) necessary to successfully accomplish the mission.
86. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, in your opinion, does the current system used to assess
the readiness of combat units support capability-based force
management?
General Cody. Yes, it does. Other Services tend to view
capabilities in a platform-centric manner while the Army views
capabilities through units executing tasks. Since we measure the
ability to perform tasks in our readiness reporting, our process
supports this type of force management quite well. As our forces and
missions have evolved, so too has our readiness reporting. We have
worked diligently to keep our readiness reporting relevant and
accessible to those who utilize this information.
Examples of our efforts include:
The Army has achieved a Web-enabled readiness system for all
reporting units worldwide, to include those in the Reserve
components. This makes it easier for commanders to submit their
reports on time regardless of their location.
The Army has the ability for unit readiness reports to
automatically populate four key authoritative databases, giving
leaders at all echelons real time visibility of critical
information in the personnel, logistics, and force management
arenas.
The Army Readiness Management System, a readiness information
management application, gives commanders and staffs
capabilities for analyzing the vast amount of information that
populates the DRRS-A database.
General Magnus. The current readiness reporting system of record is
GSORTS. GSORTS is a Joint Staff resource and unit monitoring system
designed to support crisis response and contingency planning
information requirements. GSORTS allows the Marine Corps to measure its
ability to organize, train, maintain, and equip our operating force for
employment by CCDRs. GSORTS data indicates, at a selected point in
time, an assessment of resource levels, coupled with a training
assessment, evaluated against the unit's designed mission. Within GFM,
GSORTS data informs readiness assessments for force allocation
decisions and associated risk mitigation. One shortfall of GSORTS is
its inability to assess a unit's ability to perform individual METs.
To support capability-based force management, OSD has been
developing the DRRS. DRRS is intended to be a mission-focused,
capability-based system to assess the ability of units and
installations to execute their missions and METs. It is also intended
to support the GFM process. The Marine Corps continues to work closely
with the DOD in the development of DRRS. When fully operational, DRRS
will replace GSORTS as the single readiness reporting system of record.
Admiral Walsh. No. Navy's current readiness reporting system, the
TRMS, is based on DOD's SORTS construct. This construct provides a
relatively objective assessment of resource areas (Personnel, Supply,
Repair, and Training), which combine for a sufficient examination of a
literal interpretation of Services' Title X responsibilities to man,
train, and equip combat forces. However, it fails to explicitly codify
what those combat forces can do with the resources and training they
have been given. Navy is transforming its readiness reporting to a
resource-informed, capability-based reporting system aligned to the
OSD's DRRS.
General McNabb. The GSORTS is the readiness system of record.
GSORTS provides resource based readiness information and supports
capabilities-based force management from a resource perspective. The
Air Force is working with OSD to implement the DRRS which is a
capabilities-based readiness system.
military equipment--attrition and battle losses
87. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, on the issue of the procurement of equipment as it
affects readiness, its seems with each annual budget request and
emergency supplemental request, we are buying the world's supply of
humvees, M-RAPS, generators, personal armor, and other critical
equipment for use in theater. Yet the Army is testifying that we are
consuming at the rate we are creating readiness. Specific to equipment,
we will still need 2 to 3 years of funding at the current level to
restore equipment shortfalls. We keep hearing the terms ``battle
losses'' and ``useful life attrition'' as the reasons we need to
purchase tremendous amounts of new equipment each cycle. But at the
same time, the intensity of the attacks on American forces in Iraq has
reduced over the past year, which would seem to reduce battle losses.
Do each of the Services actually track on a monthly or quarterly basis
the numbers and types of equipment noted as battle losses or at the end
of their useful life?
General Cody. The Army receives weekly or bi-weekly battle loss
reports from Aviation and Missile Command, Tank and Automotive Command,
and Communications and Electronics Command. These reports are collected
and consolidated by the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics.
Equipment which reaches the end of its useful life as a result of
higher OPTEMPO in support of the global war on terror is also captured
in these reports.
General Magnus. Yes, since the commencement of OIF, the Marine
Corps tracked and continues to track the attrition of selected
Principal End Items attributed to global war on terror. The attached
USMC Ground Equipment Attrition report is developed monthly and
disseminated to Marine Corps leadership. The report uses output from
automated systems to track equipment status. The Marine Corps uses the
term destroyed vice lost to classify equipment that has been destroyed
by enemy involvement and lost due to the end of useful life.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Admiral Walsh. Equipment noted as battle losses or at the end of
their useful life are tracked on a continuous basis instead of on a
monthly or quarterly basis. Aircraft and expeditionary equipment
inventories are continuously updated and evaluated through OPNAV, Naval
Air Systems Command, and Naval Facilities Engineering Command. The
program managers track and analyze all data for associated equipment
including battle loss and useful life attrition. Data for global war on
terror stress and battle losses are tracked for purposes of readiness,
life cycle expectancies, and resetting of the forces.
General McNabb. The Vehicle Management Section of every
Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron performs analysis and
produces monthly and quarterly maintenance reports of all vehicles and
equipment that are assigned to and/or maintained by the squadron
(including tenant units). These reports reflect the state of the
vehicle fleet by vehicle type, assigned organization, and year group.
These reports show data such as the cost of operating and maintenance,
accidents/abuses/ battle damage, man hours expended, labor and parts
cost, and vehicle life expectancy remaining (based on type). By
utilizing these reports, the Vehicle Management Section can program and
request, from higher headquarters, new vehicles to replace ones that
are worn out, obsolete, or destroyed.
88. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, please provide a trend of battle losses over the past 6
years by numbers of major pieces of equipment in your inventories.
General Cody. The following table provides battle loss trends of
major air and ground combat systems from fiscal year 2002-2007.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
General Magnus. The attached Marine Corps Ground Equipment
Attrition report depicts the trends of battle losses of major end items
over the past 6 years. Attached also is USMC global war on terror
Aircraft Losses (strikes) since 11 Sept 01.
[The report referred to is retained in committee files.]
Admiral Walsh. Navy does track cumulative replacement requirement
due to global war on terror loss, global war on terror stress, and
projections based on accelerated wear rates.
The Type/Model/Series (T/M/S) listed below represents current
aircraft type procurements. These aircraft are replacing older T/M/S
aircraft which are no longer being procured. For example, EA-6Bs are no
longer in production so these assets are being replaced by EA-18Gs.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Below represents the expeditionary equipment destroyed and lost due
to combat stress.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
General McNabb. Monthly battle damage reports are collected from
the bases in the AOR and forwarded to Air Force Central. To date, the
Air Force has lost 13 vehicles to battle damage. In addition, a few
radios and various other sundry assets have been classified as battle
losses. Due to the small numbers of losses there are no specific trends
noted. Combat aircraft losses in the AOR since September 11 are: 1-A10,
1 MH-53M, 1 F-16CG, 2 RQ-1s, and 2 MQ-1s.
89. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, do the Services position equipment depots forward into
the theater of operations?
General Cody. The Army has established equipment maintenance
operations in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These operations
are resourced by people from our Army depots, commercial contractors,
and foreign nationals at some sites. They maintain all types of
equipment: combat vehicles, wheeled vehicles, communication-electronics
equipment, helicopters, construction equipment, et cetera. These
operations perform primarily below depot level tasks to keep equipment
in theater fully mission capable.
General Magnus. The Marine Corps does position a variety of
equipment management programs in theater: Forward In Stores (FIS)
Program, Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) Augmentation Program (MAP),
and the Principal End Item (PEI) Retrograde Program. Each program
provides a unique service to the Commander, United States Marine
Forces, Central Command (MARCENT).
These include:
1. Forward In Stores (FIS): Located at Camp Taqaddum, Iraq.
Established to quickly receive, store, and issue critical PEI
combat replacement requirements in support of COMUSMARCENT.
2. Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) Augmentation Program
(MAP): Located at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. Established to enhance
the combat readiness and responsiveness of the MEU(SOC) as they
conduct operations in the CENTCOM AOR and reduce the MEU(SOC)
call forward equipment that is shipped from the continental
United States (CONUS).
3. PEI Rotation Program: The objective is to improve,
prolong, and enhance sustainment of the warfighter in-theater
with the best possible equipment. The program includes
retrograde of damaged/fatigued principal end items to CONUS for
repair and replenishment with serviceable equipment.
Admiral Walsh. The Navy provides forward deployed depot support in
the theater of operations through the following means:
1. Ship's Repair Facility located in Yokosuka with a
detachment in Sasebo provides organic depot-level repairs for
ships forwarded deployed to Japan.
2. Two submarine tenders that can deploy in theater and
provide limited depot-level capability for ships and
submarines.
3. Emergent in-theater depot ship repairs can be executed at
multiple overseas private shipyards, NATO allied shipyards, or
by fly-away teams from public or private sector shipyards
(located in CONUS or Hawaii), and the submarine tenders. These
repairs are normally coordinated through permanently forward
located maintenance support organizations such as Mid-Atlantic
Regional Maintenance Center detachment, Naples, Mid-Atlantic
Regional Maintenance Center detachment Bahrain, and Commander
Naval Logistics Western Pacific in Singapore.
4. Emergent in-theater depot aircraft repairs are coordinated
through the Naval Air Planning and Repair Activity (NAPRA) in
Atsugi, Japan. NAPRA and all the Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs)
provide planning and estimating services, and fly-away teams
for depot-level aircraft repair.
General McNabb. No, the Air Force does not position traditional
depots in the theater of operations. However, the Air Force does
perform depot-level type overhaul and repairs to three categories of
major end items in the theater of operations. These categories include
deployable electrical generators which power bare base infrastructures,
portable fighter aircraft arresting systems, and uparmored HMMWVs.
These items are maintained under the War Reserve Materiel program
administered by Air Forces Central.
90. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Magnus, Admiral Walsh, and
General McNabb, how does this positioning affect the readiness rates of
units?
General Cody. This forward repair capability is essential to
sustaining the near-term equipment readiness rates of deployed units.
Our forward repair capability in Afghanistan and Iraq is distributed to
several regional locations to better support readiness, shorten
maintenance turnaround times, and reduce risks associated with
transporting all maintenance items to a centralized Logistics Support
Area. Army Fleet Readiness for all essential systems meeting or
exceeding the Army's goals is the direct results of maintenance
planning and adequate supplemental funding.
General Magnus. Marine Forces in theater have a high sustained rate
of readiness across all classes of equipment. Positioning ready for
issue equipment forward maintains this high readiness rate. The Forward
In Stores program provides an in-theater exchange for combat damaged
equipment. The damaged item is simply turned in and the unit is issued
a ready replacement. The PEI Rotation program promotes higher readiness
by exchanging high use equipment from theater with either new or
rebuilt equipment.
Admiral Walsh. The Navy's positioning of depot capability enables
the Navy to support CCDR requirements and the Maritime Strategy. This
positioning specifically helps support forward deployed ships and
aircraft in the Fleets.
General McNabb. Performing depot-level type overhaul and repairs to
these major end items in the theater of operations enables the Air
Force to return these vital items to the warfighter much faster and
much more economically.
training for mine resistant ambush protected vehicles
91. Senator Thune. General Cody, a Defense News article on March
31, 2008, on the procurement of MRAP vehicles reported that the Army is
considering raising the ceiling on purchases from 10,000 to 12,000
vehicles. The report indicates that the increase responds to requests
by leadership in Iraq in the wake of a surge of attacks using
explosively formed penetrators, a deadly form of an IED. In the same
report, an Army spokesman states that MRAP officials are crafting a
long-term plan to be presented to you in the next 2 weeks to propose
where the MRAP fits into the future Army. I realize that this vehicle
has been introduced into the Army inventory only recently, and that
every vehicle is being shipped forward to protect combat forces as soon
as it is produced. When are Army personnel trained on the safe use and
capabilities of the vehicle?
General Cody. Currently we have a three-phased process to train
soldiers on the operation and maintenance of MRAP vehicles:
a. 40-hour Operators New Equipment Training (NET) and 40-hour
Field Level Maintenance (FLM) NET as we field vehicles in
theater, consisting of all driver and FLM tasks required for
operators and unit maintainers. This training is conducted at
seven Regional Support Areas (RSAs) in Iraq and at Bagram Air
Base in Afghanistan.
b. When a unit deploys to the theater and assumes operational
control over battle space where MRAPs have already been
fielded, operators and maintainers receive the same 40 hour
training in Kuwait prior to forward movement into theater.
c. MRAP University at Red River Army Depot ``trains the
trainers'' of deploying units, both maintainers and operators.
The Army has provided 25 vehicles to MRAP University to train
deploying support personnel and rotating units (8 BAE-TVS/
Caiman, 8 BAE/RG33, and 12 IMG/MaxxPro).
92. Senator Thune. General Cody and General Magnus, is there a plan
at some point to incorporate the vehicle into home station and maneuver
training for units back in the States getting ready to deploy?
General Cody. Training, while essential, cannot be at expense of
protecting soldiers. The longer-term MRAP training requirement plan
allots 604 MRAPs to support CONUS/outside CONUS training of incoming
units. These vehicles are fully funded as part of our approved MRAP
fielding strategy. Once the theater demand for MRAPs is met, vehicles
will be fielded to the training base. The timing of this is dependent
on theater demand, but we currently project that we will begin fielding
MRAP to the training base in late 2008.
Currently we have a three-phased process to train soldiers on the
operation and maintenance of MRAP vehicles:
a. 40-hour Operators New Equipment Training (NET) and 40-hour
Field Level Maintenance (FLM) NET as we field vehicles in
theater, consisting of all driver and FLM tasks required for
operators and unit maintainers. This training is conducted at
seven Regional Support Areas (RSAs) in Iraq and at Bagram Air
Base in Afghanistan.
b. When a unit deploys to the theater and assumes operational
control over battle space where MRAPs have already been
fielded, operators and maintainers receive the same 40 hour
training in Kuwait prior to forward movement into theater.
c. MRAP University at Red River Army Depot ``trains the
trainers'' of deploying units, both maintainers and operators.
The Army has provided 25 vehicles to MRAP University to train
deploying support personnel and rotating units (8 BAE-TVS/
Caiman, 8 BAE/RG33, and 12 IMG/MaxxPro).
General Magnus. Yes, the Marine Corps already incorporates MRAP
vehicle training into pre-deployment training. To date, there are 29
MRAP vehicles at various places throughout the Marine Corps. In the
coming months, 336 MRAP vehicles will be fielded for CONUS training.
93. Senator Thune. General Magnus, does the Marine Corps have a
long-term plan to incorporate the MRAP into its equipment inventory and
training activities?
General Magnus. Yes, we do have a long-term plan to incorporate the
MRAP vehicles into our equipment inventory. Thus far, we have
identified an enduring requirement for use of some of the 2,225 MRAP
vehicles by Explosive Ordnance Disposal and combat engineers units
responsible for route clearance-type missions. We are considering
several options for the remaining vehicles such as placing them forward
in stores, embarked aboard Maritime Prepositioning Ships, or a mix of
both options. The DOD Combat Tactical Wheeled Vehicle strategy, to be
completed this summer, will provide additional details.
94. Senator Thune. General Magnus, when are marines trained on the
safe use and capabilities of the vehicle?
General Magnus. Home station training and Mojave Viper training
specifically address the capabilities and limitations of the MRAP
vehicles. Student MRAP operators are thoroughly familiarized on safe
vehicle operation procedures throughout all phases of pre-deployment
training.
Based on the compelling need for vehicles in theater there are
approximately 29 MRAP vehicles currently available for home station or
Mojave Viper training. In the coming months, 336 MRAPs will be provided
for training at various places throughout the Marine Corps. Additional
licensing and in depth training continue to take place when units
arrive in theater.
air force flying hours
95. Senator Thune. General McNabb, in fiscal year 2008, the Air
Force took a 10 percent reduction in funding for its flying hour
program. At the time, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General
Moseley, stated his concerns over the risk that level of funding
represented to readiness. The committee is encouraged in the fiscal
year 2009 budget request that the Air Force has reportedly ``bought
back'' some of that risk, restoring $340 million to its primary combat
forces flying hour program. How do you assess the risk associated with
the amount of funding contained in the current flying hour program for
fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, respectively?
General McNabb. To clarify, the $340 million flying hour program
(FHP) growth referenced in the question for record pertains to
Subactivity Group (SAG) 11A, Primary Combat Aircraft. The increase
results from an action Congress took during the fiscal year 2008
President's budget. In fiscal year 2008, Congress reduced the peacetime
flying hour program $400 million and provided a corresponding fiscal
year 2008 ``global war on terror Bridge Appropriation,'' providing $400
million to offset the impact of the peacetime mark.
In terms of risk assessment, there is a reduction of approximately
11,000 flying hours from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009 within
SAG 11A, Primary Combat Aircraft. To clarify, the SAG 11A reduction is
part of a total reduction across all sub-activity groups of 26,968
flying hours. However, it should be noted that this reduction is
primarily driven by pilot production decreases and force structure
changes and drives no additional risk to operational readiness.
The Air Force fully funded the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year
2009 FHP at the fuel rates in effect at the time the President's
budgets were produced. However, rapidly increasing fuel prices continue
to place significant pressures on our operating accounts. As oil market
prices climb unabatedly after submission of the President's budget, we
continue to need your support in the execution year to mitigate its
operational impact.
96. Senator Thune. General McNabb, do you feel the fiscal year 2009
budget contains the right balance between recapitalizing the fleet and
maintaining aviator proficiency?
General McNabb. In the fiscal year 2009 budget, the Air Force fully
funded the flying hour requirement necessary to keep our crews
proficient, but Air Force Total Obligation Authority (TOA) remains
short of the required resources necessary to fully recapitalize our
aging fleet.
97. Senator Thune. General McNabb, in your opening statement, you
stress at the outset the total force concept of integrating the Active,
Guard, and Reserve Forces into one cohesive fighting unit. If the total
force is seamless, why did the corporate Air Force only buy back active
flying hour program risk and not also that of the Guard and Reserves?
General McNabb. In the Air Force fiscal year 2009 President's
budget submission, the Active Air Force O&M flying hour program
decreases between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 by 26,968 FHs
(2.5 percent reduction). This reduction is primarily driven by pilot
production decreases and force structure changes.
In the Air Force fiscal year 2009 President's budget submission,
the Air Force President's budget justification narrative displayed the
fiscal year 2008 flying hour program funding that includes a
congressional global war on terror peacetime flying hour reduction of
$400 million. However, the fiscal year 2009 program funding did not
include a reduction for a global war on terror adjustment since the
program had not yet been marked by Congress. Because of the fiscal year
2008 congressional mark, the display of the flying hour program funding
between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 gave the impression that
the Active Air Force had a significant program increase in fiscal year
2009.
98. Senator Thune. General McNabb, are the approaches to funding
aviator proficiency and readiness so different that more risk can be
assumed in the Guard and Reserves?
General McNabb. The Air Force Planning, Programming, and Execution
process is our single approach to funding all activities. The Air Force
continues to search for solutions for funding aviator proficiency and
readiness across the full spectrum of missions as we seek to achieve
total force victory in the global war on terror. The Air Force strives
to optimize expenditures across the total force. To that end, the Air
Force has instituted an annual capabilities review and risk assessment
to meld requirements for several mission areas into an integrated
program objective memorandum recommendation. As a result, the Air Force
optimizes its limited resources across the total force.
nuclear surety and the nuclear shipment incidents
99. Senator Thune. General McNabb, in former Air Force Chief of
Staff General Larry Welch's report on the inadvertent shipment of
nuclear weapons incident, he mentions several reports over the past
decade that called for a refocus on the nuclear mission. Despite the
numerous studies, few, if any, inspections showed any concerns. If the
state of the nuclear mission force were in decline for the past 2
decades, yet current inspection processes failed to demonstrate that
decline, is not that an indictment of the current inspection regime?
General McNabb. I don't believe that to be true. Nuclear Surety
Inspections (NSIs) assess a specific unit's compliance with nuclear
surety standards, and the unit's ability to produce reliable nuclear
weapons in a safe and secure manner. The focus of NSIs is not on the
overall nuclear mission force, nor do they assess Air Force cultural
change. I would submit though, that despite the end of the Cold War,
and the change from a nuclear-centered Air Force to a conventionally-
centered Air Force, our inspection system has been a primary
contributor toward keeping airmen focused on nuclear surety and nuclear
operations. Our nuclear-capable units are inspected on an 18-month
cycle, which is more frequent than our conventional operations. NSIs
have identified deficiencies in the past and led to changes in policy
and procedures to enhance safety and security. While no inspection
regime can prevent all potential outcomes, there is room for
continuously improving our processes and we, as a Service, are
undertaking those changes now.
100. Senator Thune. General McNabb, General Welch stated, ``The
process and systemic problems that allowed such an incident have
developed over more than a decade and have the potential for much more
serious consequences.'' However, both installations involved were
certified through the current inspection processes as being capable of
fulfilling their stated mission without reservation. Given the lack of
ability of the inspection processes to uncover the systemic problems,
how can we have confidence in the readiness inspection processes?
General McNabb. We have complete confidence in our readiness
inspection processes. We believe our nuclear surety and nuclear
operational readiness inspections have been very valuable in assessing
compliance with all nuclear surety standards as well as in evaluating
our capability to meet our nuclear wartime operational mission
requirements (i.e., operational employment of nuclear weapons). Our
inspection programs not only assess what is required by DOD but inspect
a number of additional areas that the Air Force has identified as being
important to nuclear surety. As a result of the incident at Minot, we
have identified one additional area that we believe is important to
validate nuclear surety and we've initiated that change. Over the years
our inspection system has identified deficiencies and analyzed trends
and briefed these to the Air Force's most senior leadership within the
nuclear community, the Air Force Nuclear General Officer Steering Group
(AFNGOSG), as well as the MAJCOM Inspectors General responsible for
conducting the inspections. We will continue to evaluate our nuclear
inspection processes as we believe they are an extremely important part
of maintaining nuclear surety and readiness.
101. Senator Thune. General McNabb, you mention in your statement
about multiple levels of review currently underway on nuclear surety.
Why did it take a major incident to shed light on all those past
studies?
General McNabb. The Air Force nuclear focus shifted with the post-
Cold War draw-down of nuclear units and weapons. During the past 17
years, the Air Force has supported non-nuclear deployments in support
of global commitments and has engaged in continuous combat supporting
conventional demands such as the global war on terrorism. All of this,
while simultaneously operating, maintaining, and sustaining 450
Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles available at a
moments notice to protect the Nation. Additionally, since September 1,
2007, the Air Force has moved or assisted in the movement of over 750
nuclear weapons without a single incident. The Air Force and commanders
understand there are inherent risks which we cannot totally eliminate;
however, we take actions to access and reduce those risks. Although
this incident has challenged the Service, the Air Force remains
absolutely committed to the nuclear mission, is considering all of the
recommendations from recent reviews, and recognizes nuclear stewardship
is a sacred trust with the Nation.
102. Senator Thune. General McNabb, what specifically are we doing
to ensure our inspection regimes catch degradation in readiness before
we have an incident such as happened at Minot Air Force Base?
General McNabb. The Air Force is continuing to conduct NSIs in
accordance with DOD directives. Through NSIs, the Air Force MAJCOM
Inspector General (IG) teams evaluate a unit's ability to manage their
nuclear resources and comply with all nuclear surety standards. NSIs
are conducted at intervals not to exceed 18 months. In addition to
evaluating the 10 nuclear surety functions required by DOD directives,
the Air Force MAJCOM IG teams evaluate four additional areas that the
Air Force believes are critical to nuclear surety. Based on a
recommendation from the Commander Directed Investigation (CDI), the Air
Force is also in the process of adding the requirement to inspect
Munitions Control and Plans and Scheduling during each NSI. We are also
exploring the option to conduct NSIs on limited or no-notice basis
within the 18-month inspection requirement.
cyberspace readiness
103. Senator Thune. General McNabb, I'm interested in the Air Force
stand-up of Cyber Command in October 2007 to provide combat-ready
forces trained and equipped to conduct operations in cyberspace. In
your written statement, you state that ``the Air Force will continue to
develop and implement plans for maturing cyber operations as one of its
core competencies.'' Has the Air Force developed a METL for these
forces? If so, can you provide a description of it? If so, has the Air
Force developed minimum readiness standards to determine mission
capability and effectiveness?
General McNabb. The Air Force has units and airmen who have clearly
been executing military operations in cyberspace for some time. We have
METLs for individual missions such as electronic attack, network attack
and defense, and space control negation. Today, those METLs and our
related measurement of readiness are codified as portions of different
mission areas such as information operations and space control.
There are minimum readiness standards for individual units' ability
to execute their missions in cyberspace. A unit's minimum readiness
standard is described in its Description of Capability (DOC) Statement.
What will be new with AFCYBER Command is the consolidation of those
forces into one command whose prime focus will be on our readiness to
fight in the cyberspace domain. As those forces are consolidated into a
focused command and synergies are realized, the Air Force's definition
and measurement of overall readiness to fight in cyberspace will be
refined. We will in fact transition to measuring the whole rather than
a sum of the parts.
104. Senator Thune. General McNabb, how will the Air Force assess
the readiness of its cyber forces?
General McNabb. The Air Force will continue to assess of our
forces' readiness to execute operations in cyberspace through the
SORTS. When AFCYBER Command is operational, it will become the single
command responsible for assessing and addressing those units' readiness
to accomplish the missions assigned in their DOC Statements.
army is out of balance and ``thin red lines''
105. Senator Thune. General Cody, General Casey has said: ``While
the Army remains the best led, best trained, and best equipped Army in
the world, it is out of balance.'' In a speech before the Brookings
Institution in December 2007 he said he had a discussion with General
Meyer, a former Army Chief of Staff, who told Congress in 1980 that he
led ``a hollow Army.'' About that discussion with General Meyer he
said: ``One of the things he left with me is there's a thin red line
out there that you don't know when you cross it until after you've
crossed it.'' I have to believe that sometimes these ``thin red lines''
take years to materialize, but often the indicators of problems to come
emerge sooner. Would you agree with General Meyer that there are thin
red lines?
General Cody. While the concept of a thin red line may exist, the
cumulative effects of the last 6-plus years at war have left our Army
out of balance, but not hollow. The Army continues to exceed recruiting
and retention goals. The impacts on soldiers and units of increasing
time deployed and decreasing time between deployments are visible in
several different areas: training, readiness, and other indicators.
With Congress' continued support, we can mitigate these effects.
106. Senator Thune. General Cody, what indicators about the health
of the Army today worry you the most and what are the thin red lines
you are watching for now?
General Cody. The cumulative effects of the last 6-plus years at
war have left our Army out of balance. Current operational requirements
for forces and limited periods between deployments necessitate a focus
on counterinsurgency to the detriment of preparing for the full range
of military missions. The Army is consumed with meeting the demands of
the current fight and is unable to rapidly provide full-spectrum ready
forces.
Other indicators are worrisome: the competitive recruiting
environment with a declining number of qualified potential recruits,
the increase in the number of soldiers with PTSD, and an increasing
number of suicides. Additionally, many soldiers have not attended
Professional Military Education commensurate with their rank.
However, we assess that we will continue to recruit and retain
enough soldiers to preserve the All-Volunteer Force. We are also
continually improving our medical and mental health programs designed
to identify and treat soldiers suffering from the impacts of multiple
combat deployments. In this era of persistent conflict, the Nation
deserves a fully prepared and resourced force. With your support we
will continue to rebuild readiness, achieve balance, and restore
strategic depth for future challenges.
107. Senator Thune. General Cody, in your opinion, what readiness
indicators are most critical in determining whether the stress of
current operations on the force has become too much?
General Cody. The most basic indicator is the health of the All-
Volunteer Force. Specifically, our ability to retain the quality and
quantity of soldiers we need to man our units. Our ability to do this
is a reflection of our soldiers' and their family's attitude towards
the Army. So far, the response has been outstanding. We are meeting or
exceeding our retention goals consistently. The tremendous support for
reenlistment bonuses we have received from Congress has enabled the
Army to provide incentives. However, it is the commitment of the
soldier and his or her family to selfless service that motivates them
to reenlist.
In terms of the readiness of the Army to respond to contingencies,
the best indicator is the readiness rate for our nondeployed forces.
Low personnel and equipment readiness are the most significant
indicators of a unit's readiness and stress on the force. Those forces
that are not deployed are the primary forces available to respond to
other contingencies. The low readiness level of those forces is the
most visible example of stress on the force--notwithstanding that upon
notification of deployment to OIF or OEF; they are issued theater-
specific resources to perform their assigned mission.
Currently, the Army is implementing ARFORGEN. ARFORGEN is a cyclic
training and readiness process that synchronizes strategic planning,
prioritizing, and resourcing to generate trained and ready modular
expeditionary forces tailored to joint mission requirements. This
process is designed to build unit readiness by allocating resources in
reference to a deployment timeline and by providing predictable periods
of availability and deployment for soldiers, families, and employers
(in the case of Reserve component soldiers).
In an unstressed environment, some of the nondeployed force would
be expected to be at the lowest level of readiness during a reset and
train period while others would be at the highest level of readiness as
they cycle through the ARFORGEN process to support employment for other
contingency operations. Unfortunately, the current operational demand
associated with OIF, OEF, multinational force observers, Kosovo force
observers, forward stationing, Homeland defense, and other requirements
has not diminished to levels that support the desired reset, training,
and ready periods prior to deployment. Because of this, we have
concentrated our readiness in the deployed and deploying units to
support the CCDRs.
108. Senator Thune. General Cody, do you believe the Army is
adequately acquiring resources to stave off the thin red lines? If not,
where are the gaps?
General Cody. Thanks to the support and assistance that Congress
has already provided to the Army, it has enabled us to address critical
resource requirements during existing persistent conflict. The support
and assistance to cover costs of reset, modernize equipment, and
maintain quality of life for our soldiers are the key to keep our Army
running. Our operational demand continues and it is not decreasing. We
need timely resources to continue the training, equipping, and
stationing for our soldiers to properly conduct operations in time of
war and to meet current demand.
109. Senator Thune. General Cody, assuming the current tempo of
operations, how does the Army get itself back in balance to meet the
requirements of the Commander in Chief?
General Cody. We have a plan that will, with congressional help,
restore balance to our force. We assess that we will continue to
recruit and retain enough soldiers to meet our end strength
requirements. We are also continually improving our programs designed
to identify and treat soldiers suffering from the impacts of combat
deployments. We have identified four imperatives that we must
accomplish to put ourselves back in balance: sustain, prepare, reset,
and transform. To support these imperatives, the Army has taken steps
to reduce ``boots on the ground'' time at the conclusion of the surge
and increase dwell time as the Army grows. The Army will continue to
evaluate requirements, manage resources, and communicate resourcing
needs with Congress to ensure we can continue to field fully prepared
and resourced forces wherever required.
growing the army: the rate of progress and the affect on readiness
110. Senator Thune. General Cody, last October, Secretary Gates
approved the Army's plan to accelerate attainment of its Active Duty
end strength of 547,000 by 2010 instead of 2012, as originally planned.
Secretary Gates conditioned his approval on reduced use of Stop Loss
and maintaining of the quality of recruits. In the proposed budget for
fiscal year 2009, the Army would be authorized, if it is approved, to
532,400 soldiers by October 2009. Why is growing the Army critical to
future readiness?
General Cody. The current operational demand for Army forces
exceeds the sustainable supply--and as a result, the Army is out of
balance. Growing the Army, along with ongoing rebalance and
transformation efforts, will begin the process of restoring the Army's
balance and build strategic depth in order to meet CCDR requirements.
This increase in capabilities will enable implementation of the supply-
based ARFORGEN process and the structured progression of increased unit
readiness over time. Accelerating Active Duty end strength will help
provide trained, ready, and cohesive units prepared for current and
future operational deployments in support of CCDR requirements.
111. Senator Thune. General Cody, assuming the current tempo of
deployments and operations, when will the growth in the Army get us to
a 24-month dwell time that you mentioned in earlier testimony?
General Cody. Even with the approved growth, the Army cannot
achieve 24-month dwell time at the current tempo of deployments and
operations. The interim Army deployment policy allows for deployments
of not more than 15 months with at least 12 months of dwell before
deploying again. The most significant impetus for this deployment
policy was the continued high demand for forces in theater,
particularly with the increase of forces in OIF necessary to support
increased security operations. The President recently announced that
Army units would return to 12-month deployments starting with units
that deploy on August 1, 2008, allowing all Army units to return to a
deployment to dwell ratio of 1:1 (12 months deployed, 12 months home).
The continued goal of the Army is a sustainable unit deployment to
dwell ratio of 1:3 in a steady state security environment (for example,
9 months deployed, 27 months home), or 1:2 in a sustainable surge
environment (for example, 12 months deployed, 24 months home).
112. Senator Thune. General Cody, how much funding for personal and
unit equipment does it take to fully outfit a modular BCT?
General Cody. Costs to stand up an Army BCT average from
approximately $950 million for an Infantry BCT to approximately $2.7
billion for a Heavy BCT. The average cost to build a new Striker BCT is
approximately $2.3 billion. These estimates only include manpower and
equipment costs; additive infrastructure costs would depend on
suitability of any existing facilities and future stationing decisions.
113. Senator Thune. General Cody, do you have any concerns about
the quality of the recruits? Are we recruiting individuals we would not
otherwise recruit?
General Cody. I have no concerns about the quality of the young men
and women who volunteer to serve our Nation through military service in
the Army. Every soldier who enlists in the Army is fully qualified for
their military occupational specialty. Recruit quality is a metric
consisting of more than a high school diploma or a standardized test
score, it is a holistic view of every young man and woman volunteering
to serve their country. Once a recruit enters Active Duty, they benefit
from an excellent training and education system designed to strengthen
soldiers physically, mentally, and emotionally. The performance of
young soldiers in combat and reports from their leaders in the field
attest to the fact that the quality of the young men and women serving
in America's Army remains of the highest caliber.
114. Senator Thune. General Cody, what is the rate of completion
for first term enlistees? Is it acceptable? Is this an area of concern?
General Cody. The current first term attrition rate is 12.9
percent. The first term attrition rate has been below the Army's
historic average of 15 percent since June 2005. We continue to monitor
attrition and are concerned when we see increases above the historical
average.
[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]